Big Bang: Stampeding Unicorns
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', a simple Doppler analysis of the red shift would indicate galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light and still accelerating. This would have been a burdensome inconvenience to cosmologists, but, instead, they've deftly explained away the extra-logical velocity by proposing it's a phenomenon caused by the self-same cosmological expansion they wish to substantiate.
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. Empirically there are few research facilities of sufficient size and even fewer scientists of sufficient longevity to engage in such a monumental endeavor. There may be some yet undiscovered property of space or the nature of light, itself, that incrementally shifts the wavelengths of absorption markers after eons of time and travel.
To paraphrase Stanford's Gravity Probe B - Testing Einstein's Universe, as a photon moves out of a gravitational field, it loses energy working against the gravitational field. Photons always travel at the speed of light, so the only place where this energy loss can show up is in a change of frequency. The frequency of the photon must decrease so the energy carried by the photon is lower. This corresponds to a 'red shift' to longer wavelengths. This phenomenon was confirmed over 30 years ago in laboratory experiments carried out by Pound and Rebka at Harvard University. Forget stars and planets, how many mass-laden ambient particles are there in a billion light year trek?
Every time a beam of light wiggles around a particle of mass, that wiggle adds to the distance it must traverse before we can see it, so the light we observe from the most distant galaxies actually travels much farther than a simple linear distance. This would make celestial objects appear fainter than can be explained by their true distance and the farther the object, the more pronounced the distortion of its brightness would become. Higher frequencies bend more than the lower bands, thus they must traverse a greater distance and having traveled farther, they are older than their longer wavelength cousins when they eventually reach our planet. Brightness of any light source is inversely proportional to its distance from the observer. At some distance, the higher frequency components of the source will become undetectable and only the less energetic, lower frequency and longer wavelengths will still be visible. Redshift with Distance offers alternatives to the expansion theory. These and other theories explore how absorption spikes detected from light sources billions of light years away might be altered.
Cosmologists assert we live on the expanding surface of a "soap bubble" cosmos (a three dimensional representation of a four dimensional concept) and its expansion is powered by hypothetical 'dark elements' presumed to exist solely because they validate the hypotheses. If the volume of the 'Big Bang Universe' is growing because the space within it is expanding rather than because distant bodies are receding into the existing cosmos around it, then new volumes of space are being 'created', physically conjured into places where no places existed before. This is magical thinking.
The Case for an Infinite Universe
Scholars are quick to point out infinity doesn't exist and they are absolutely correct, but that doesn't mean the cosmos is finite. Infinity is the non-existence of a limit and if a non-existence existed, it wouldn't be a non-existence.
The distance between any two points in the cosmos is certainly finite, but a finite cosmos would contain a finite amount of space/mass/energy. All of those elements would be quantifiable into measureable volumes with defined physical domains. By summing their volumes and delineating their configurations one would be able to determine the boundaries where some mythical 'cosmic wall' should exist.
Since there seems to be no evidence that such a boundary exists, theorists have come up with an interesting hypothetical twist in which space curves in upon itself in such a way that for every given point 'A' there is a point 'B' within a finite distance at which motion in any direction will not increase the distance between the two; in fact, if a traveler who could instantaneously traverse a sufficient distance encountered such a point, he would begin to return to his point of origin. The concept describes a "finite but unbounded" Universe and implies a cosmos enveloped in a spherical spacecage. But if finite means limited (and it does) and unbounded means unlimited (and it does), then finite but unbounded is simply oxymoronic. There is no evidence, no principle of logic, science or mathematics and no law of nature that implies the existence of any point, however distant, at which progress becomes regress. While it may be a fascinating hypothesis, it has no basis in reality and relatively few reputable cosmologists still adhere to this model of the Universe.
One popular version of Big Bang (there are many) asserts that once upon a time all the energy, space and matter in the cosmos was compressed down to an infinite density at a single point called the singularity. Fourteen billion years ago, that singularity spontaneously inflated at an enormous rate into a Big Bang that is still expanding at a pace faster than anything except our hypothetical instantaneous traveler could overtake. But at the time of the initial inflation, that infinitesimal singularity was supposedly the entirety of the cosmos. Nothing - not even a location - existed beyond its boundary. So how did it expand? Did it conjure new locations to occupy as it inflated? And since existence isn't the temporal product of time or change, I can only wonder why that singularity waited so long (throughout an eternal past) to blossom.
Another version of Big Bang theorizes that although space is infinite, only a finite quantity of mass and energy exists within it. Certainly an infinity of space would require no less justification than an infinity of matter, so how do they rationalize imbuing the element of space with the singular attribute of infinitude? In any case, could the cosmos be like a tiny drop of soap blown into a bubble, a single field of existence oscillating in an infinite spatial domain between phases of expanding singularity and ultimate collapse in a never ending cycle?
In the battle between gravity versus the second law of thermodynamics even a cyclical Big Bang would eventually suffer an entropy death. Particles which have no mass could never be recalled by the forces of gravity. They would continue to propagate into the infinite realm of space and every Big Crunch would have suffered a loss of energy which would have led to an ultimate cosmic demise an eternity ago.
It is obvious that in a finite and temporal Universe nothing could exist 10 999,999,999,999 light years from Earth, so to any who might venture beyond the safety of our planet I issue this warning:
Beware and sail ye not too far out into the Universe lest thou fallest from the edge.
If there ever was a Big Bang (and the jury is certainly still out), the only logical version would be that within our local neighborhood (45 billion light years or so with its theoretical expansion factor) of that infinitely populated expanse we call the cosmos, an immensely large volume of mass somehow collapsed into a hyper-critical black hole which then regurgitated. I could almost (but not quite) lend credence to that scenario, but it certainly didn't create the Universe. At most it was a colossal rearrangement of elements which already existed. Cosmologists have spent billions of dollars and thousands of man hours measuring cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) and analyzing the spectra of elemental markers in ancient light from distant galaxies (Hubble Red Shift) to speculate about the scope and age of this hypothetical event. But even our most modern technology can, at best, only be considered post-Neanderthal. When you actually think about it, what do we really know about billion year old light waves? Their study has; however, led to a consensus that space, itself, may be able to expand. If such is the case, shouldn't it also have the capacity to shrink? And if space shrinks specifically in the presence of mass, might that not resolve the enigmatic phenomenon of gravity?
The more esoteric cosmologists have assaulted us common laity with the convoluted logic of String Theory and M-Theory - fantasy worlds with extra dimensions, multiverses, parallel dimensions and other hypotheses backed by sophisticated equations. Equations can describe fantasy just as readily as reality and just because an equation is 'beautiful' doesn't mean it isn't falsely premised. Most of those theories literally fly in the face of Occam's Razor and when simple logic gets in the way, they usually employ a reverse engineered work-around to resolve the discrepancies. Simple common sense is not just rarely applied in theoretical cosmological circles, it's actively discouraged when it conflicts with the status quo or with new esoteric theories promulgated by scholars who must either publish to survive or perish.
I have no argument with the data Big Bangers cite. I have a BIG problem with the interpretation of that data. The sound of galloping hooves doesn't mean the Unicorns are stampeding. An otherwise uninformed observer measuring the length of daylight hours between the fall equinox and the winter solstice would logically predict the demise of our planet as it slipped into a frozen, permanent state of darkness forevermore (eg: Global Warming).
Haldane tells us that the world is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine. But Occam seems to imply that if theories sound far-fetched, it's probably because they are.