Big Bang Disproved (or Hoyle was Right)!

BB exponents usually base their belief in the theory on three main phenomena:-

1. The red-shift of light from distant stars caused by the Doppler effect.
2. The existence of Cosmic Microwave Background radiation.
3. The abundance of lighter elements e.g. Hydrogen and Helium, in the Universe.

These can all be explained without resorting to the BBT, thus:

1. A much simpler explanation for the red-shift is that it is just a symptom of optical jet-lag. After all, wouldn't it be even more amazing if light could travel through space for billions of years without changing its form in some way. Zwicky was on the right track with his Tired Light Theory but it was based on gravitational red-shift and that was deemed not enough to account for the shift. However in Steadybang Theory the flux-envelopes of all the celestial bodies extend till they meet each other, so the whole of space is filled with flux of various density - a sort of turbulent, expanding aether! It may be that this has an accumulating effect on the pulses of emr travelling through it and this causes the shift. Or it just might be that, in travelling so far, the timing of the pulses gets slightly out of synch and, as mentioned above, they succumb to a form of optical jet-lag.
2. According to BBT, the CMB radiation is the remnants of the light produced during the initial, plasma stage of BB, when the temperature was too high for charged particles to combine into atoms and the light was continuously scattered by these charged particles. After recombination (don't ask why the 're' is there), when neutral atoms were formed, the light was no longer scattered and shot off to all corners of the universe. Billions of years later that light must be long gone, yet it's suppose to account for CMB radiation. If this was April the first, I might have suggested that the whole universe was surrounded by a huge mirror. No doubt BB advocates will come up with this idea next! - it's about par for the course.
3. Lighter elements are, by their nature, relatively more stable than heavier ones (see Atomic Kameo) so they're more likely to survive various cosmic encounters, hence their majority in the Universe.

Here are six steps of logic which must surely disprove the Big Bang Theory in its present form.

1. The latest estimated age of the Universe (back to the Big Bang) is approx. 13 to 14 billion years.
2. The furthest detected galaxies are over 10 billion light years away from us.
3. This means that we can detect at least two galaxies which are 20 billion light years apart (looking in diametrically opposite directions).
4. They must have been this distance apart 10 billion years ago (because of the time their light took to reach us).
5. This means that, assuming everything was in the same place at the Big Bang, they only had 4 billion years (see 1 above) to get that far apart i.e. 20 billion light years.
6. To do that, one or both of the galaxies would have to travel at several times the speed of light for billions of years.

Under the laws of conventional physics, step 6 is obviously impossible, so one would think that the theory can not stand. However BB enthusiasts are not easily discouraged. They dismiss this argument and similar ones as the "Horizon Problem" and, to solve it, have introduced an exciting new idea (to add to "dark matter", "dark energy", "inflation" etc.. - all so far undetected) called "cosmic red-shift" wherein the red-shift of distant galaxies is not caused by their rapid movement through space but by the space between them expanding. This would make sense if linked to a similar expansion of matter as in Steadybang Theory (the latter would gain several thousand converts from the con-phys establishment overnight). But it doesn't and that gives BB proponents two more problems in exchange for the one they've solved. Firstly they need to reinvent the "ether" to give the new expanding space a mechanism by which it can push galaxies apart (something already built into KAMEO) and secondly, if space is expanding but not matter, we should be able to detect this in in our solar system.

It's amazing to see how far cosmologists will go to protect the 'Big Bang' idea, when it's threatened. It's taken on the mantle of a religion or creed and they'll dream up all sorts of fantasies to explain any anomalies that it throws up. As well as the ideas mentioned in the last paragraph, they're now talking about a Variable Speed of Light to solve the "flatness problem". At least, in the process they're doing a good job of dismantling trust in conventional physics and making it easier for radical theories like Steadybang to be taken seriously eventually!

I guess cosmologists have a lot of time and energy (and their livelihoods in some cases) tied up in Big Bang Theory and it's going to be difficult to change their minds. But if only a few did, there would be a snowball effect and within a few years most would realise that the universe makes more sense without BB.