They've long known that there are problems with the BBT, because a truly sound theory wouldn't lead to singularities. But they don't have much in the way of a viable alternative yet, besides human-dick-sucking-sky-fairy-"theory" (and similar woo nonsense) and the plasma theory in that book that's been popping up, "The Big Bang Never Happened", which I vaguely remember reading back when it first hit the local library (at which I was working at the time.) It basically is an attempt to revive Steady State theory (the former competing theory to the Big Bang) by claiming that cosmic plasma (or whatever the fuck) ensures that new stars/star systems/galaxies are born all the time in a universe that can still be expanding all it wants. The problem with the theory is, it has no origin aspect to it; as far as it's concerned, the universe simply always existed. (But! Brane theory coupled with this might be a way to solve that, especially the idea of two three-branes colliding and resetting each other: see Brian Greene.)
The problem with both is that they are the old Euro myth, helio-centric universe. That we are close to where the universe started. That it has a beginning.
That still has the problem of rationalizing that there was a beginning. Everything we know of and experience is constantly in flux (is ever changing). We can arbitrarily decide a point is a beginning or an an end, but that does not actually make it a physical start or end.
It's like an evolutionary identification of an extant species compared with its ancestor. They both existed, one no longer does, but it didn't die out and it wasn't the start of their entire line.
It all comes from something, it all goes into something, but the literal amount never really changes.
They've long known that there are problems with the BBT, because a truly sound theory wouldn't lead to singularities. But they don't have much in the way of a viable alternative yet, besides human-dick-sucking-sky-fairy-"theory" (and similar woo nonsense) and the plasma theory in that book that's been popping up, "The Big Bang Never Happened", which I vaguely remember reading back when it first hit the local library (at which I was working at the time.) It basically is an attempt to revive Steady State theory (the former competing theory to the Big Bang) by claiming that cosmic plasma (or whatever the fuck) ensures that new stars/star systems/galaxies are born all the time in a universe that can still be expanding all it wants. The problem with the theory is, it has no origin aspect to it; as far as it's concerned, the universe simply always existed. (But! Brane theory coupled with this might be a way to solve that, especially the idea of two three-branes colliding and resetting each other: see Brian Greene.)
The problem with both is that they are the old Euro myth, helio-centric universe. That we are close to where the universe started. That it has a beginning.
That still has the problem of rationalizing that there was a beginning. Everything we know of and experience is constantly in flux (is ever changing). We can arbitrarily decide a point is a beginning or an an end, but that does not actually make it a physical start or end.
It's like an evolutionary identification of an extant species compared with its ancestor. They both existed, one no longer does, but it didn't die out and it wasn't the start of their entire line.
It all comes from something, it all goes into something, but the literal amount never really changes.