The big bang theory is false

I shall offer my constructive case and address pro’s claims in R2. While I am not a physicist, and as such cannot discuss the highly technical contemporary inquiries of big bang cosmology, I believe I can demonstrate the high probability of the big bang, at least on a fundamental level. Definition: BBC- There are a multitude of varying expressions of big bang cosmology, however, operating, I think we may adopt the following definition: The view that the universe, as it is now, is the result of expansion from an initial singularity(Oversimplified, but I think it gets the job done). Red Shifts A redshift occurs when electromagnetic radiation is increased in wavelength, contingent on the source moving further from the observer. A simple exemplification of this observed in the Doppler Redshift--Z>0, if c< [1] Verifying inflation is contingent on Hubble’s law, and extension of the aforementioned principles, stating: 1- “Objects observed in deep space (extragalactic space, 10 megaparsecs (Mpc) or more) are found to have a Doppler shift interpretable as relative velocity away from Earth” 2-”This Doppler-shift-measured velocity, of various galaxies receding from the Earth, is approximately proportional to their distance from the Earth for galaxies up to a few hundred megaparsecs away” [2] This has been empirically verified, displayed by the Hubble diagram Here's the link if the picture doesn't show up: s://lh3.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="266" height="190" /> http://www.uni.edu... From the diagram, we can easily observe that the velocity of a galaxy, relative to observers, corresponds to the distance they are from observers. V ^ D^. So, if we extrapolate far enough, we will come to a point of singularity. In order to get from a singularity to the current state of affairs, a period of inflation is necessary. Inflation is still taking place, however, just not as rapidly, as evidenced by the relative low temperature of the universe, relative to its early state, further evidence by the CMB. Homogeneity and Isotropy If the universe expanded from a singularity, we would expect to observe homogeneity and isotropy in the universe. This is a derivation of the Copernican principle, simply stating “no special observers”. https://upload.wikimedia.org... s://lh3.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="318" height="159" />This is the CMB, looks quite homogeneous to me. Originally, the universe was in an extremely hot and dense state, however, after expansion, the universe cooled, eventually into the microwave spectrum, which is the nature of the CMB, and this is why it is observable(Also, this is exactly what one would expect to observe, if the universe rapidly expanded from a hot and dense state, and cooled down, unambiguously indicating inflation). So what about small scale anisotropy? The universe is largely homogeneous and isotropic, however, small scale anisotropy is to be expected, by virtue of fluctuations and perturbations. This is of special importance, because it reinforces the redshift. “ Local galaxies, within the CMB, have been observed to have a velocity 627±22 km/s relative to the reference frame of the CMB,in the direction of galactic longitude l = 276°±3°, b = 30°±3°”. This indicates the the CMB should be warmer in the direction of movement, and it in fact is,which is explained through redshifts. So, given the large scale homogeneity and isotropy of the universe, we have a good reason to espouse big bang cosmology, however, small scale anisotropy is expected, given fluctuations and perturbations, which were necessary for the development of large scale structures, which we can discuss in greater length if you wish. [3] Since pro didn’t specify any particular big bang model, I think the aforementioned discussion is sufficient to establish the high probability of the big bang, at least concerning the very most fundamental assumptions. References [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org...