Although the big bang is the dominant theory of our day (and since about 1975), support for the big bang theory is not unanimous. Here we will aggregate articles, most-recent first, by people who raise questions about the theory.

August 2016: “How did the universe begin? And, what does it mean? Could a Quiet Expansion impact the Big Bang?” by Bruce Camber

January 2016 “Are Cosmologists Fooling Themselves About The Big Bang, Dark Matter And More?” by Ethan Siegel, Brian Koberlein, Forbes Magazine, Jan 20, 2016

Feb 10, 2015  Is “Big Bang” a Big Bust? New physics theory says Yes! Lisa Zyga writing about the work of Ahmed Farag Ali and  Saurya Das.

January, 2015 “New origin of universe model pours water on Big Bang theory” Ahmed Farag Ali, a physicist at Zewail City of Science and Technology (Egypt) and Saurya Das (University of Lethbridge, Alberta Canada) reported by Zeeya Merali  arXiv:1404.3093 (2014).

May 2015:  The Big Bang’s Identity Crisis, PBS-TV, Paul Halpern (homepage)

June 2004:   Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists, Open letter reported by was signed by:

• Halton Arp, (died, 2013) Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)
• Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)
• Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University
  (Russia)
• Ari Brynjolfsson, (died: 2013) Applied Radiation Industries (USA)
• Hermann Bondi, (died, 2005) Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK)
• Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)
• Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)
• Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)
• Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)
• Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA)
• Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, Texas
  Earthtech.org   http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0302273
  PDF: http://supernova.lbl.gov/
• Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)
• Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)
• Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)
• Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)
• Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada)
• Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio, Astronomico di Padova (Italy)
• Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)
• Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)
• Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France)
• Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)
• Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)
• R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)
• Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)
• Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)
• Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)
• Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)
• David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)
• Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)
• Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA)
• Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)
• Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)
• John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
  Technology, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Systems Division, Pasadena, CA 91109-8099
• James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)

Additional signers:

• Emre Isik Akdeniz University Turkey
• Felipe de Oliveira Alves, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil
• Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud, Service d’Astrophysique, CEA, France
• Martin John Baker, Loretto School Musselburgh, UK
• Peter J Carroll, Psychonaut Institute, UK
• Jonathan Chambers, University of Sheffield, UK
• Michel A. Duguay, Laval University, Canada
• Tom van Flandern, Meta Research, USA
• Kim George, Curtin University of Technology, Australia
• Roger Y. Gouin, Ecole Superieure d’Electricite, France
• R.S.Griffiths, CADAS, UK
• D. W. Harris, L-3 Communications, USA
• Louis Hissink, Consulting Geologist, Australia
• Sylvan J. Hotch, The MITRE Corporation (Retired), USA
• Lassi Hyvärinen, IBM(Ret), France
• Joseph.B. Krieger, Brooklyn College, CUNY, USA
• Adolf Muenker, Brane Industries, USA
• John Murray, Sunyata Composite Ltd, UK
• Qi Pan, Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, UK
• Gerald Pease, The Aerospace Corporation, USA
• Peter F. Richiuso, NASA, KSC, USA
• Fred Rost, University of NSW (Emeritus), Australia
• Roger A. Rydin, University of Virginia (Emeritus), USA
• Stefan Rydstrom, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
• Hetu Sheth, Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India
• Eugene Sittampalam, Engineering consultant, Sri Lanka
• Pablo Vasquez, New Jersey Institute of Technology, USA
• Doneley Watson, IBM (ret.), USA
• Max Whisson, University of Melbourne, Australia
• Fred Alan Wolf, Have Brains / Will Travel, USA
• Robert Wood, IEEE, Canada
• Robert Zubrin, Pioneer Astronautics, USAThomas R. Love, CSU Dominguez Hills, USA
  Andrew Coles, Embedded Systems, USA
  Eit Gaastra, infinite universe researcher, The Netherlands
  Franco Selleri, Università di Bari, Dipartimento di Fisica, ItalyS.N. Arteha, Space Research Institute, Russia
  Miroslaw Kozlowski, Warsaw University (emeritus), Poland
  John Hartnett, School of Physics, University of Western Australia, AustraliaTibor Gasparik, SUNY at Stony Brook, USA
  Alexandre Losev, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria
  Henry Hall, University of Manchester, UK
  José da Silva, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
  Markus Rohner, Griesser AG, Switzerland
  William C. Mitchell, Institute for Advanced Cosmological Studies, USA

Also, see John G. Hartnett

July 1995 “Big Bang Bust” Andrei Linde, Stanford, reported in Wired by Rudy Rucker

1991: Is the Big Bang a Bust?  Victor J. Stenger, Colorado

1991: The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe  Eric Lerner

References:
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6921
Representation of measurements that demonstrate the contextuality-nonlocality tradeoff.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htm

Since scientists first proposed the big bang theory, many people have questioned and criticized the model. Here’s a rundown on some of the most common criticisms of the big bang theory:

It violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can’t create or destroy matter or energy. Critics claim that the big bang theory suggests the universe began out of nothing. Proponents of the big bang theory say that such criticism is unwarranted for two reasons. The first is that the big bang doesn’t address the creation of the universe, but rather the evolution of it. The other reason is that since the laws of science break down as you approach the creation of the universe, there’s no reason to believe the first law of thermodynamics would apply.

Some critics say that the formation of stars and galaxies violates the law of entropy, which suggests systems of change become less organized over time. But if you view the early universe as completely homogeneous and isotropic, then the current universe shows signs of obeying the law of entropy.

Some astrophysicists and cosmologists argue that scientists have misinterpreted evidence like the redshift of celestial bodies and the cosmic microwave background radiation. Some cite the absence of exotic cosmic bodies that should have been the product of the big bang according to the theory.

The early inflationary period of the big bang appears to violate the rule that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Proponents have a few different responses to this criticism. One is that at the start of the big bang, the theory of relativity didn’t apply. As a result, there was no issue with traveling faster than the speed of light. Another related response is that space itself can expand faster than the speed of light, as space falls outside the domain of the theory of gravity.

There are several alternative models that attempt to explain the development of the universe, though none of them have as wide an acceptance as the big bang theory.

Alternative Cosmology Group, Open Letter on Cosmology, New Scientist, May 22, 2004

“The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed — inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

“But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

“Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.
What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

“Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

“Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that “science is the culture of doubt”, in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

“Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.

“Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

“Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method — the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

“Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang’s validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.”

Finite time:

How old is the universe?  “13.8± billion years, within .1%”
How many seconds would that be?  435.48 quintillion seconds. Each day adds another 86,400 seconds. Each year adds approximately 31.55 million seconds