i suspect that you're being downvoted because people are so eager to "defend" science against religious crackpottery that they forget how big the problems are f

i suspect that you're being downvoted because people are so eager to "defend" science against religious crackpottery that they forget how big the problems are facing astrophysics. hn readers these days are a bit gung-ho in that respect, while not being that bright, frankly. we really do have serious problems in cosmology and it really does look like some new surprising physics is needed to make sense of it all. we can't explain most of the mass of the universe. we can't even see most of it. this is all standard, accepted wisdom in astronomy (i may not be phrasing it very well, but any/all/most astronomers admit that things are really messed up at the moment - and this is from direct knowledge, as i have a phd in astronomy, although i know longer work in it, and my partner is an astronomy prof doing active research). so much that i would be more inclined to downvote you because what you're saying is not new and interesting, but what everyone already thinks...! having said that, the general idea of a "big bang" at a very broad level - something dynamic and changing, as opposed to the old "steady state" - seems reasonably secure. although it could easily become cyclical or chaotic or...