From #1, "Here is a tweaked and more colorful version of the prior arguments favoring Big Bang Theory. [Comments welcome, of course."

Helio has provided an excellent summary of BBT, and I find this wholly consistent. However, this is based on the scenario inherited from t = 0.

At the moment, this seems to be in a state of flux. The rather (imho) counter intuitive idea of a singularity of "infinite" de da de da de da's - arising from (imho) a very dubious retro extrapolation, is rightly under severe scrutiny.

The scenario inherited from t = 0, is, therefore, open for consideration. This is, of course, a matter of metaphysics, rather than

*science,* which cannot co-exist with the mathematical myth of a real world based on division by zero - with all the consequences of

__extremely__ high temperatures which necessitate 10^-30 and shorter time intervals.

Take away the myth of a singularity, and one is suddenly left with the possible (metaphysical, imaginary) option of a non-infinite, non extreme (t = 0) scenario, such as a nexus from another phase, resulting in the BBT so aptly summarised by Helio.

This, of course, opens the door to further difficulties which beg for a solution. However, the field is open to consideration infinitely

more pro intuitive than a BB

*coming out of "nothing" and depending on "everything" extreme*.

Thanks to Helio, you have an excellent summary development beyond t = 0, but its

*inheritance* is open to (albeit metaphysical) debate. A

*supposed *minute passage of

*time* is unaccounted for. Maybe, without the encumbrances of a singularity, there is an opportunity to consider (metaphysically) a less

*unlikely*
predecessor.

Embrace the chance to enjoy the metaphysical change which could have preceded the start of this phase of the Universe.

Cat