'm beginning to think that no matter what knowledge is brought to your attention, you're going to stick with your views out of pure arrogance. This imaginary "the universe is neutral" principle you keep inviting has been discussed on several occasions in this thread alone. If "neutral" plasma is heated any amount, the electrons will move faster than protons, separating charge and creating electric fields. Period. Your statement has zero value in the real world.
A personal summary why Big Bang is invalid and can/should not be used for any explanations:
1) Cosmic Background Radiation comes from water and many other point-sources
2) Redshift does not mean inflation, but is related to sparse hot plasma
(observations by Halton Arp and such show that high redshift does not mean far away).
3) General relativity is wrong. So the theoretical basis for the big bang is invalid
(observations: No bending of light, no change in frequency)
--These 3 points already mean: all pillars of big bang are invalid.
4) There are near and young quasars, that means that quasars were not the born by the big bang
5) Stars near the center of galaxies are younger than the ones on the edge. That means the order in which these stars are created is not in the order that one might expect from the big bang.
6) The big-bang theory is full with theoretical and practical contradictions.
7) Things in the universe are far too old.
8) The big bang is related to the religious idea that "something" created the universe from nothing.
Most scientists were religious when the big bang was invented, so this matched their believes.
9) Many modern scientists hang on to the idea that we know all the "laws" of nature.
10) That we can use reductionism to understand something that is bigger than what we know and out of range of our observations.
And many other problems..
There is also nice websites with many different points:
And don't forget:
And all sites listed on the right on:
We really should have a big bang forum where we can do big bang bashing.