A.Primordial Matter- that material which is conceived to expand in the big bang- requires an origin.Therefore the big bang could not have originated the universe, but the universe was already in existence before the 'big bang'.

B.An outside force is required to cause pre-bang primordial matter to expand and change its condition. Every reaction has a causal action. Such an outside force would immediately require the existence of the universe.

C.If internal changes to the primordial matter were required for the expansion to occur, then time & space would be required for these changes. Time & space would already have to exist prior to the big bang.

There you have it - three simple big bang busters. The physics many astrophysicists use to describe the conditions of the early universe - almost qualify as ridiculous. The explanations you will get in response to your newly acquired cosmological knowledge will sometimes be amusing, the most common are presented here:

A. God did it.
This is a theological retort and means they probably like the big bang theory to fill certain theological needs. It is unscientific.

B.What came before the big bang is metaphysical or can't be known.
This is the standard cop-out. If what comes prior to a scientific event is metaphysical - then by association the scientific event is metaphysical as well - and all science built around it. This response is actually as meaningless as the theistical retort. It is unscientific and has no place in cosmology or quantum astrophysics.

Here are some more assertions which numerous big bang cosmologists make and how they are incorrect:

A. Something can be created by nothing.Scientists assert that virtual particles can appear from nothingness. If the particles can originate from nothing - then nothing isn't nothing, but it is really something (a virtual particle-generator) - and again you have a pre-existing universe prior to virtual particle appearance. Many big bang cosmologists declare, 'nothingness is inherently unstable and so virtual particles are the result'. This is impossible. 'Nothing' cannot be unstable. Only 'something' can be unstable. What scientists have identified as 'virtual particles' are not originating from nothingness but from a change in energy somewhere else.

B.All cosmologists agree on the big bang theory of origins. This is simply SPIN. (If it were true, this page wouldn't exist!) If the public is gullible enough to believe them, and schools erroneously teach big bang cosmology as fact - then eventually other sources of knowledge WILL be obscured. Many scientists are also very insecure about the state of ignorance which exists upon the nature of energy and manner in which it and subsequently the universe function. In short - they are human.

C.There are potential multiple universes.The definition of universe includes all things - technically anything else besides our time/space dimension is part of OUR universe. (Universe n. The sum of all that exists.) It may seem easier to separate these other things which may exist - but science demands we do all in our power and evolving understanding to find the complete picture of our universal function - not just one corner of our universe. This would be like limiting ourselves to just our world or solar system and ignoring all that we cannot see, reach or examine yet. It does science an injustice.

SDAI LABS has released a paper refuting all big bang models and demonstrating the true nature of the universe as based upon a more comprehensive understanding of quantum physics and energy.

Recently, the observation of type 1a Supernovae have proven Hubble's constant (the supposed fixed expansion rate of the universe) erroneous. These supernovae accelerations contradict all presently existing big bang models. These observations immediately invalidate all the previous assumptions about the age of the universe. In fact, it makes it impossible to assign an age to it at all! How can we say that there was a point of universal origin if we do not have a fixed rate of universal expansion? You can't. The universe may have been expanding forever. With no fixed rate of expansion, we have no proof to the contrary. However, you will not hear this from them. They will mention what is often mistakenly called 'Olber's paradox' (The question of infinite stars creating infinite brightness and heat) and some other justifications for why the universe must be finite. Of course, Olber's paradox is easily countered by the discovery of the black hole and its light absorbing nature. If we have an infinite number of black holes in the universe - then the infinite light is immediately kept in check - and the universe can go on forever without end and still not create a solid wall of star light or heat.

John Q. Public is unaware of these numerous glaring inconsistencies of the big bang, much less the somewhat improper, way those funded to prove the big bang keep patching/modifying the theory so that no one can define a static big bang theory or explain the physics behind it. (The physics of make-believe;-)

Here are two explanations (none supporting big bang cosmology) for the primary observations used to support the big bang:

The expansion of space is not due to some primordial explosion of matter but is due to the nature of energy itself. Energy regenerates and compounds new signals and wave forms with every passing moment. When these signals contain more intelligence, the energy grows more complex and expands - as it contains more data. Simply put, this 'observed expansion' is the natural growth of space! No fiery origins and no mystery here. The universe is expanding because it is comprised of energy - and energy interacts and grows more complex.

Where A and B are energy waves with a frequency f. C is the newly formed subharmonic. Big bang cosmologists ignore the basic wave forms existing in all energy and how they function, instead using their Newton-style conceptualizing of thrust and forces being applied on space - and have failed to observe that space ITSELF is doing the expansion!

The cosmic background radiation perceived by our radiotelescopes and various probes such as COBE and the forthcoming MAP, demonstrate the existence of a wave form emission corresponding to that of hydrogen. This signal is interpreted by Big Bang cosmologists to indicate a 'residue' of hydrogen from the primordial fireball expansion of matter in the universe. The real reason scientists observe this signal is likely far more complex and goes to the very nature of this mass dimension we reside in. If we look at the universe as being infinite and that our mass dimension's atomic elements begin with the simple hydrogen atom - then naturally everywhere we travel in this 'mass forming' spectrum of the universe, we will observe such an emission! It is no big bang 'residue' at all - it is a BASE-RATE FREQUENCY of our mass dimension.

This is even more obvious when we consider the 'horizon problem' the problem of the amazingly even temperature dispersement. When we measure two spots in space with over a degree between them, this distance when magnified over the vast universe - becomes a great deal of space. The heat and energy of these spots should not have been able to intermix so early on in the big bang theory's supposed origins, to generate the stable, mean 2.7K temperature we observe thoroughout all our measurements. This implies that this is a simple property of our mass dimension and not a residue of primordial expansion.

To cover for this glaring dilemma, which is often not even publicly put forth, big bang cosmologists have yet again bent the laws of physics to cling to the bang at all costs! ;-) They have generated a tacked on 'expansion' theory to explain that the first few moments of the bang were expanding faster than even light itself, so as to even out the temperature. With this assertion they throw out the validity of time/space relativity and the entire basis for the calculations of the size of the universe in the first place! We measure light at a fixed speed to measure distances! If indeed, as big bangers say, the big bang was faster than light - then ALL of our measurements are invalid! We then know NOTHING of the Universe at all! Redshifts (the measured shifts of light through prisms from space we use to measure if things are coming at us or going away) will be meaningless - as this would mean light has no limit in time/space.

Expansion theory...absurd? In a word: Yes.

Why does big bang cosmology get so desperate that it must throw out every scientific understanding which science has learned and proven? Why do the 'big bang' proponents have the audacity to claim all other theories are the ones in violation of our physical laws? Why do they publicly declare that everyone sees the emperor's beautiful new clothes as well as they seem to? Well, that is a question to ask them...

Let's keep our minds open to other more plausible theories of universal function. If we build a beautiful, labor-intensive house upon a single erroneous theory - we will be all the more devastated as it crumbles to dust in the light of new findings.

We will keep you up-to-date on the activities of those reaching-for-straws 'bangers' ;-). Meanwhile, look for a 'white paper' research response, addressing these and other significant cosmological questions to be issued imminently. At long last, the 'big bang' - the Frankenstein monster of patched together cosmological theories - will be scientifically refuted.