Why isn’t anyone seriously challenging the Big Bang?

[C C]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswitha...-big-bang/

EXCERPT (conclusion): . . . Today, the only serious challenges to the standard Big Bang picture come in the form of add-ons: Universes where exotic forms of matter or energy (including dark matter and dark energy) are present, Universes that depart significantly (but within the observational limits) from isotropy or homogeneity, Universes with a different theory of gravity than General Relativity (but that don’t conflict with any of General Relativity’s already-observed successes). All of the modern alternatives still possess a hot, dense, uniform, and rapidly expanding early state, which expands, cools, and gravitates to form the Universe we see today.

So what happened over the past few decades, that all of the major challenges to the Big Bang have fallen away? Two major events: the collection of large suites of high-quality data, which validated the Big Bang’s major predictions to incredibly high precision, and the fact that the main advocates of the alternatives — once they no longer became defensible on their own merits — got old and died.

If any scientifically viable alternatives to the Big Bang ever arise, almost every modern cosmologist would thoroughly welcome it, and then immediately put it to the test. The problem is that every such alternative is already ruled out by the evidence in hand. Until an idea arises that meets those necessary criteria, the Big Bang will stand alone as the only idea compatible with the full suite of data we now possess. (MORE - details)

[Taormina]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswitha...-big-bang/

EXCERPT (conclusion): . . . Today, the only serious challenges to the standard Big Bang picture come in the form of add-ons: Universes where exotic forms of matter or energy (including dark matter and dark energy) are present, Universes that depart significantly (but within the observational limits) from isotropy or homogeneity, Universes with a different theory of gravity than General Relativity (but that don’t conflict with any of General Relativity’s already-observed successes). All of the modern alternatives still possess a hot, dense, uniform, and rapidly expanding early state, which expands, cools, and gravitates to form the Universe we see today.

So what happened over the past few decades, that all of the major challenges to the Big Bang have fallen away? Two major events: the collection of large suites of high-quality data, which validated the Big Bang’s major predictions to incredibly high precision, and the fact that the main advocates of the alternatives — once they no longer became defensible on their own merits — got old and died.

If any scientifically viable alternatives to the Big Bang ever arise, almost every modern cosmologist would thoroughly welcome it, and then immediately put it to the test. The problem is that every such alternative is already ruled out by the evidence in hand. Until an idea arises that meets those necessary criteria, the Big Bang will stand alone as the only idea compatible with the full suite of data we now possess. (MORE - details)

Please know that there is a recent (2018) book that clearly and completely offers a NEW theory on this topic.
Please see: "The Origin of the Universe and the Creation of Gravity",   which you can find on Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Lightning-Theory-...oks&sr=1-2
[If the link does not work, you can simply copy & paste it.]

[Syne]

^^Only spamming his own book.

[Taormina]

If my book answers the question in a clear & scientific way... That should not be called "only spamming"!
Yes, it happens to be my book, BUT IT ANSWERS THE QUESTION!
If you are an honest person, you would read the book first, before you criticize it.

[Syne]

You're book doesn't answer shit. You've already proven yourself a complete crackpot with no comprehension of physics, as demonstrated here: https://www.scivillage.com/thread-8081-p...l#pid36893

Don't spam your bullshit.

[Magical Realist]

Until an idea arises that meets those necessary criteria, the Big Bang will stand alone as the only idea compatible with the full suite of data we now possess.

“We are asked by science to believe that the entire universe sprang from nothingness, and at a single point and for no discernible reason. This notion is the limit case for credulity. In other words, if you can believe this, you can believe anything.”
― Terence McKenna

[Syne]

Aside from all observations only pointing to the same origin, people are only incredulous of nothingness because they've not managed to seriously consider it. It is a slippery subject that most people have trouble conceptualizing without existing context.

[stryder]

If my book answers the question in a clear & scientific way... That should not be called "only spamming"!
Yes, it happens to be my book, BUT IT ANSWERS THE QUESTION!
If you are an honest person, you would read the book first, before you criticize it.

To be honest, a written work by a single author aimed at a subject to "revolutionize" it's meaning is always going to be met with resistance. The main reason is because as a single author, it's very easy to become single-minded in your meaning with no one to attempting to draw balance through additional perspectives.

It's one of the main reasons why the most notible papers and theories in general tend to have more than one author. This allows multiple people to not just attempt to work on a proposal for a solution but also to ask the very questions that might upset the understanding of what the initiators theories are based upon (It's possible the discourse between potential co-authors will disparage some papers/books from ever being written).

Without at least a co-author "peer review", I don't think it will be taken particularly seriously. (If you had co-wrote many known books/papers beforehand, you would likely have an audience that will support you as a single author, but not until then.)

It's a little bit odd a Psychologist would actually attempt to push pulp on a subject that isn't from their profession. I guess it's a bit like Hitler having been a Landscapist. (Okay that non-sequitur might be too much.... :/)

[Magical Realist]

Aside from all observations only pointing to the same origin, people are only incredulous of nothingness because they've not managed to seriously consider it. It is a slippery subject that most people have trouble conceptualizing without existing context.

I would be interested to know what science thinks of this "nothingness". Is it an infinitely creative substrate underlying even spacetime? What is its phenomenal nature? Where else does it manifest itself besides as the primordial empty womb for all universes?

"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth; The Named is the mother of all things."---Lao Tzu

[Syne]

Aside from all observations only pointing to the same origin, people are only incredulous of nothingness because they've not managed to seriously consider it. It is a slippery subject that most people have trouble conceptualizing without existing context.

I would be interested to know what science thinks of this "nothingness". Is it an infinitely creative substrate underlying even spacetime? What is its phenomenal nature? Where else does it manifest itself besides as the primordial empty womb for all universes?

Who said anything about what science thinks? Science, by its very nature and methodology, cannot apprehend things without substance, which is why things like human thought and consciousness elude it. But it manifests every time you observed an emptiness, a scarcity, or absence.