Does this theory of the start and evolving shape of the Universe make sense?

Mr.Dartle_S , just wanted to slip this fact in.It is inappropriate to assume sunlight,water,etc are all present perfectly for the human race to use.It is actually like this.There were a certain amt of water,sunligt,etc. to which we evolved ourself so that we get the maximum from it.If there were different quantities of them we would have evolved differently.

Being mere human beings; insignificant specks on the work of art we call the universe; all we can, and will only be able to do is speculate. Just thinking about the universe as a whole gives us an idea of how complex anything which involves it is; be it its creation, expansion, the dimensions it includes etc. The understanding of the universe is simply a concept we are not able (will never be able?) to grasp. The best we can do is come up with theories and try to make them fit in with current astrophysical models; and try to explain them mathematically. Including my opinion here, I think the idea of thinking that God 'did it' is just a lazy way of thinking. By beleiving in this we exempt ourselves from any other problems concerning the origins of the universe. I'm sure your theory (if you were able to support it mathematically and adjusting it to existent astrphysical models); and give some sort of 'proof' could be accepted as another 'valid' theory.

Part of your "problem" is that many people have a hard time keeping all of this in perspective. They can barely grasp the concept of a 4th dimension (which I assume to be time), much less what a 5th dimension looks like. Is the Big bang like a sneeze, which casts itself outwards and that's it (supporting your theory that the universe will expand forever) or is it a rubber band (it will reach maximum distance and then contract). Then you can get into a minutiae argument that it's not a true spheroid but an oblate spheroid (a little flat at the top, like the earth and other planets are). As long as there are gaps in our knowledge about what is out ther ein space, theories are going to be difficult to prove. The best thing you can do is to make the theory as simple as possible so folks like me can grasp what you are saying and see where you are going with this

Interesting theory you have there, very good attempt i doubt i can ever come up with such a thought, but Big Bang is just a theory which has very good observational evidence, it may be or may not totally correct but it is very good description of the current observable Universe. As you said there is no evidence or description of dark matter, but to explain the practical evidence it was introduced, but who knows there might some other reason. But currently dark matter I would say is the virtual particles that being created and annihilated every moment which accounts for the radiations from the black holes ( actually one of the pair of virtual particles fall into the black hole while other escapes to infinity which seems like being emitted by black hole but is actually emitted from outside the event horizon so it will not get trapped by the black hole ). So dark matter is just another theory supported by practical evidence of its gravitational effects and not by actual discovery. And for your second problem there are many models of explanations which present the reason for increasing speed of expansion of universe such as Friedman's inflanatory model, chaotic inflanatory model etc... But at the moment the reason for inflanatory expansion of our universe is assumed to be because what Einstein called "cosmological constant" which appears to be generated by the infinite energy density of virtual particles which cause the repelling effect. And as for your third problem the beginning of universe at big bang singularity was predicted by the general theory of relativity. So all your problems seems to have some explanation ( it may not be satisfactory ) but they have some explanations so what I think is Big Bang theory very much correct but if you want to present your theory it must be agreeing with or being agreed by general theory of relativity as well as quantum theory ( at the least with M-theory ) and it should predict the values which should agree with practical observational evidence. So if you ever found those equations which do such calculations which agree with your theory then your theory might be accepted good luck in your effort. If you find any thing wrong in my answer please please email me hope I was helpful, and as for the person among the answerers who said god has created evrything perfectly I would advise him to read some of stephen hawkings books they really give very very satisfactory answers for all these facts ( and don't use weak anthropic principle very much it really takes you off the road )

the reason you find all these problems in this theory is because its just that. a theory. the best man can do to try to make up an explanation is by making a theory that couldn't have possibly happened its takes more faith to belive that the big bang accidentally made "us" and accidentally created the most complicated life forms in the in-tire Universe then it does to belive that God simply made us (perfectly). why is everything so perfect in the earth. we have everything we need , water , food, perfect amount of sunlight and shade, perfect Seasons every-things just so perfect. why and how did did this happen? it was no accendent i belive that we have purpose that the big bang theory doesn't offer i belive that God has made the universe for a divine purpose. we are to join him in the end of all of this...its just men who wonder that make up these theories.

to me it does put to science no there trying to remake the big bang that mean if it work we will all die cause an explosion the big well blow up th planet and ever thing around it or we will be sucked into a black whole so to science it does not make scenes

That was honestly very interesting, i thought it was going to be absolute crap, but i was interested, like the first answer said you need to make it more scientific, sadly i know very little about astrophysics/space, but this might be worth pursuing...

Very interesting observations. I also think that an explanation of spacetime geometry is a fundamental necessity for any comprehensive theory of everything. The problem is that there has been no physical evidence to date suggesting additional dimensions. It feels like we're due for a major paradigm change in order to explain quantum gravity, accelerated expansion and other things like superposition. I would encourage you to keep thinking and offering your perspectives.