3. The Abundance of Light Elements: The fallacy mentioned above regarding the existence of MBR, applies also to the presence of light elements in the universe. The reasoning is that the Big Bang should have happened because there is no other way to explain the presence of light elements in the universe. In fact, this is false. For example, Jean Audouze in France, has presented evidence that the cosmic rays generated by early stars colliding with background plasma present in the universe is enough to generate the light elements of deuterium, boron, lithium in the right amounts. Adouze’s results are right, regardless of the existence of a Big Bang. By the epistemological principle of Occam’s Razor (inference to the simplest explanation) the Big Bang Theory is unnecessary to explain the light elements. Furthermore, the Big Bang Theory in this aspect has been wrong about the amount of lithium in the universe because it underestimated many times its amount.

It is important to remind ourselves that the reasoning that led Big Bang theorists to state that heavy elements in the universe were formed as a result of the Big Bang explosion. However, Fred Hoyle showed them wrong: these heavy elements are created in stars and expelled to the universe once the stars blows up.

4. The Rate of the Expansion of the Universe: This is perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Big Bang Theory, since it needs many ad hoc hypotheses (some of them extremely gross): dark energy, dark matter, inflation, ripples in space-time. Of course, scientists who favor the Big Bang can argue that if the amount of dark energy and dark matter are enough, then obviously the universe should be expanding the way it should. First, it was predicted that the amount of dark matter should be 90 to 99% of the universe, to hold everything together and explain the way the universe is expanding. One of the problems with the Big Bang is that according to the BBT view of light elements, is that the density of matter in the universe should not exceed a certain value. With the insertion of dark matter (in such huge amounts) as an ad hoc hypothesis, it exceeds the value that deuterium has established. If this is true, then the Big Bang should not have produced the amount of deuterium as it is observed in the universe. Of course, these falsation of these hypotheses point to the Big Bang be wrong.

However, since this scenario certainly seems to be wrong, they introduced the concept of non-baryonic matter, matter that is not composed of protons and neutrons. According to this theory, dark matter was composed of non-baryonic matter that no one knows what it is, no one has seen it, but it is not ordinary matter, so it does not enter into the equations of light elements. Of course, this weakens significantly the predictive value of the Big Bang Theory, since it does not provide in principle an empirical scenario where this can be confirmed. Since dark matter slows down the expansion of the universe, and we look for the length of time that the universe has existed should be shorter than just a linear expansion. This would mean that the universe would be about 8 billion years old. Of course, this cannot be true, since we know, from the evolution of stars, that many of them are 10 to 13 billion years old. How do you fit a 13 billion years old star in an 8 billion years old universe?

Also inflation was posited to solve certain problems with the Big Bang theory, inflation proposes a kind of cosmological constant, where the universe passed through exponential expansion. The problem is that the value of the cosmological constant made by inflation and the value of the cosmological constant found in the universe are simply extremely divergent by a factor of ten to the 108th power. For this reason, they introduced the concept of dark energy, which is some energy that no one knows what it is, but it creates a big repulsion in the universe, and causes it to accelerate the expansion. So right now we have the following scenario according to the Big Bang Theory: Now we have a universe that is 5% conventional matter, 25% dark matter and 70% of dark energy. In other words, 95% of the universe is matter and energy we don’t know at all, and probably will never know. Isn’t this a very big assumption to posit and untestable stuff to be the vast majority of the universe?

Another problem were the big structures found in the universe such as superclusters, and literally big empty space with little or no matter at all. In order to explain these structures, not only scientists went to dark matter for the rescue, but also posited early “relics” of the Big Bang such as ripples in space-time. After COBE was launched into space they discovered tiny fluctuations in the MBR that apparently confirmed their theories. However, what COBE found (and what later WMAP found) was that the fluctuations found are one hundred times smaller than were originally expected. They went to dark matter to explain why structures appear the way they do.

Plasma cosmology, on the other hand, is able to explain these fluctuations and these cosmic structures as filamentary structures, and the result of filamentary behavior of plasmas. These filament behavior never change regardless of size. These structures were predicted long before Gerard DeVancoleurs discovered that the universe was organized hierarchically (a fact unforseen by Big Bang Theorists).

If all of this is true, it seems that other cosmological models, such as plasma cosmology, are better at predicting certain phenomena. The Big Bang Theory has not had one successful real prediction. In the best of cases, it has had successful postdictions. I’m not saying that scientists should end the Big Bang theory as a research program, but they, at least, must show more humility and recognize that their theory is not as solid as they claim it to be.