Math is descriptive, but is it explanatory?

Epicycles really were brilliant, predictively accurate math, but the crystalline spheres were lousy physics, as explanation.

Consider that as these mobile organisms, we have this sequential process of perception, in order to navigate, then, as humanity, we evolved culture and thus civilization, out of narrative. So our experience of time is of the point of the present, moving past to future, but the reality is that change turns future to past.

Tomorrow becomes yesterday, because the earth turns.

There is no literal dimension of time, because the past is consumed by the present, to inform and drive it. Causality and conservation of energy. Cause becomes effect.

Energy is "conserved," because it is the present, not some dimensionless point between past and future.

It creates time, as well as temperature, pressure, color, sound. Frequencies and amplitudes. Time is frequency, events are amplitude.

So the energy, as process, goes past to future, while the patterns generated go future to past. Energy drives the wave, the fluctuations rise and fall.

Products go start to finish, the production line goes the other way, consuming material and expelling product. Lives go birth to death, while life moves onto the next generation, shedding the old.

Consciousness also goes past to future, while perceptions, emotions and thoughts go future to past. Explaining why our sense of awareness seems somewhat separate from and always testing and pushing the senses giving it definition.

Though it is our digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems processing the energy, while the central nervous system perceives and orders the information precipitating out. Which goes a long way to explaining why those trying to model and understand reality have such a strong tendency to see it in terms of the information, not the energy driving it.

Galaxies are energy radiating out, as order coalesces in. Like a wave, the energy expands out, while the fluctuations settle back to equilibrium. Both entropic.

Since you mention Big Bang Theory, keep in mind it can't be falsified, as whenever there is a gap between theory and observation, some enormous new force of nature is created to fill the gap. What if an accountant could just write in a number and call it "dark money?"

Before Inflation, Dark Matter and Dark Energy, the original patch was when they realized that as redshift increases proportional to distance in all directions, it creates the effect that we appear to be at the center of this expansion, but rather than seeking out an optical reason for redshift, it was decided that space itself expands, because "spacetime!" Which completely ignores the central premise, that the speed of light is constant in all frames. If intergalactic light is redshifted, it is not constant to intergalactic space. More lightyears, not expanded lightyears.

Two metrics are being assumed from the same light. One based on the speed and the other based on the spectrum. Since the speed is still being treated as the denominator, the metric against which this expansion is relative, where does this metric come from, if space itself is expanding? Having brought this point up in a fair number of conversations where there is a professional interest, I've only been ignored, if not banned, not answered. Since you are certainly clever, if not yet wise, can you explain the logic of assuming space itself is expanding, yet using a standard ruler to measure this expansion?

Actually multispectrum light "packets" do redshift over distance, as the higher frequencies dissipate faster, but that would mean we are sampling a wave front, not observing individual photons that have traveled billions of lightyears and that goes back to the point that energy and the information derived from it are not synonymous.

If redshift is an optical effect, compounding on itself, that would explain the curve in its rate, currently assigned to Dark Energy.

As an optical effect, the cosmic background radiation would be the light of ever further, infinite sources, shifted off the visible spectrum. The solution to Olber's paradox.

If this relationship between energy and the forms it manifests is fundamental, then the excess gravitional effect, currently assigned to Dark Matter, could be explained by mass being an effect of this inward curvature, aka, gravity, not the other way around. So information would start bending in, all the way out where photons first become discrete. The bending of the light isn't caused by gravity, it is gravity.

Culture likes to synchronize all the clocks, but nature only seeks to harmonize them. Step outside the box on occasion.