All:

I was simply going to point out where this post was incorrect about Big Bang, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy, since they don't have the dependence claimed (though I consider it to not be all that great how the Big Bang theory is perhaps too flexible, being able to go from having no Dark Matter to incorporating it, almost without loosing a beet; then the same with Dark Energy, though this is primarily through the inclusion of Einstein's cosmological constant that had already been available). However, I then went to the web site to read the full "Open Letter to the Scientific Community".

Now I have to say that this is looking to be an example of a few people with competing ideas that appear to have succumb to the "Galileo Complex", and have persuaded others to "support their cause" by signing a letter of "dissent".

Hey, if you don't agree with the "Big Bang theory", that's fine. If you think you have a better theory/explanation, that's great. Just follow the proper course of scientific debate/discussion/etc. The guidelines in this (the "Galileo Complex") article should help.

Will new ideas have a steep uphill battle? Yes, almost always. Will new ideas receive severe critical scrutiny? Yes, most certainly. It has always been so. Does it take time to "fight" and "win" such a "revolution"? Certainly, it has usually been this way (except in those rare cases where the community already sees that there is a problem, and see the new idea as the "white knight" saving the day).

As I advised someone on another thread (paraphrased somewhat, but mostly quoted with some commentary):

First you must show that your theory matches all previous experiments and observations.

These people claim that their pet theories (plasma cosmology and the steady-state model) already pass this test. (Unfortunately, while I've heard of these, or some such, peripherally, I don't have enough knowledge of them to judge this for myself.)

Next you graduate to showing how the new theory predicts testable phenomena that differ from the former theory/theories. (You may even show how the new theory matches former observations/experiments without having to add additional assumptions, such as Dark Matter/Energy or some such.)

These people claim to have done this as well. (Again, I cannot speak one way or the other as to whether they meet this.)

After the above, one should expect that your ideas will receive quite a "beating", being "bashed" from all possible sides against competing ideas. This is not intended to be any form of personal attach (unless you make it so, either by the way you take it and respond, or the tone you take when making your challenges—so be careful, and control your emotions). What it is intended to do is make sure that only the strongest ideas survive, and, even then, as many of the "rough" spots are smoothed out as possible. (Think of it as a testing and polishing process.)

So, admittedly, this is not for the faint of heart. This is only for those that truly believe (as objectively as they can possibly muster) that they have a better idea.

This [along with the points of the "Galileo Complex" post, that dovetail perfectly] is the way science progresses, this is how scientific revolutions are "fought" and "won".

David

P.S. I'm not sure I like the changes in the way block quotes are handled, but se l'vie.