Why is the existence of The Big Bang "agreed" upon? From all my research and studies mathmatical evidence shows the existence of Black holes. From some of the most fundamental physics we have our Conservation of Energy and Black holes are at the moment considered points where it is possible that energy could be destroyed, breaking this rule. Well besides Hawking Radiation. Black holes are also points that are considered to cause a loss of information also breaking the Conservation of Information. To further illustrate the point Black holes also rip apart matter breaking the Conservation of Matter. White holes are considered to be anti-black holes spitting matter, energy and information out across another universe. This spitting of matter and energy could be used to describe the "balloon" expasion of the early universe and why the farther from the white hole's mouth we get the slower our expansion has gotten. White holes can explain the background radiation just as good as the Big Bang can. If this idea is considered it also corrects the idea that black holes only destroy which makes since with all of our Conservation theories. Which is something that black holes without white holes does not do. Black holes without white holes and the Big Bang do not seem in my opinion the accuratly describe our univese as clearly as do White Holes. And with there being so many Black Holes thought to exist in the center of so many galaxies, each of these being supermassive, also gives us our first glimpses of the path to other universes. This also could aid in the "lost dimensions" since they possibly stayed in the universe we can from and only our 4 made it. Now a big bang has no has any reason to exist and doesn't in our mathematics, but Black holes do. So with all of this why do we even consider the existence of a Big Bang? Shouldn't it be the Big Push? What are the pros and cons of this idea?