[PetTastic]

What tests should an alternative Big Bang / expansion of the universe theory survive to be considered interesting?
Perfectly matching the observed universe past and present, would be great but hard to test in one go.

• No changes to the laws of physics that knowingly break anything.
  
• No silly magic behaviours of light.
  
• Consistent cosmic red shifts from any viewpoint
  
• Apparent time dilation of light decay curves
  
• Time dilation of rotational phenomenon?

But what else?

[The Polymath]

PetTastic, on 16 May 2011 - 05:55 AM, said:

No changes to the laws of physics that knowingly break anything.

What do you mean by "knowingly break anything"? Could you clarify you meaning?

PetTastic, on 16 May 2011 - 05:55 AM, said:

No silly magic behaviours of light.

Such as? What would you define as a 'silly magic behavior of light'?

And by 'tests' do you mean experiments (the conventional meaning), or do you mean something closer to 'concepts it must include' (the apparent meaning)?

[PetTastic]

The Polymath, on 16 May 2011 - 06:18 AM, said:

What do you mean by "knowingly break anything"? Could you clarify you meaning?

How about any changes to the laws of physics must not change the universe as observed.

The Polymath, on 16 May 2011 - 06:18 AM, said:

Such as? What would you define as a 'silly magic behavior of light'?

And by 'tests' do you mean experiments (the conventional meaning), or do you mean something closer to 'concepts it must include' (the apparent meaning)?

Light and other Bosons must still behave as in QED ie. no magic loss of energy over time.(tired photons)


I suppose 'time' should be added to the list as being consistent with relativity from all view points.


In general the universe as predicted by any new model should match observation, only change the interpretation of the observations.

For example alternatives to the expansion of the universe that change the fine structure constant, can't predict the observed relative abundances of elements in the past and therefore now.

[SextonBlake]

The big bang is not a valid theory. It's based on various unproven ideas and some impossibilities. It has failed a number of times and needs some even stranger ideas to keep it going.

There is an alternative explanation for the redshift which is more realistic than the crackpot idea of space expanding.

Various religions gained respectability solely because of the numbers who believe in them. The same with the big bang idea.