A good tutorial for newbies. An edit is due. Relativity was not discovered; it was invented by a mathematician.

@yvilletom
Swing and a miss.

You have moved the goal post. I am not asking you and would not expect you capable of disproving the big bang (theory).

Again,

I am asking you to provide peer reviewed publication that supports the assertions you posted as fact; That the link you posted have met the rigors to be considered worthy of consideration. I found a few scientists who disagreed with his assertion including an argument addressed in The New York Times that disagreed with his findings. As a skeptic I fully realize I am not capable of sufficiently analyzing his assertion as I do not have a background in his field of study. Likewise, you should realize that his field of study is not cosmology. I place greater value on the overwhelming consensus of those those who study cosmology then a single brilliant man and a few folk who did not identify as scientists that agreed with the content of your post. I honestly looked for respectable sources that supported you post and could find nothing with sufficient merit to support your post.

Please provide evidence and cite your sources.

@NoMagicCookie

I will not endlessly debate you.
The BB lacks evidence, and consensus is not evidence.

@yvilletom I am not asking you to debate me. I am asking you to justify your assertion with credible supporting evidence or at a minimum supporting consensus published in a reviewed scientific journal.

To assert the Big Bang (theory) lacks evidence is demonstrably false.

Even if you completely disregard background radiation, (and based on what I read outside the confines of your post, your post's lack of support including a scientist that contradicts the findings of your creator's work does not discredit background radiation) there are other observations such as the observable expanding universe. [news.berkeley.edu]

Reading your arguments feel a lot like trying to trying to show a flat-earther they are not correct. For example (peer reviewed scientific) "consensus is not evidence" (my requested in context appended to your quote). is a common defense a flat earther will assert to hold on to a baseless belief.

You are correct consensus is not evidence but peer reviewed scientific consensus is based on evidence.

Why did you fail to recognize this process? It was clearly demonstrated in the Potholer54 video I linked.

All the words you have to date typed have added nothing to the validity of your claim. Try again.

The reliability of comments at stack exchange depends on appropriations in Congress.

@yvilletom Still waiting for a peer reviewed publication of his work. Again. Demonstrate his assertions have some merit by providing peer reviewed (vetted by those in the field of study that addresses his assertion that background radiation is not a product of the big bang.) The credible (well researched/fact-checked New York Times article finds his self-promoted assertion to be less then credible. Demonstrate your post has merit beyond a well written and produced nutter assertion.

@NoMagicCookie At intimidation, you fail.

@yvilletom Intimidation? It is sad you consider someone honestly asking you to support your assertions a form of intimidation. I can assure you if intimidation was my goal, I would have painted you in a significantly brighter light questioning you practices of determining the validity of assertions.

Quora is about as reliable as FB and Twitter.