Existence is not temporal in nature - it is not the result of cause and effect. Everything in the cosmos may constantly change, but that same everything has always existed in one form or another. If the Universe is "everything that exists", and if, as some cosmologists predict, it is comprised of a finite amount of substance expanding into an unbounded volume, then the most popular cosmological model would certainly have suffered an entropy death an eternity ago. Even a cyclical Big Bang scenario wouldn't save a finite cosmos. If light is comprised of massless photons which would not be retrieved by the forces of gravity, each "Big Crunch" would still have been plagued by an energy leak that would have lead to the same inevitable entropy death.

Big Bang theory depends upon the interpretation of the observed 'red shift' of elemental absorption markers in spectra from distant galaxies being the result of cosmic expansion. Strangely, it seems the more distant the galaxy, the greater the shift appears and at the very 'fringes of the Universe', the red shift indicates galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light...and accelerating.

This is a burdensome inconvenience to contemporary cosmologists, and they have tried to explain it away by proposing that the seemingly extra-logical phenomenon is an illusion caused by the self-same cosmological expansion they seek to substantiate. Furthermore, the cosmic expansion premise relies heavily on hypothetical 'dark' elements which cosmoligists presume to exist because they validate their hypotheses.

The mathematical incongruities of any falsely premised model can easily be reconciled by the use of additional false premises and calculations reverse engineered to force the correct results.

We don't have the ability to study how the subtle nuances of nature might affect the properties of light traversing vast distances over billions of years. There may be some yet undiscovered property of space or the nature of light, itself, that incrementally shifts the wavelengths of absorption markers to the red end of the spectrum over vast amounts of time and travel.

Astronomers tend to presume that between any given source and observer, all light travels the same distance at the same speed. But light bends in the presence of gravity. Observe a simple prism and you'll see the red wavelength bends less than violet. Forget stars and planets, how many mass-laden Hydrogen atoms are there in a billion light years? Light at lower wavelengths has a more distant trajectory from source to observer when repeatedly exposed to gravity and would take longer to traverse the distance. Could 'wavelength lag' alter elemental absorption markers toward the red end of the scale (graduate level thesis anyone)? The website Redshift with Distance offers an alternative to the expansion theory. This and other theories explore how the absorption spikes perceived from light sources billions of light years away might be altered.

I have little argument with the data Big Bangers cite, but I have a BIG problem with their interpretation of that data. The sound of galloping hooves doesn't mean the Unicorns are stampeding.