There is no doubt about big bang cosmology. We know with very good accuracy that the universe is exactly 13.772 ± 0.059 gigayears old. For example the dating of second generation star HD 140283 supports well this age estimate. There are several other dating methods also.
The problem is that standard model of cosmology does not tell what is the driving force behind the expansion. In the context of Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitation theory, big bang was impossibility, because the cosmos must be fine tuned with accuracy that is beyond anything reasonable. Therefore we know with 100 % certainty that standard model of cosmology must be false, because it is logically inconsistent and requires *ad hoc* explanations such as inflation hypothesis what is bad science. My conclusion is that because it is logically impossible that gravity is the driving force of the expansion, therefore universe as a whole must be gravitationally balanced, similarly that atoms are electromagnetically balanced. We can have balanced cosmos if gravity does not have net influence at much larger scales than super clusters. If we select proper geometry for the universe, we can have cosmos that is gravitationally balanced and the expansion does not depend on the energy density of universe. If cosmos is gravitationally balanced, then we do see universe as a whole as flat. If we do not like tweaking the geometry, other possibility is that antimatter has antigravitational effect and thus there is equal amount of gravity and antigravity charges in the cosmos. Problem is of course that we do not have detected large amounts of antimatter. Perhaps antimatter is dark! —Jouni On 19 March 2013 20:03, Harry Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: > So far the microwave background is still best explained by standard > cosomology. That doesn't mean big bang cosmology is right (since a > flat universe obviously counts against it). The claim to fame of big > bang cosomology is still the cosmic microwave background. No other > cosmology predicted it. > > harry > > >
