The big bang is based on the fact that the entire universe is expanding and accelerating too. We do not have a good theory to account for that fact. Einstein had added a constant to his equations to create a steady state universe. When it was discovered that the universe was expanding he called the constant his greatest blunder.
Simply by reversing the time, scientist came to the inescapable conclusion that the universe was much smaller in the past, hence the big bang. By the way, Hawkings is speculating that there may have been a series of big bangs. It is interesting that on this point Religion and Science seemed to agree. If science disproves the Big Bang how does Religion falsify it?
I now know that there is a lot of observational evidence that clearly calls into question the Big Bang. If you're not aware of Halton Arp's work, that would be a good place to start.
There is a lot going on that Scientists don't have a clue about, dark energy, dark matter, etc. When good scientific evidence is presented it is generally amazing how fast the scientific community embraces the new evidence (global warming and junk science excepted). If the Hubble would have provided clear support for Halton Arps work I am sure that astronomists would have supported it. It didn't.
The money spent to develop nuclear fusion power reactors is a great example of waste. They have literally nothing to show for the years of research. The scientists on the outside have a good idea as to why the fusion scientists are unsuccessful and the data being gathered by our solar satellites back their claims. If more people really knew what was going on there would be some heads rolling. It's all about turf.
Now you are getting into politics and science. Global warming is actually a better example than fusion and I couldn't agree with you more : )
That expansion and acceleration are based solely on the idea that redshift always represents recessional velocity. Halton Arp's observations call that premise into question. Our entire view of the universe depends on the observed redshift being tied to the Doppler effect. All of the distances, energy levels, and accelerations are based on this notion. It is a huge deal to have the very lynch pin of our cosmological understanding come into question. Here are a few interesting links on the subject.
Einstein had added a constant to his equations to create a steady state universe. When it was discovered that the universe was expanding he called the constant his greatest blunder.
Is it really expanding? It may be expanding but not in the way the Big Bang theory describes. The implications of Arps observations is that quasars are ejected from galaxies and as they age their redshift decreases in quantized steps. At each discrete step the quasars mass increases as it's redshift decreases until they eventually become galaxies capable of ejecting new quasars. I know this sounds radical and they are not my ideas but I find this very interesting. The observed phenomenon that the redshift of quasars and galaxies change in discreet quantized steps coupled with the statistical placement of quasars next to active galaxies and that the quasars seem to be aligned along either side of the spin axis of the galaxy led to these ideas. Please remember that these ideas are attempts to explain observation. The main stream cosmologists are mostly mathematicians and seem to show little interest in observations, especially observations that bring into question their elegant formulations.
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
It is interesting that on this point Religion and Science seemed to agree. If science disproves the Big Bang how does Religion falsify it?
I'm not sure that I agree with the idea that Religion and Science are in agreement on this. At least two Popes have made statements in support for the Big Bang because the theory supports the idea of creation Ex-Nihilo. Mormons do not support that idea but rather believe that the Universe is eternal with no beginning or end. Perhaps that gives me a bias in favor of the Big Bang bashers. I do try to always keep an open mind. As I stated before, truth is truth regardless of where you find it.
When good scientific evidence is presented it is generally amazing how fast the scientific community embraces the new evidence (global warming and junk science excepted). If the Hubble would have provided clear support for Halton Arps work I am sure that astronomists would have supported it. It didn't.
Historically, the scientific community is very slow to accept revolutionary ideas. I would caution you to not be to quick to shuffle this into the junk science bin. I've been looking into it for over a year and have found no substantive refutation by the main streamers. Contrary to your assertion the Hubble found the same things Arp did. When NASA published a photo of one of Arps peculiar galaxy's they used a low resolution picture that didn't show the connection between the galaxy and the quasar. The dissidents got a hold of a high resolution copy of the same photo and published it which clearly showed the bridge. If you'd like a link to that story let me know and I'll dig it up.
I believe that the Big Bang is a house of cards that is being held up by the old guard scientists. These guys control where the research money goes and anyone doing research questioning the status quo is left out in the cold. History repeats itself. This same situation has occurred over and over again in the world of science. A revolution is afoot but it is difficult to say how long it will be before the world is rocked with the shocking news that the Big Bang was a bust.