Evidence supports the Big Bang Theory

First of all I will like to explain my sourcing policy. The number of sources to me does not determine the source vote, so I am not sourcing to get that point. I am sourcing more to give further information which are of strong connection to the case. For you to dismiss any argument, you will have to show some sort of invalidity within it. Invalid means contradictory. My arguments are not. You may not dismiss an argument if you are unable to explain it. As I will concede should any argument be explicable, so should you.I. CMBR Dataa. Horizon ProblemThis problem, which I had assumed you to be familiar with, basically states that CMBR violates the upper limit on the age of the Universe, which is around 14-15 billion years. Stretched to the max, it would be around 15 billion years. This problem basically states that the time for radiation to become so uniform has not have had a chance to occur, at all. I hope this explains, if not, see wikipedia.b. IHYou have sadly confused inflation with expansion. I hold to expansion, which I consider a fact, though it can be called into question (See Ref. 9 of previous round). A simple way to recognize the difference would be to consider the following comparison.Hubble---ExpansionGuth --- InflationAs can be seen clearly from this, my arguments are not directed at expansion, but at inflation. I am talking about inflation, which is the hypothesis that the Universe expanded very much before reducing to it’s current expansion speed. No evidence.c. UntenableI would like to reply to your direct question with a yes. We should discard untestable hypotheses. This is because I have defined evidence as data gained through the scientific method, which requires that the data be testable.All my major arguments have been replied to, thanks. I will attempt not to do so in the future. Maybe not citing a source at all would be good.d. CMBR Data and SZEI have somewhat change the header here. I think you have failed to get my point. My point is that SZE is an effect on local background microwave radiation. This would make it appear cosmic. To give a better explanation, I will use information from inside the article. I have taken the liberty to include the .pdf version of the article for you to read [1].So, from the article, we can see clearly that predicted values of SZE were not fulfilled. (Section 2 and 5) The article clearly states that the clusters themselves are a possible source of emission to account for the discrepancy. It is clear from this that the authors do not consider SZE solely a result of CMBR, but of emissions, period.I have now clearly showed that my argument is not flimsy, and is in fact a possible explanation provided by the authors.II. Time dilation in QuasarsUnfortunately, you have not replied to any portion of my arguments here. You have sidetracked the debate. I have clearly given data and interpreted it in the simplest terms possible. I don’t see how at all it is invalid. You will have to explain or refute my points. A note as to my sources. Two of the references were primary sources, one a news article, the other, the journal article of which a free pdf is available. As, however, I cited all relevant data, it was not entirely needed. One of the reference was an ibid, and the last was a reference to an article on expansion, on which these data put into doubt.III. Physical interactionsYou have failed to respond to my arguments here. You have also failed to show how it is invalid. The physical interaction explanation is not based on unfounded conjecture, nor was it a mysterious observation. Before actually replying to my arguments, which are valid, I suggest reading up on “physical cosmology.” Physical interaction is a widely used explanation in the cosmological world and to dismiss it because you cannot explain the data well is to dismiss a whole branch of science.IV. Rotation GraphsYou have not exactly responded to this argument. Nonetheless, I will respond to the argument regarding Dark Matter (Hereafter, DM)a. Dark MatterYou have appealed to history. So shall I. Once upon a time, people thought there was a planet called “vulcan” because they had no explanation for a certain phenomena in their cosmology. We shall therefore only focus on the evidence. The only evidence proffered by you is “...the massive collision of the galaxy cluster 1E0657-56 observed by the Chandra X-Ray Observatory...” What interests me is that you use the same tactic you accuse me of (No offence here, by the way)Before I end, though, I must inform you that your source is also from 2006. You said this about my arguments, “Several of your arguments seem to be based on 2006 information...” This implies that my arguments are outdated, which they are not. Please don’t point a finger when you’re doing the same. I will end with noting that this phenomena you claim can only be explained by DM is actually explicable by other models such as MOND. As you have not given specifics of how other models cannot account for this, neither will I. I will merely cite the link [2][3]. It also very well explains this phenomena. Your assertion that DM is the only model to predict this correctly is thus groundless, to say the least.All being said, I will request you not to ignore arguments unless you can show it to be invalid, which you cannot.1.http://arxiv.org...2. http://www.astro.umd.edu...3. http://arxiv.org... (Ref. 2 and 3 taken from wikipedia article on the Bullet cluster)