# Big explosion By [24685438673456.eth](https://paragraph.com/@24685438673456) ยท 2024-03-10 --- As for the Big Bang theory, it has never been stationary. It has evolved to the level of "common wisdom", "generally accepted opinion", "the only rational explanation" and "essentially established fact". Anyone who challenges the big bang theory is called a charlatan or dismissed as crazy. Every year there are 3-3 reports that try to offer an alternative point of view, but they are quickly shouted down and condemned. The reports of many scientists are not accepted for publication in scientific journals. And not because they are bad or untalented. And because there is a complete lack of scientific discussion in cosmology. And the dictatorship of "commonly known facts" reigns. How to understand the origin of the universe without the Big BangThis is where authoritarianism manifests itself: there is only one truth, but it should be born in a discussion, and not established by a handful of people who consider themselves a modern inquisition. Again, this does not imply that the Big Bang is false. This means a lack of strategic vision - astronomy, like cosmology, is not limited by illusions of expansion. And now we will go through several forks. First, Edwin Hubble saw an expanding universe. Therefore, we assume that it must have been smaller in the past. What if Hubble was wrong? Second, we can look into space (back in time) about 13.7 billion light years. That is, at "the time" when the Big Bang happened. We performed many mathematical calculations and looked for correspondences in our observations - such as the HAC, the mixture of elements (nucleogenesis), the ratio of helium to hydrogen. We even found the primordial polarization in the B-mode. All this supposedly confirms the evidence of the big boom theory. But we also found phenomena that do not fit the BB theory. For example, there is an imbalance of matter and antimatter; lithium is much less than "should be". The horizon problem, the flatness problem, and the monopoly problem do not lend themselves to operationalization at all. And there is also the question of the time of VV. If we see the universe expanding and theoretically assume that it must have been smaller in the past, wouldn't we need to know how big it is now to predict how long it took for it to expand to its current size? Even at the speed of C we cannot see beyond 13.7 light years, but for various reasons the diameter of the universe available to us is about 93 billion light years. In addition, the diameter of the entire universe beyond technological reach can be 3 x 10 (to the 23rd power) times greater than 93 billion light years. --- *Originally published on [24685438673456.eth](https://paragraph.com/@24685438673456/big-explosion)*