Astrophysics assures us that no matter where the spatial red shift is observed from, the recession of sources of light are in direct line of sight. This is not the signature of a common center from which the universe (according to the big bang), 'originated, began, commenced.'

Whereas, the recession of light sources in direct line of sight - no matter the location of observation, is the signature of a repelling force, acting out of all matter, exactly as conventional impelling gravity is perceived and calculated, except, that the repelling force is vectored parallel to conventional gravitational forces - acting in the opposite direction.

This observed condition explains why a universe full of impelling bodies does not collapse on itself( a question Newton himself openly said he did not have an explanation for),and reinstates the abandoned Cosmological Constant - a repelling force, otherwise known as the 'Cosmological Constant' ( Lambda - /\ ).

Is 'dark matter' - along with 'gravitational red shift', a compromised port in an uncompromising storm? Is this not also true of the so called big bang theory - the discovery of the expanding universe caught the 'scientific community' flat footed.

'So what if there's no common center from which the expanding universe expands, the big bang is all we've got'... Or is it...?

Is the fact that matter is empirically acknowledged to be 4-dimensional an uncelebrated proclamation that thephysical/material/corporealuniverse is expanding at right angles from its center - wherever and whenever physical entities exist? Could the right angle expanding projection of the three recognized dimensions fullfill the identity of gravity, on or near the surface of all gravitational matter?

Might not the physically accelerating expansion of matter itself be the causal identity of the spatially expanding universe? When the observed spatially expanding universe is back tracked in three dimensions, it converges and intersects on itself, promulgating the interpretation of a big bang beginning, from that point of back tracked intersection exploding outward.

Whereas, in four dimensions, the back tracked universe does not run out of space and time, it simply gets smaller and more dense, forever, squared. It may be diagramatically conceptualized as being a a sliced out portion<of a roundly parametered universe(this is the 4-D space-time continuum),where the point of intersection is Moment A - is the microcosmic infinity of the Past, the middle is Moment B - the eternal Now, occupied by ourselves, and Moment C, the macrocosmic Future. Moment A's square mile is relatively much smaller and more dense than Moment B's. Moment A's 60 mph is comparatively much slower than Moment B's.

Whereas, Moment C's Macrocosmic dimensions sustain a much larger square mile than that of the present. Moment C's 60 mph -when compared with the Moments preceding it, would be much faster. These differences would all be applicable to the same coordinate system, at comparatively different Moments.

The speed of light would not be the same at Moment B, as it would be at Moment C - Moment B's light would be comparatively slower. Because this expanding continuum is occurring in the same system, it cannot be conventionally compared with itself. This scenario corroborates much of what Einstein's work resolved of universal dynamics, establishing among other things, non-absolute time and space.

The value of time is covariant with the value of the spatial coordinate system within which it occurs and with which it is associated. All of these dynamics would be in accordance with Celeritas Constant, while at the same time the speed of light is constantly changing. The law of conservation of mass energy is not infringed, because the corporeally expanding universe is always the same amount of energy, increasingly distributed over a greater volume of space - maintaining relative density.

There is much more to this (Can we talk?).

Is 'dark matter' another (ad hoc) scientifically catastrophic Piltdown man? Can it be that Einstein was right about the Cosmological Constant, even though Hubble and his a priori postured peers persuaded him that he was wrong?

Although we may grow weary, of Dr. Einstein's Theory...

Might the 'biggest blunder of his life' have been the abandonment of his Cosmological Constant-based expanding universe (did not 'predict' the big bang theory as it is so often said to have done).

How well known is it that Einstein was back to working on his abandoned Unified Field Theory in his last years? What might all of these in situ circumstances portend?