It doen't matter why there was no hydrogen. As long as there was no hydrogen to fuse you can't conclude that the Big Bang was "based on" hydrogen fusion.
It doesn't matter. As long as there was no hydrogen, you're wrong about the Big Bamg being "based on" hydrogen.
THE BING BANG THEORY 1. All the energy of the universe was concentrated in a point smaller than the head of a pin. Time is stopped. 2. Part of the energy condenses and becomes mass. Particles arise. 3. Quarts, electrons and neutrinos arise. 4. Quarts are grouped forming nuclei. 5. The first atoms are formed. 6. Light appears. 7. Gravity appears. 8. The first stars appear. 9. Heavy elements arise.
This "Bing Bang" theory of yours is quite different than the "Big Bang Theory. I, personally, would have named your theory the Bing, Bang, Boom Theory. It sounds 'catchier'.
You mean like one light ray is moving at 180 degrees relative to the other light ray? Sure you can say that.