Don’t forget the inconvenient problem of the Methuselah star - and also nothing more exotic than general relativity, which has the interaction of gravitational fields producing a repulsive force at cosmological distances, see: Jefimenko's Last Word by Jeffery Kooistra.
http://www.analogsf.com/2011_01-02/altview.shtml From: Michael Foster Yes, and there's one other inconvenient problem for the Big Bang. You might recall a few years ago when infrared telescopes were revealing previously invisible galaxies in the range of 8 to 11 billion light years away. The galaxies didn't look anywhere near as young as they ought. This is one of those "let's just not talk about it" incidents that happen so often in science. The tongue in cheek explanation was something like, "There must be something we don't know about galaxy formation." Of course, no one wanted to say, "I guess the Big Bang just fizzled." M. From: DJ Cravens not exactly true..... There are theories like integrated starlight and thermalization-- if the universe is infinite. The Big Bang has problems with the "horizon problem" and the anisotropy of the background and polarization of the background if it started from a single point. It also has problem with having consistent expansion and accelerated expansion observations when it is assumed. The lack of explanations coming from other theories should not be taken as proof that the Big Bang is correct, only that other theories have not received as much work. Dennis. From: [email protected] > So far the microwave background is still best explained by standard > cosmology. That doesn't mean big bang cosmology is right (since a > flat universe obviously counts against it). The claim to fame of big > bang cosmology is still the cosmic microwave background. No other > cosmology predicted it. > > harry > > Jouni Valkonen wrote: > > this is nice, I have waited this long time and data is finally here. Planck > > satellite data can make cosmology finally a real empirical science, not just > > playground for speculators. > > > > My predictions are that the flat geometry is confirmed and there are no > > positive evidences for inflation hypothesis, because it is a wrong > > hypothesis. Inflation, if it happened at all, cannot explain the flatness of > > the universe, but we need better models of cosmos. > > > > Universe must be gravitationally balanced, that is only thing that can > > explain flatness of the universe. This is my own prediction and this > > prediction differs wildly from mainstream interpretation of cosmos. > > > > —Jouni > > > > On Mar 19, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21828202 > > > > The first fractions of a second after the Big Bang > > > > cheers: Axil >
