Well seeing as how the Big Bang is the accepted thoery which concludes a beginning and Plasma cosmology presents science which does not nessitate a beginning...
I am thoughly vindicated in the fact that Big Bang supporters are nothing more than sycophants to popular ideology.
I'm a sycophant to the evidence. Yes, I admit it, I'll follow the evidence wherever it leads me, even if I find that place unsettling.
If I'd lived 1000 years ago I'd have said that God created the Earth and set the Sun, Moon and stars in motion around it. Because that was the best guess on the evidence available, which was, basically, none.
If I'd lived 100 years ago I'd have said that the Universe was infinite and unchanging, and that the Sun's energy came from the fact that it was a huge pile of cometary material rubbing together to produce huge amounts of friction. Because that was the best theory available to the science that was known at that time.
If I'm alive in 100 years I may laugh at the inability of current scientists to combine relativity and quantum mechanics, but I'd probably marvel at the progress that had been made to get to our current understanding.
If I were to live 1000 years from now I might be sitting on the porch of my little house on a planet orbiting a star 100 light years from Earth, gazing through a telescope at Sol, and wondering how the physicists of the 21st century could have failed to spot the obvious. But more likely I'd gaze at that little yellow star and marvel at the intellects that made the advances, against tides of public opinion, religious objections and professional scorn, that laid the foundations for FTL travel, terraforming, and countless other technological marvels.
But this one thing I'm sure of - whatever the prevailing physical paradigm is 1000 years from now, it will be based on the evidence. And I'd follow it.
If the evidence said the Universe were static and infinite I'd accept that as fact.
If the evidence said that the Universe was dominated by electric fields, and the Sun was powered by low level electric fields permeating the Galaxy, I'd accept that.
If the evidence showed that the Earth was a flat disk sitting on the backs of 4 elephants, carried by a cosmic turtle swimming in a sea of milk I'd accept that as fact.
But the evidence doesn't show any of these things. What it shows is that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, started in an event called the Big Bang, has been expanding ever since, and may keep on expanding forever. It shows that stars are powered by nuclear fusion reactions caused by high pressures and temperatures in their cores. It shows that each generation of stars adds more and more heavy elements to the Universe, changing the chemical make-up of the next generation of stars.
And that's the problem your arguments have JEROME. You're arguing
against a theory that is supported by
mountains of evidence. You're arguing
for a theory which
used to be the prevailing mode of thought, but was shown to be wrong by the evidence. You try to point out little problems with small bits of the theory, but these objections are shown time and again to be false. In response to the whole theory, you simply accuse it of being false because it's based on a false initial premise. I've lost count of the number of times that objection has been shown to be pointless.
So, one last time, I'm going to lay out the way in which the evidence for the Big Bang piled up.
Einstein produces his theory of relativity. The natural conclusion of the theory is that the Universe should be expanding or contracting, but he doesn't like this for aesthetic reasons, so he adds a constant to his equations to maintain the static nature of the Universe. The theory is confirmed by the orbit of Mercury, and also, a few years later, during a total Solar eclipse, when light from a star near the Sun's limb is shown to have been bent by the Sun's gravity, exactly the amount relativity predicts (relativity has since been demonstrated by a huge number of experiments including the fact that GPS satellites need to take it into account to give accurate measurements). Hubble measures the redshifts of galaxies and comparing these to their distances (calculated from the magnitudes of different types of stars they contain) discovers that the further away they are the faster they're travelling away from us. Einstein calls his Cosmological constant "The greatest mistake I ever made!" Hoyle tries to argue against the theory, dubbing it the "Big Bang" and complaining that it opens the door for theists to say that God did it.
It is reasoned that if the Universe began as a tiny fireball then there should be a tell-tale radiation signature, a near perfect blackbody radiation curve at just a few degrees above absolute zero, called the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR). Penzias and Wilson, while setting up their microwave antenna find a constant signal from all areas of the sky which they first mistake as being due to pigeon droppings in the feed horn of their antenna. After cleaning it out, and discovering that the signal is still there, they try numerous other ideas, until, in desperation they call a friend, hoping he might know what it is. He does, he was planning to set up a microwave antenna to look for it. They've discovered the CBR, at exactly the temperature it was predicted to have. By accident.
Boomerang, a balloon borne microwave antenna, maps the CBR and shows it to have a near perfect blackbody curve. This is followed by COBE, a satellite that shows there are minute anisotropies in the CBR. Theory predicts this, since a perfectly smooth Big Bang would not have allowed the galaxies to form as they have. WMAP, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe shows the anisotropies in far more detail, obtaining a power spectrum which agrees to a very high degree with the predictions of theory.
Nucleosynthesis, a field of physics made possible by relativity, shows that stars are powered by core nuclear fusion reactions, and even allows scientists to work out how much energy any given star is producing, and which nuclear reactions are happening in its core (actually, it's a little more complicated than that, but it all agrees with the theory). Particle physics predicts that the Sun's core nuclear fusion reactions should produce massive numbers of near massless particles called neutrinos which should be cascading through the Earth from the Sun. Neutrinos are discovered in exactly the amounts that theory predicts.
Relativity makes other predictions - black holes, neutron stars, pulsars, time dilation, all of which have been evidenced, confirming the power of relativity, which is is the basis predicting the Big bang, which has also been evidenced in many different ways.
The only initial premise in all of this is that the laws of physics are constant everywhere and everywhen, with the sole exception of the inside of a singularity (this is because the maths we have can't cope with such an extreme situation, not because it breaks the laws of physics). You might try to argue that the laws of physics aren't constant, but then you can't be sure of anything, and you might as well give up on astronomy completely.
The evidence leads, inexorably, to the conclusion that the Universe started as a tiny fireball. What set that fireball off is completely unknown, and may be unknowable. But it's where the evidence leads. And that's where I follow.
You can protest "Western Religious thinking", and "Dogmatic adherence to orthodoxy" all you like. You can pooh-pooh linear time, and the idea of a beginning. You can make erroneous statements like "science evidences that life only arises from non life" until you're blue in the face.
I choose to follow the evidence.
.
