[EvaH (OP)]

Donald wants to know:

The big bang was so balanced that it didn't immediately collapse, nor did it result in a quickly spread out universe where particles did not have the chance to react. So much of our understanding of the early universe was built on it. Then dark matter - not predicted, nor measured, nor influential in the big bang. It is much more massive than the entirety of our original assumptions, yet *crickets* from the theorists. Unlike relativity, which is constantly reaffirming its correctness. What gives?

What do you think?

[yor_on]

our understanding of the early universe is built on light.
And we definer a speed to it.

That give us a time

Then we have redshift and cosmological redshift
One dependent on 'relative motion'

The other on a accelerating expanding universe.

[yor_on]

The time you define this universe to have existed is dependent on 'c', which is dependent on your local clock and ruler

[chris]

We know that Dark Matter was there in the early Universe; it may even have interacted with hydrogen from the Big Bang and robbed it of energy; how it got made, we are clueless at the moment. In fact, what Dark Matter actually is, we haven't the foggiest:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/interviews/dark-matter-revealed-early-universe