AlphaNumeric. Where did I say the ONLY evidence for the BB is the redshift? Have I not posted about the CMB? Type 1A supernovae? etc. Your idea still remains that if someone does not agree with a "theory", it is because they do not know anything about it and not because they disagree with the explanation. A position of arrogance where another opinion must be wrong, and uninformed. Is it possible for you to make an original post, even one nanometer from what is accepted? No, of course not. It's never going to happen. What use is someone who does nothing but quote accepted science so that if others do not know, they can google it? Search engines have made you redundant on a science forum. Why is it that losers always go on about strawmen (the word is in many of your loser posts)? I said that final proof would be seeing expansion happen. You just bring up an irrelevancy. The goal posts are constantly moved with the BB. I haven't heard the one about branes bashing together for a long time. Does anyone still believe this trash or has it rightly been discarded? Again the use of the word "strawman". The word for today is "strawman". If you don't have a clue and can't answer a question, use the word "strawman" and people will think you are a genius. Not. Saying what everyone knows to be true about the bible is not an original thought. You did that work with 2 others. Which of them had the original idea? I used the figure that an expert used to try and explain how a "rebound" would work. I sent him an email explaining why he was wrong. As easy as 1+1. Now you are putting lies into my mouth. You said a sufficiently large (hundreds of galaxies mass) black hole would allow someone to get into it alive. I used the old idea that the whole universe could be inside a black hole as there is sufficient mass, I am told. Rpenner is a coward who shook with fear when I posted something as he had no ready answer so old Mr Yellow Streak abused his position as moderator and had me banned so he would not be shown up for being just another parroter of the wiki who could not answer anything which went a nanometer off accepted science. I could go back as pupamancur has so many times in the past but who wants to post on a forum where the moderator is a dull-witted tyrant and a coward? How can you compete when a coward abused his position and changed a post I had written, deleting most of it and adding his own gibberish? A universe sized black hole could be large enough that at 13.7 billion light years, we have not had time to see the EH. There would be ionised particles from infalling matter (from outside) which would create what we call the CMB at the edge of our vision. Again you use the word "strawmen". How embarrassing to have such a small vocabulary. I have explained what is wrong with the BB many, many times so why should I explain to you now when I only have to look at the wiki to see what your answers will be? DE and DM are related in that they are both nonsensical explanations and nothing is known about what makes up either or how they came to be. I have explained time and again what is wrong with the DM scenario. I have noted in the past that you seem to have a very poor memory, so that I have to explain things to you time after time.