I read the first few chapters Gonzo Science by Jim and Allen Richardson. [Incidentally, the book was given to me by my sister, who along with her husband, are acquainted with the authors; the book is thusly autographed.] This chapter is concerned with alternate [to the Big Bang] theories of the universe's creation. Indeed, the first five words chosen are as follows: "The Big Bang theory sucks." The premise of Gonzo Science is that it removes scientific inquiry from the mainstream establishment which, with its bureaucratic funding structures and peer-reviewed publishing practices, serves only to [according to perspective] maintain status-quo. The authors focus on scientists which have risked [and in some cases suffered] professional annihilation for developing theories which contradict the international science machine.

This first chapter deals with alternate explanations for the "pillars of the Big Bang", of which there is apparently no shortage, and is followed by a chapter that deals with alternatives to the theory itself. The three "pillars", which have traditionally been taken to signify that the universe was once smaller and hotter, are redshift, microwave background radiation, and the abundance of light elements. Redshift is the name given to the phenomenon observed in light which is travelling away from the observer, as its apparent wavelength increases [shifting toward the red end of the spectrum]. This is similar to the principle that governs Doppler shift, which occurs when the soundwaves originating from an object which is moving toward you [such as an ambulance or honking car] bunch up, and then stretch out as the object passes and begins to move away from you, resulting in an audible drop in the pitch of that sound. As it applies to the Big Bang theory, redshift has been taken to be an absolute indicator of the distance of an object from our planet, and as evidence that we inhabit an inflationary universe. Microwave background radiation, according to the Big Bang theory, began as light generated by the Big Bang itself - the oldest light in the universe. Its march across space and time has changed it into what we can observe as microwaves. From the inescapable Bryson, in his A Short History of Nearly Everything:

Incidentally, disturbance from cosmic background radiation is something we have all experienced. Tune your television to any channel it doesn't receive and about 1 per cent of the dancing static you see is accounted for by this ancient remnant of the Big Bang. The next time you complain that there is nothing on, remember that you can always watch the birth of the universe.

As for the third "pillar", it is more difficult than the other two to summarize in lay-terms how the relative abundance of lighter elements in the universe points toward its theoretical explosive beginning. [What I mean, of course, is that it is more difficult for me to wrap my feeble brain around these ideas.] The gist, however, is that the proportion of certain primordial elements, such as helium, deuterium, and lithium to hydrogen is such that it could only have been generated by an event such as the Big Bang.

Gonzo Science deals with each of these, to varying degrees. For example, the authors indicate that the correlation between redshift and distance isn't necessarily accurate by referencing a failed observation with the Hubble. The premise was that the Twin Quasar, which from our perspective can only be observed through Ursa Major, was believed to be a single quasar, which only appeared to be two, due to the gravitational lens effect of Ursa Major. Measuring the relative brightness of each of these quasar images should have revealed the "all-important universal distance scale and expansion rate", a method for correlating redshift and distance. However, the Hubble images also revealed, as I understand it, that previous calculations of Ursa Major's gravitational field were inaccurate [data essential for taking the quasar measurements]. The project ended up providing support for the alternate theory that the so-called Twin Quasar really is two individual quasars, which rather than being very distant [having very high redshifts], were instead ejected from an exploding galaxy, providing an alternative to the redshift-distance model.

The authors deal with what they see as the four major alternatives to the Big Bang: the Plasma Cosmology, the Meta Model, the Quasi Steady State Cosmology, and the Continuing Creation Theory. If I understand them correctly, however, the one thing that all four theories have in common is infinity. That is, rather than the entire universe exploding out of a singularity 13.7 billion years ago, it simply was... always here. And what's more, it always will be here. On top of that, this concept of infinity doesn't necessarily apply only to time; it can also apply to space itself. In such a universe, if you were to set out on an intergalactic voyage, discovering new galaxies and glad-handing sentients, you might as well get used to life on the road, because such a trip would never, could never come to an end, independent of the speed at which you travel. You would never find the "edge" of the universe; you would simply get further and further from your origin, forever. Tom Van Flandern's Meta Model even accounts for scale to be infinite, as well. From Gonzo Science:

From the ultra-nano to the mega-macro, it just keeps going to infinity up and down the scale. In Van Flandern's conception, the universe really is a grain of sand.

To me, this is a picture of a universe that we, as humans, cannot understand. By nature, infinity cannot be fully comprehended. And that's a problem. The Big Bang is hardly intuitive; it is not possible for the human mind to imagine what, for example, was outside this "seed" of our universe - nothing, of course [and that's the hard part]. But at least the theory is intimate with a concept that we can understand - a beginning. In a universe without a beginning, we are suddenly horribly, horribly lost.

I've recently decided, until further notice, that I am a Humanist, of the secular persuasion. To consider such possibilities as to the makeup of our environment has been somewhat distressing, as part of my interpretation of the Humanist viewpoint is that I must believe that humans are fully capable of understanding our universe. I admit that such thinking is similar to a religious person's faith in God and an afterlife, but rather than allowing for the supernatural, I place my faith solidly behind human potential. Besides, if a man such as Albert Einstein [also a Humanist] held such views, then so must I.