This ATM section of BAUT has a number of threads, and many posts, presenting opinions, feelings, analyses, commentary, critiques, and more of one or more aspect of the class of cosmological theories called Big Bang theories.

There is also a (much smaller) number on alternatives to these BB theories.

The intention of this thread is to see what BAUT members consider to be the strongest (ATM) alternative(s) these theories, from a quite specific perspective - ability to match several sets of good observational results.

The observations that are within the scope of this thread are the following:

1) observations of the CMB, particularly those from WMAP, but also from the observations of the CMB such as summarised here.

2) observations underlying the Hubble relationship, especially wrt galaxies.

3) observations of the abundance of elements and nuclides.

4) observations that were used to determine the large scale structure of the universe, such as those referenced here.

5) observations that the night sky is dark - that the upper limits on diffuse background EM radiation, in all bands is {X} (the CMB excepted, of course).

I am stressing observations, not interpretations. For example, in an alternative cosmology, the CMB may not have a distant origin, or the observed redshifts for galaxies, in the Hubble relationship, may arise from quite different mechanisms.

Once again, this thread is NOT about how well, or how poorly, any BB theory does, or does not, match the five sets of observations. This thread is about which alternative cosmological theory fits these observations best.

While speculation is interesting (e.g. "I reckon that {Y} theory can account for all the data very well, but I've neither read any papers showing the match, nor done any work myself to check"), I am really interested only in demonstrable matches. So, if you think {Y} ATM cosmological theory can match the WMAP data well, then be prepared to either show that yourself, or point to a paper (or similar) which can.