Please critique my hypothesis: an altenative to the Big Bang.

SDR wrote:
The erroneous idea that matter is fundamental (current
before Einstein's time) forced Einstein and his generation
of theoreticians/astronomers to make fundamental mistakes
about how the universe worked (most famously of which
are Einstein's lambda and, after Hubble's discovery that
the galaxies are receding from each other "faster the more
distant they are," that their recession was the result of a
primordial explosion, or "big bang")... because there was
simply no way for an imploding universe to make sense in
the context of matter being thought fundamental... except
to imagine that it would produce a "pile up" of "materials"
at the "cosmic center" not much different from a pile of
junked cars. After Hubble the "only thing" that remained
to be solved was wherefore the big bang (something which
necessarily remains to be resolved to this day for the simple
reason that since there never was a big bang... there can
never be any wherefore for it).

For approaches that build matter from pure geometry and provides explanation
of where the big bang may have come from have a look at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9805018.

Thanks
Bill