Cisco,

You are asking for an alternative to the Big Bang.  Science does not operate on the premise that one must have an alternative.  Science operates on the premise that an idea or theory must be proven true.  No alternatives, no excuses.  Either it stands on it's own merit or it does not.

This nonsense about needing an alternative idea comes not from the scientific method, but from some sort of religious attachment to a notion (theory) which must be protected as any cost.

Believing in an unproven theory (no matter how popular) to the exclusion of all other possibility is an act of faith.  A belief based on faith is a religion.

There are those who can see some of the evidence that might point to a Big Bang while still retaining their objectivity, being able to see holes in the theory.  And then there are those who just jump in head first and become part of the Big Bang Religion.   (Or Evolution Religion, etc, etc.)

A lot of thought has gone into the Big Bang Theory.  A lot of interesting observations have been made.  A lot of what was considered sound physics has been shown by further observation to be perhaps not so sound.  It is a theory.  No more, no less.

The Flat World Theory was once taught in all the major schools.  If one did not go along with the popular position, one was an outcast, or worse.  The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Cisco,

Contrary to what Mr. Pebbles says, The Father of the Big Bang Theory, Georges Lemaitre, says,"According to the Big Bang theory, the expansion of the observable universe began with the explosion of a single particle at a definite point in time."

Mr. Pebbles, and countless others, abandoned the high priest of Big Bang on the basis that it is not a sound theory, following a modified theory instead.  There are, however, many who follow blindly in the footsteps of the high priest of the Big Bang Religion.  Others follow break away Big Bang religions.  Others just call it a theory and don't get hung up on assumptions.

The Big Bang theory was published in 1931.  We've learned a lot since then, which is why the theory has had to change, and change, and change some more.  Science has disproved the Big Bang theory again and again, for almost 80 years.



The more we learn, the more holes we poke into our assumptions.

I hate that thing.  It seems to follow me sometimes.

Which Big  Bang theory?  There are countless theories and ideas, each calling themselves the Big Bang, each one “proving” themselves or disproving another.

The following list of examples barely scratches the surface of disagreements between some of the famous minds and some of the great minds of science.



Was there a Big Bang (Time Zero), a beginning of time (Lemaitre)?  Or is the Big Bang followed by a Big Crunch and is a perpetual motion machine of expand and contract cycles (Toleman)?  Or is there simply one bang after another which fizzle out in space (Princeton physicist Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok of Cambridge University)?

Is the universe undergoing accelerated expansion (Riess, Perlmutter), or has expansion slowed to the point of cooling to ~3 degrees absolute (Bell Labs, Penzias, Wilson), or is there no expansion (Steady State Theory)?

Is the Hubble red shift due to  the universe expanding and galaxies moving away (Hubble, Gamow), or is it from the fabric of the universe creating new space between all matter particles (Hoyle), or is it a gravitational phenomenon telling us about the density of the source of the light, not the relative speed of the light source (Einstein)?

Is the red shift a speed measurement (Hubble), or have experiments in physics shown that it is actually a phenomenon of light not yet understood, in that the speed of light (contrary to both classical physics and the theory of relativity) is always measured at it’s constant (~186,000 miles/sec) regardless of the state of motion of the light source or the observer (Michelson, Morley)?

NOTE:  The Hubble redshift is the foundation, the kingpin, of the entire idea of a Big
Bang.  There is HUGE disagreement within the physics world on the validity of the redshift-based idea of universe expansion/contraction measurement.


Did gravity exist at Time Zero (Hawking), or were there none of the existing laws of physics applicable (Berkely), or was there a single “super force” forerunner to the strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, gravity and electromagnetism (Wald)?

Was the beginning a bunch of photons, a bunch of quarks, a single atom, a single particle (Lemaitre), a vacuum the size of a dime (Berkely website), ylem (Gamow), or a compression of particle with a density of 1094g/cm3 (Maffei)?  Or was the beginning an absolute nothingness, not even a vacuum, not even space (Hawking, Ellis, Penrose)?

The Big Bang theory predicts a homogenous universe.  Proven wrong again, and again (Tully at U of Hawaii, Saunders and crew; Infared Astronomical Satellite, Margaret Geller and John Huchra, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics).

Actually, the big bang doesn't really deal with time zero; but rather only after.

Apparently you totally missed the point.  There very much is disagreement as to the validity of the Big Bang.   Even within the Big Bang camp, there is so much disagreement that there is no possibility of a cohesive theory.  Those who want to believe in the Big Bang cannot even agree on what to believe in.

The big bangers all tell us it is true, yet they cannot even tell us what it is! 

The only common agreement amongst the big bang believers is the notion of an expanding universe.  Big Bang was 100% based on Hubble's idea of redshift suggesting an expanding universe.  No expanding universe, no big bang.

Einstein proved Hubble's thoughts about redshift were wrong and did not show an expanding universe.

Einstein disproved the big bang theory.

If you wish to come on a board to discuss or debate your position on the Big Band, it would be greatly helpful for all readers if you would define which of the many versions of Big Bang you believe in and why that version has proven superior to all other versions of Big Bang.  If you have no position, then you're only an instigator.

The majority of the scientific body held on the the Flat Earth idea long after it was shown to be untrue, also.  Just because you're in the majority does not mean you are right.

I was right.  You obviously have not had any formal training in any of the sciences.  You haven't the foggiest notion about Einstien or his work.    Einstein most certainly didn't prove Hubble's ideas were wrong about the redshift.  And Einstein most certainly didn't disprove the big bang.  He didn't like what his own equations were telling him about the expansion of the universe, therefore he adjusted his equations arbitrarily to yield a solution of a steady state universe.  Later, when Hubble's data confirmed an expanding universe, Einstein said that the  arbitrary modification that he imposed was probably one of the biggest mistakes that he made in his career.

As far as the rest of it is concerned, based upon your comments thus far, it would seem that you are in any position to debate anything of substance in the fields of astronomy, cosmology, or advanced physics.