That the Big Bang theory has "major unexplained holes" is an oversight. It is incomplete meaning it entails some unsolved problems but that does not mean it's not a solid theory for what it can explain, like inflation and the formation of particles and elements. It breaks down at the very earliest moments of the universe but that's because general relativity does too, and we need to figure out how gravity works on quantum scales before we can proceed further back in the primordial universe.

The Big Bang theory contains no less than 7 major holes that can't be explained and two of those have been haphazardly patched with hypotheticals for which zero actual evidence exists like they were real. That's a pretty flawed theory. When you have to fabricate unobserved concepts like dark energy to fix an obvious mathematical flaw in your theory and have zero evidence of that concept being real, you're not following scientific methods anymore. The theory fails to explain numerous observable issues and has failed for decades now despite all the efforts. Hence my comment about the dogmatic acceptance in society. If we had applied that same dogmatic outlook on blackbody radiation theories prior Planck, we'd have never had Quantum Mechanics because we'd still be fiddling with one of the other piss poor math solutions that worked in 99% of the curve but only failed in a couple of spots. It's time to accept that the expanding universe, inflation theory, and big bang theory are not lining up.

I can't find anything on the fluidic universe concept except from Star Trek, I do compliment your taste but from what you're saying, that we're too small to notice, it is mere speculations and not something science can deal with, but for philosophy it is interesting. From my time studying physics I have not encountered an established theory of "fluidic universe". Like I said in my other comment above, a theory is not flawed for containing unanswered questions, all theories do. Dark Energy is not an unobserved concept or hypothetical at all, exactly the opposite it is an observed effect both in actual measurments and as an effect of the field equations. It is really anti-scientific to abandon theories before we have new even more solid theories to replace them with. Contrary to your argument, quantum mechanics was a revolutionary theory that collected and explained observations better than anything before. It replaced classical mechanics because it proved itself more accurate. cont.

despite controversy and the obvious glaring ""holes"" quantum mechanics also has it is now the prevailing theory of fundamental physis. Unless we come up with theories that is as revolutionary to the Big Bang theory, as quantum mechanics was to classical mechanics, it's absolutely ridiculous to say it isn't lining up. Not lining up compared to what? It is the best cosmological model we have. When something even better comes around I will welcome it with open arms but that simply doesn't exist yet. Prove me and the entire fields of cosmology and physics wrong, I challenge you, and you'll win the biggest Nobel price 😉

There are other theories with computational models that don't have to make up new concepts to explain the observed phenomenon. Personally, I lean toward the fluidic universe concept where what we believe is "expansion" from a big bang is actually a localized movement in a fluidic universe. Think of the eddies in a river, if you're too small, everything around you can appear to be moving a specific way, while the overall river is doing much more.

I'm sorry, but I'm not inaccurate. The OP referenced the expanding universe theory which is more than just "expansion is happening somewhere in the universe". The theory contains disputed issues on rates of expansion, whether expansion is localized or truly universal, if the expansion is only a temporary effect, etc. New data has cast doubts on the standing data from the 90s that gave so much weight to a universally expanding universe theory. And there isn't a "whole chain of other proven cosmological theories" there is literally one theory unproven and full of holes standing on it: the Big Bang theory. You have a serious problem with misusing the words "fact" and "proven" when discussing theories that have supporting evidence but are still in question.

:0 I don't think this conversation will lead any further but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. There is no current claims that can be verified outside the observable universe, but observations show very clearly galaxy clusters are drifting apart. This has been measured from several different phenomena, including redshift, gravitational waves, quasars, pulsars, MBR, all showing expanding space in the entire observable universe. The rates of expansion, like I said, is uncertain but it's between a slight difference in the variables, it's not an open question. What is this new data you are talking about, care to cite a source? The only I can think of is the two main rates of expansions evidence points to, and that they are increasingly stubborn both of them. (cont. in pt 2)

pt 2: You are completely wrong that there isn't a whole chain of proven cosmological theories which depend on the expansion of the universe. WHIM, filaments and voids, anisotropy, baryon acoustic oscillations, FLRW and more all depend on the expansion of the universe in order to conform to observations and cosmological and physics models, which they undoubtly do. You misunderstand science if you think the prevailing theories can't have unsolved problems. Then we wouldn't have the standard model, quantum mechanics or any of the solid physics we have. A theory can be full of "holes", yet still be the most right, if it explains the observations better than anything else, if the math works, and if other established theories support it. Which the Big Bang theory checks all three.