It seems that the chap above received inspiration from here.....
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
But I think if you had a google there are probably a few who disagree with the big bang approach.
I did note some stuff re problems with shadowing of the background radiation..out of a University in the Southern States of the USA where I suspect the creationists may have had some influence on the expectations of the results of the study
...when I first read it my impression was it was reasonable as it was after all a scientific study but when I noticed the source I could not help but wonder if the science was somewhat corrupted by the funding process...
You all must know my difficulties with the big bang as I certainly have hopped on the hobby horse to rip into what I see as problems with it... but one has to keep an open mind... consider who is saying what and what their motives may be...
My problems with the big bang are...
1.the need for dark matter.. it does not exist in my view.... and one can add any amount of dark matter to a galaxy and that will not explain why the outlying stars rotate faster than the current gravity models would imply...
2. and the introduction of the inflation theory to fix the problems raised which could have sunk the big bang idea... it does not seem reasonable that the Universe could go thru a stage, some 30 seconds as I believe, where it grew from little to more than the size of our observable Universe...so in the absence of proof for the theory I think one is entitled to question such a long shot.
But one must be able to stand back and consider all the information and how hard is that... what we seek to understand is not insignificant in any respect.
The drift of so many folk who question big bang cosmology comes I feel from what many see as a patch work fix up job when the theory runs into difficulties...
The thing that annoys me is how supporters of the big bang when presented with a problem fall back on the standard reply to valid questioning...."well its the best model we have so far that supports the observations"...such a stand sees the observations always fitting the theory..in my view...which does not make the proposition right or wrong...it is just one man's view.
I know what is expected by the scientific method but I think even that is open to abuse simply because one makes observations that are expected to fit the model and I suspect with that approach one will only find support for the basic premise...do I have an alternative..not really but I dont think all points raised by those in opposition to the big bang cosmology need by thrown out without thought about the possible implications if they just may be correct...or even a little bit correct...maybe some alternative consideration may help the big bang..like inflation ..there must be a better answer as to why all is the same ...if indeed it is all the same
.
alex
