In article , Gary
Harnagel writes:

The "arguments" from the "other side" are taken as FACT:

https://www.space.com/52-the-expandi...-bang-to-toda=
y.html

space.com is hardly the best place to see what scientists really
believe.

"The universe was born with the Big Bang as an unimaginably hot, dense po=
int.
When the universe was just 10-34 of a second or so old -- that is, a hund=
redth
of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second in age -- it
experienced an incredible burst of expansion known as inflation, in which
space itself expanded faster than the speed of light."

Yes, this is the standard idea.

The only argument I see FOR inflation is the uniformity of the CMBR.

The fact that the CMB power spectrum looks like what one would predict
from amplified quantum fluctuations is another good argument. ANY good
theory has to explain the uniformity of the CMB.

Steinhardt has another take on it.

That's fine. The way forward is to propose experiments which will
distinguish between hypotheses.

As for Lemaitre, he had a hypothesis
which went beyond what was known at the time; it was not a rival to
another hypothesis attempting to explain the same thing.

So he was a smart guy and found a way to propose a theory consistent with
both GR and his religion.

Yes, Lema=EEtre was a priest, but the idea that he favoured the big bang
since it is consistent with his theology goes against all we know about
him.

Sure, but not so dense that collapse is inevitable. And it doesn't matte=
r
that quantum effects "may" prevent a singularity. It's unlikely that the=
y
can be responsible for an expansion.

Who said that they are?

It seems to me that expansion is
possible only if the initial size/mass is great enough (i.e., greater tha=
n
the Schwarzschild radius.

The Schwarzschild radius is not applicable here; it is applicable in
static asymptotically flat space-times.

Note that a mass with density only that of water and with a radius out to
the asteroid belt would form a black hole from which nothing could escape=
..

There are various estimates for the mass of the universe:

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/...cPherson.shtml

varying from 1e50 to 1e60 kg (I'm ignoring the entry that proposes infini=
ty).
For the mass range indicated, the Schw. radius varies from 16000 to 160
trillion light-years, it being 1.6 billion light-years for M = 1e55 kg.

Don't be confused by dimensional analysis; the universe is not a black
hole, even if it is dense enough.

So what do you think obviates infinite density?

The answer will be given by a theory of quantum gravity. Do you have
one?

There is no new physics at the poles. You just need a different math.
In the case of cosmology, are you hoping for a new mathematics or a new
physics? Steinhardt's theory proposes a new physics, but he needs a new
mathematics to make predictions to validate his theory.

He needs falsifiable predictions to which can differentiate his theory
from others.