Well the reason why the "theory" is called big bang is that was the unkind name given by Fred Hoyle who as I understand stood in the "steady state" camp.
He did not mean it as any way complimentary but the name stuck.
So at that stage it was a competing theory whereas today the steady state has been kicked out primarily because of the cosmic background radiation finding.
I dont like the big bang becasue without "inflation" is sinks ...and "inflation" could hardley be called a testable theory... and it asks for a leap in logic I can not get my mind around... I dont buy all we see and more grew to such size in 30 odd seconds... but I dont think there is any experiement to establish inflation ... so it is an idea offerred to support the big bang.
black holes are "there" in theory as a result of a vast extrapolation in math ...so they look expecting them ... like so many things with any theory you can find what you expect if you are looking for it...and so I wonder about the marriage of facts to explaination sometimes.
I can not see any black hole capable of generating the jets they see and prefer instead a massive bianary star system which I believe will show the same apparent gravitation... certainly a binary system will generate the vortexual jets whether you go for the concept of frame dragging or not...
The lack of an understanding of gravity in working out any answer seems likely to fail... the (non existent) force of attraction will not hold galaxies in place and clearly there is an external pushing force ... yet no one is explaining this major aspect from which many other answers will come.other than to introduce a mythical unseen substance.."dark matter"... and it is supposed to make up a greater portion of everything and we can not see it..yeh well I dont buy it..if there is so much of it out there why do we not have a trailer load full of it
..trying to solve the problems with general relativity sees the need for in effect more mass..hence dark matter is invented.. it is spoken about as if it is a fact..personally I doubt it... as even if you admit it ..it will not solve the problems it was invented to fix...in my view.
I can not see the big deal with string theory or general relativity as to me all they seem to do is to put "space" into a geometric form to describe how matter may behave within that "grid"..space time is a grid of space whereby we seek to fit the three dimentions we understand in to a context of vast distance where the speed of light becomes relevant to action at a distance...
but as far as I can tell nothing seeks to show how gravity works and how could it be related to the external push that makes galaxies spin faster than they should or holds them together as a unit... dark matter is offerred to fix the problems but if gravity is limited to C then no matter how much dark matter you add to a galaxiy the problem will not go away... the problem with the faster spin will still be there and you will still be forced to admit that the force holding the galaxy in place can only be indeed external.
AND so as not to upset anybody this is my philosophy
as I am not a scientist, but my ideas are based on my humble observations of what is available to me..
alex
