The Big Bang did not occur

In your opening sentence you claim that "nobody contends that the starting size of the universe was the size of an atom." I beg to differ. A Belgian priest by the name of Georges Lemaitre was one of the first to receive attention for a big bang model. And his claim, which still stands today, was that all of matter was once squashed down into a "primeval atom." From this dense particle is where the big bang theorists claim our whole universe sprang. From there you state that the universe was not an infinitely dense singularity, but had extremely high density. I will then use extremely dense for the future. But I want it to be known that the term "infinitely dense" was not created by me. I have seen it explained that way on many documentaries about the big bang. I suppose the idea is that it is the highest possible density since all matter was contained in this one singularity. You then say that it's explosion is simple, and draw an analogy with a star. The one problem I have with this is when a star implodes to a high density, it does not then explode. Rather, it becomes a black hole. The high density creates such a large gravitational force that nothing can escape (with the exception of Hawking radiation). This singularity at the start of the big bang would be many times more dense than a black hole, and yet somehow all of the matter was able to escape its gravitational hold. I find it a bit incredible. With the cosmic background radiation, you explain it by stating that the would-be Virgo area may have cooled at a different rate. This is inconsistent with thermodynamics since all of the matter from the big bang was supposedly the same temperature. Furthermore, all of the big bang theorists have been regarding this phenomenon as a mere fluke. It is amazing that you have the answer they have all been looking for. On the issue with particle accelerators, I have read a lot about them. The claim I have always heard is that they cannot duplicate the conditions that would be present during the big bang. If you could provide a reference where they state that the particle accelerators give evidence that there was a big bang, I would certainly like to read it. On my point with the inflationary period of the big bang, you mention galaxies expanding from each other faster than the speed of light. This is not at all what the inflationary period refers to. The inflationary period is something that was added to the big bang by Alan Guth. There was no way to account for the smoothness of the universe without this, and Guth worked out some math for it in December of 1979. This phenomenon supposedly took place between 10^-36 seconds and 10^-34 seconds after the big bang. It has the universe expand by a factor of 10^30. And although it is never blatantly mentioned, if you work out the math you can see that it does have matter travelling faster than the speed of light. It has nothing to do with galaxies since it supposedly happened long before galaxies existed. As far as my statements about light and relativity, it seems that both of us are in agreement. Therefore, there is nothing to debate on this issue. But then I laid out the history of how dark matter came to be. This is truly how it happened, and it was thrown in as a fudge factor. In response you say "Sigh... this is also blatantly false. Dark matter's existence is postulated on the basis of gravitational effects that are simply not accounted for by the presence of normal matter." And then you refer me to some Wikipedia article on dark matter. The truth is that it was invented to get the omega ratio up to 1. From that point on the cosmologists have been searching for evidence to back up the claim of dark matter, and they look for gravitational effects to try to verify its existence. If you wish you may refer to this peer-reviewed article that explains the omega ratio, why dark matter is needed for the big bang to work, and the lack of evidence. Valtonen, Mauri and Gene Byrd, "Redshift Asymmetries in System of Galaxies and the Missing Mass," The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 322 (1987) In my claim with thermodynamics, you state "You seem to be under the impression that the big bang created even the medium the universe exists in." This is not my belief, but I do know that the big bang theorists claim that all matter was created in one fell swoop by means of the big bang. And according to our current knowledge of thermodynamics, the cooling of superheated matter with no other cooler matter present is unlikely. But there are still some other problems with the big bang that I have not mentioned. The first problem arose when scientists realized that the big bang was not able to account for such large amounts of hydrogen and helium in the universe. The original idea claimed that these elements were created by the stars, but stars did not create enough light elements. So the big bang theorists added yet another fudge factor. This one they called "the period of primordial nucleosynthesis." It is supposedly in this period that most of the hydrogen and helium in the universe was created. But the problems of the big bang are not over yet. The density predictions for helium-4, lithium-7, and deuterium are in contradiction to the big bang theory. Of course now with the helium and the hydrogen, the big bang theorists will claim that their theory "predicts" these amounts. But in truth it was an ad hoc correction. This may not be convincing enough for some, but there are even more inconsistencies. The big bang claims that all matter in the universe was created by the big bang, and that the big bang took place approximately 13.7 billion years ago. Now galaxies in the universe tend to group together a bit. These groupings are called clusters. Some of these clusters then group with other clusters to become superclusters. There have now been superclusters found that have been dated to be approximately 18 billion years old. This would mean that they are more than 4 billion years older than the big bang!! This would be impossible if the big bang were true. Of course the big bang theorists fudged with the numbers a bit, and they somehow got the age down to around 13.6 billion years. They then claim it as a victory in finding the first galaxies formed after the big bang. But aside from messing with the dating techniques, even this age is inconsistent with the big bang. According to the theorists, galaxies could not form until the matter cooled sufficiently. An age of 13.6 billion years would only allow 100 million years for cooling, clumping into a galaxy, having those galaxies attract each other to form clusters, and having those clusters attract to form superclusters. This is nowhere near enough time. But if you believe that it is and that the original dating of 18 billion years was incorrect, then there is one more piece of data to mention. There are large-scale voids observed between some galaxies. Some of these voids, based on our observed velocities of galaxies, would've taken a minimum of 70 billion years to form. The only way that big bang theorists would be able to explain this is to assign much larger velocities to the galaxies before today. But given that the galaxies are actually accelerating away from one another, this would be unlikely. The galaxies would've had to be moving extremely fast, then slow down, and then accelerate again. On a final point, you mention gravity in the last paragraph and draw an analogy that my disclaimer of the big bang is equivalent to disclaiming gravity. This is not true. The big bang has had to add many fudge factors over the years, and even fiddle with numbers when it came to the 18 billion-year-old superclusters. No such fudge factors were ever needed for gravity. There comes a point where a theory should stop adding fudge factors and simply admit that it is wrong.