On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 5:18:17 PM UTC-7, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:

In article , Gary
Harnagel writes:

Well, maybe no outright contradicting the BB, but it doesn't agree with the
experimental evidence without inflation:

The Big Bang means that the universe is expanding from a hotter, denser
state. Don't move the goalposts by redefining "big bang". Even so, one
can have both the big bang and inflation, which is what most
cosmologists believe.

"Inflation isn't falsifiable, it's falsified -- BICEP did a wonderful
service by bringing all the Inflationists out of their shell, and
giving them a black eye." - Roger Penrose

Despite his substantial contributions, Penrose is now an outsider.

So the inflationists voted on physics?

"Even from the beginning, inflation looked like a kluge to me-- I rapidly
formed the opinion that these guys were just making it up as they went
along" -- Neil Turok

Turok has his own axe to grind, with Steinhardt. Check it out. Do you
think that it is more believable?

Sure they have their own ax to grind. So did Lemaitre. So does Hawking.
Is there anything to the claim made at the end of "Theory of Everything"
that Hawking is now trying to refute that time had a beginning?

And a "singularity" is certainly unphysical. It means the physics
has broken down. It would seem that alternatives might exist:

No-one believes that singularities actually exist.

Of course not, but they still exist in the mathematics used to describe the
BB and are still discussed glibly.

https://www.edge.org/conversation/pa...aul-steinhardt

http://clearlyexplained.com/answers/membranetheory.html

Where are the testable, falsifiable predictions which differ from other
theories?

It will come. And it's funny that mathematics with singularities is used
to validate predictions, no?