Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory?

Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."4 In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.5 Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.6 Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950

Big Bang Theory - What About God?

Any discussion of the Big Bang theory would be incomplete without asking the question, what about God? This is because cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe) is an area where science and theology meet. Creation was a supernatural event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs the question: is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? Specifically, is there a master Architect out there? We know that this universe had a beginning. Was God the "First Cause"? We won't attempt to answer that question in this short article. We just ask the question:

Is the Universe Closed? - Current Big Questions in Cosmology

The question of whether the Universe will collapse in a big crunch or continue expanding forever hinges on knowing the density of the Universe. Density is defined as mass divided by volume. One can measure the density of the universe by observing the local group of galaxies and assuming that the Universe is all the same. One can also calculate the density required such that the Universe will eventually stop expanding. That density is called the critical density, and the ratio of the observed density to the critical density is given by the Greek letter omega. If omega is less than one the Universe will continue expanding until it is so large that it dies a cold death. If omega equals one the Universe will eventually stop expanding but will not collapse. In this case the Universe will also die a cold static death. But, if omega is greater than one, then the Universe is doomed to collapse under it's own gravitational mass, and will die a hot, fiery death in a big crunch. But don't worry, the ultimate fate of the Universe is atleast ten billion years away.
Omega (Density Ratio)
Fate of the Universe
Less than One
Open; Eternal Expansion, Cold Death
One
Flat; Cold Static Death
Greater than One
Closed; Big Crunch, Hot Death
For theoretical reasons, cosmologists believe that omega = 1. Unfortunately, attempts to measure omega yield results of about 0.1.

What is the Universe made from? - Current Big Questions in Cosmology

When astrophysicist Vera Ruban looked at Galaxies, she noticed a curious problem. She expected that the outer parts of a galaxy would move slower than the inner parts. But she found that this is not the case. The rotation curves of galaxies (a graph of the radius of a galaxy versus rotational speed) is flat, meaning that the outer parts move at the same speed as the inner parts. Large amounts of mass would account for the unexpected speed, but we don't see the mass that should be there.
To aid your understanding of this, think of how planets revolve around the Sun in our solar system. Mercury (the closest planet to the Sun) zips around the Sun in 88 days, but it takes the furthest planet, Pluto, 248 years to orbit the Sun. If there were a solid sphere of mass between the Sun and Pluto, than Pluto's orbital period would be the same as Mercury's. No one is suggesting that galaxies are actually solid spheres of matter, but there must be more mass in these galaxies then we can see. Because we can't see it, the mass is called dark matter.
Dark matter may account for up to 90% of the Universe's total mass. Bernard Sadoulet, who leads a search for dark matter at theCenter for Particle Astrophysics has stated that "Not only can we not see what most of the Universe is made of, we aren't even made of what most of the Universe is made of!" What did he mean by this? Scientists tend to categorize everything and matter is no different. The matter you are familiar with, matter composed of neutrons and protons, is called baryonic matter. Non-baryonic matter also exists, but is generally difficult to detect. Professor Sadoulet's experiment is looking for exotic, non-baryonic particles called WIMPs. WIMP stands for Weakly Interacting Massive Particle. There is a great deal of theoretical work which suggests that WIMPs exist and probably account for a large fraction of dark matter.
If you don't believe that WIMPs exist, you aren't alone. But some sort of exotic non-baryonic dark matter is required for omega = 1. Big bang nucleosynthesis limits the total number of baryons to be a fraction of the Universes total mass. And since there are compelling reasons to believe big bang nucleosythesis, and also that omega = 1, one is led to the conclusion that there must be exotic non-baryonic dark matter. Note the use of the word exotic. Neutrinos are another type of non-baryonic particle, but are not considered exotic. Neutrinos do exist, in huge numbers, but all known neutrinos have zero mass. The search continues for neutrinos with mass, but a massive neutrino is unlikely to completely account for the flat nature of galactic rotation curves. Hence, an exotic class of non-baryonic dark matter particle must exist if WIMPs do not.
There are several candidates for baryonic dark matter. MACHOs (Massive Compact Halo Objects) are objects about the size of Jupiter. Jupiter is quite massive, but like all planets, does not emit any light of its own; it only reflects sunlight. Although we can see Jupiter quite well from Earth, chances are that someone looking at our solar system from any far distance would not be able to see Jupiter. So, it is reasonable to assume that there are Jupiter-sized objects in other solar systems that we cannot see. By a technique known as micro-lensing, several MACHOs have already been found. VMOs (Very Massive Objects) are about 100 times more massive than our Sun, which makes them very heavy indeed. They are likely to be found in the form of black holes. By the way, in case you're wondering whether the existence of many Earth-sized objects might account for all the dark matter, bear in mind that Jupiter is roughly 300 times more massive than Earth. Thus you would need so many Earth-sized objects that the galaxy would be littered with them