Anyway, any such disputes can be resolved when we have better instruments (for instance: on the backside of the moon: no disturbance from earth's oceans!.
Indeed.. When we get away from the oceans, we see no cosmic background!
We only see small point sources of radiation, that are clearly not a big-bang thing.
2) Redshift is related to expansion of space (cosmological redshift), which fit the models of solutions to Einstein's equations.
Like I said already.. these equations are invalidated by observations!
3) During any solar-eclipse we can see stars that are close to the sun, and we KNOW their normal position very precisely, and can MEASURE the discrepancy in their position due to the GR effect of bending of light by the sun. The results EXACTLY match GR!
No they do not. The bending should be linear with the distance from the sun. And it is not. The bending is only present within the corona and plasma of the sun.
Sadly that means that the bending is ONLY due to the wellknown bending of light within a plasma or gas.
The biggest problem of the BB is that people started to ignore observations, and try to bend the
observed reality to their own expectations.
That is because, like you, not many scientists are able to think from a zero-hypothesis anymore.
They have forgotten to be skeptic in the original sense: assume nothing!
I think that most scientists are trying too hard to get work or a career in science, try to learn all
these complicated formulas. That they can't think clearly anymore.
This is a common problem within a lot of branches of science:
if too many people are thinking the same theory, it starts a life on its own.
And upon it new theories are build, and upon those new ones again..
Because the system is governed by status and money, the system can't correct itself anymore.
And scientists try to excel by affirming the theory, instead of criticizing it.
If the basis fails, the whole branch of researches build from it fail too. So they try to keep each
branch alive as long as possible. To keep a dead branch alive, many new theories and assumptions are created.
Science has special committees and peering systems that should deal with this problems. But instead they are
used to push away criticism. These committees can be powerful and deal with a lot of money. So the people inside the committees, that have build their careers and income from established theories, now also have power. Which they of course will use to defend their status, income and powerful position.
And many scientists trained in a certain scientific branch and theoretical system, are often incapable of understanding new theories, or are incapable of looking the whole theoretical system from different perspective.
And for some it is simply too much effort, because the old one still seems to work most/some of the time, and
because so many other "science" depends on it.
4) The BB theory does not state that.
The big bang needs a beginning. According to most variations that means: In the beginning there was a lot of energy. And from this energy quasars came.
But quasars are also young. That means that in the beginning was not a lot of energy, and that means that these variations of the big bang are false.
5) That has also nothing to do with the Big Bang!
The big bang is a complete theory that involves the creation of matter in the universe.
According to all big bang variations, all structures are constructed by gravity alone in combination with expansion.
All matter is spread evenly.
This means that to form stars and galaxies, the gas must accumulate first. And that means that the center of
accumulation should be form stars first, before the lesser compressed areas.
But this is actually reversed, so that means that the big bang fails to construct the matter in the universe.
That means that the theory of the big bang is not valid.
6) Which contradictions exactly?
There are a bit too many to summarize here, and I agree that each of them could form an interesting discussion.
But the simplest version is: there is no big bang. And that solves all problems instantly
Some contradictions are:
1) Einsteins formulas define several singularities,
2) The big bang starts with a singularity
3) New "laws" and math is invented, just to make it work,
while it does not relate with current physical observations.
4) The big bang formulas are a simple extrapolation of some other formulas, and this fails completely. Therefore they add all kinds of theories and features.
5) If a theory is correct it becomes simpler. Quantum physics is actually very simple. If a theory is incorrect it becomes more and more complex, because we need all kinds of additions and tricks to it to make it fit to the observations or assumptions that we make.
Some of the many things that were added to BB are:
1) Dark matter
2) Dark energy
3) There is nothing before the big bang.
4) Changing physical constants and variables "during" the big bang.
Each of these means that the BB is not completely correct!
QM works in a different way. We nowadays learn that even whole groups of atoms can be in a superposition.
And we learn to make Quantum computers!
From the BB we learn NOTHING!
7) What objects in the universe are older then 13.7 billion years?
That is simple: All objects.
It does not mean that the universe was there forever.
I currently believe that the universe came from quantum fluctuations or gluon fluctuations in space.
From there slowly(!) new matter appeared and formed structures.
But let me look at things that I think are old:
Just look at any galaxy:
The structure of almost each galaxy is so that it rotates very slowly around the center.
For these structures to form as they are, it seems clear from theory and simulations, that these
structures have rotated around the galaxies a long time. For these structures to have formed I would
assume that they rotate maybe a million times. But even a million times is small related to the number of
rotations we have had with earth.
How long does it take for a full rotation around the galaxy?
And don't forget: the stars on the outside are older, and some galaxy structures are very big and complicated.
Then when we look at galaxies that are far, far away we see that they seem almost similar to galaxies
that are near. So these structures that have existed so many billion light-years away are likely as old
as the ones around us.
And this is all from observations, simulations and existing physical laws!!!
I leave it to you to imagine how old these galaxies might actually be.
But if you want information from experts in the fields, I suggest you look at the websites above.
Some tell a lot of other interesting stuff.