"Frustrated by people telling them how to do their job, two astronomers set-out to answer the questions and criticism they are so frequently sent. The result is The Cosmic Revolutionary's Handbook (Or: How to Beat the Big Bang), which sets out exactly what any Big Bang theory-hater needs to explain before a new theory can even begin to take hold."
"The point of the book is that the Big Bang theory has a solid track record of explaining well-established facts about the Universe," said Barnes. "If you want to challenge the Big Bang theory, you'd better be able to explain the basics before you have a shot at explaining mysteries like dark matter."
They also stress that because astronomers measure the Universe, any new theory had better have some maths in it somewhere ... as well as a distinct lack of fonts, formatting inconsistencies, and rants on social media."
This is the same as when the Penrose did the maths and Hawking made the sales pitch over 50 years ago on an even older set of theories... scientists still don't like it no matter how many times it is independently verified.
And here's why...
"Starting in 1924, Hubble painstakingly developed a series of distance indicators, the forerunner of the cosmic distance ladder, using the 100-inch (2.5 m) Hooker telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory. This allowed him to estimate distances to galaxies whose redshifts had already been measured, mostly by Slipher. In 1929, Hubble discovered a correlation between distance and recessional velocity"now known as Hubble's law. By that time, Lematre had already shown that this was expected, given the cosmological principle.
In the 1920s and 1930s, almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady-state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady-state theory.
This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Lematre, was a Roman Catholic priest. Arthur Eddington agreed with Aristotle that the universe did not have a beginning in time, viz., that matter is eternal. A beginning in time was "repugnant" to him.
Lematre, however, disagreed:
"If the world has begun with a single quantum, the notions of space and time would altogether fail to have any meaning at the beginning; they would only begin to have a sensible meaning when the original quantum had been divided into a sufficient number of quanta. If this suggestion is correct, the beginning of the world happened a little before the beginning of space and time.""