Andrex » 03 Dec 2016, 16:38 wrote:I was talking of considering your picture as being a universe composed exclusively of massless” particles (before inflation).

So you reckon all there was is light?

My picture actually starts with "light only", since in the LCDM model, radiation dominated the energy density for the first ~50 thousand years after inflation. Before inflation? Nobody knows. I very much like deSitter space with a large cosmological constant before inflation, if inflation is needed at all.

https://www.quora.com/General-Relativity-What-is-de-Sitter-space-Why-does-it-matter-for-cosmology wrote:Given these conditions, one can define de Sitter space to be the maximally symmetric solution to the vacuum Einstein equations with positive cosmological constant.

Your impressions of what modern cosmology holds is not quite correct.

Andrex wrote:Those stipulations (dark matter and dark energy) are needed because, we consider our universe being entirely “matter” (E=Mc2); when, in fact, we cannot observe more than 5% of “matter” in that universe. The exact “fact” is that our universe is 100% space-time, which 5% of it, is occupied by “matter”. This is THE “fact”.

Physicists consider the present phase of the universe's energy density to be distributed as ~70% coming from the cosmological constant (Lambda, or something equivalent), ~25% from dark matter particles and ~5% from ordinary (baryonic) matter. These fractions change over time in a predictable fashion - at the time of the CMB (last scattering) we can deduce from observation that radiation made up ~25% of the energy density and total matter (dark and ordinary) ~75%, with the contribution due to Lambda quite negligible at that stage.

Andrex wrote:So what is that imaginary problem of “critical mass” based on? Universe was born “flat” and there’s no more questions about it. It is a “fact”. It was “flat” simply because there was no “mass energy” involved at the time. It is a simple “fact” that cannot be refused.

No, it is not that simple. Space must have been close to flat, but there is no "critical mass", just a critical density to expansion rate ratio. Both of the parameters have changed over time and is dependent on all forms of energy, including radiation and 'vacuum energy', a.k.a. Lambda.

And finally, your discussion of the 'dark matter problem is quite far off the mark. So yes, you are wrong, but I do not quite know where to start to correct it. Have you read some of the recent papers on it? The history is interesting, but not that important. The now and the future are what count.