In answering JS Princeton.

Well let me explain again, I do think that BB theory stands on its feets quite solid yes. And I don't think I can manage to tackle this enormous theory, in fact no individual can. If the BB theory is replaced or adjusted (well it keeps getting adjusted, but I mean a majpor change) then this will most probably be the work of a large amount of scientists, working in different fields, and not just an individual.

I think from our discussion we have minor problems in understanding, because of the use of different terminology. I for example use matter in a more general way (not just mass having objects, but also energy, fields, whatever can be grasped as being material), and also motion. Take for instance the nucleus of an atom, where protons and neutrons reside. Well nothing at rest here, the proton and neutron interchange particles (so called gluons, if I am correct), and which causes the proton to become a neutron, and vice versa. I would call this phenomena also motion. In fact, matter (anything material) is never at rest.
What I was trying to say that, when we go back to the point at which, as is said, time began, this is something of a mystery because of the singularity, although in some theoretical explenations, it seems to have been dealt with satisfactory.

Some other thing is: what do we call "existence"? In my mind, the only existence is matter which is in motion always, and therefore requires space and time. Has void space existence of it's own? I don't think so. I think the GR theory of Einstein just shows us how connected matter is with spacetime. Matter has no meaning without spacetime, and spacetime has no meaning without matter.
You might think of a void space of having existence of its own, but your reasoning is ultimately derived from an existing (material) world, which contains (almost empty) voids. But could you think of an existing world, which would be just totally empty space? Please go ahead and try to think of it.

What I was merely trying to say is that existence has no alternative. There is no "negative" existence or "non" existence.
You cannot think of a mere "nothingness" as being in existence.

Here's a link dealing with that issue:
http://www.everythingforever.com/ywexist.htm

About the alternative redshift-distance explenation, I found this page dealing with such effects:

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBA...ng.html#Author

I don't know if this holds true, and in fact I can imagine that this argument has been succesfully been dealt with in the BB theory, but - apart from the fact that in explenations of the BB theory, it is said that such effects (like the 'tired light' theory) have been succesfully excluded - I did not see a good explenation of why such an effect can be excluded. If you have such material, that deals with this issue, I would be happy if you can show me.

The other issues I like to respond in another post.