I am going to throw this out as a new thread, even though it is relevant to many of the ongoing threads, because it would be buried in the ongoing discussions and I think it deserves its own discussion: https://www.sciencealert.com/big-bang-may-not-be-the-beginning-of-everything-new-theory-suggests
I have always felt that this line of reasoning seems to warrant more consideration than I have seen it being given. It has always bothered me that the BBT postulates a "universe" so dense that it would collapse into itself if not for the "magic assumption" of "inflation" to somehow violate the well-proven rules of General Relativity Theory. And the BBT's proponent finding the need for even more "dark energy" and "early dark energy" violations of GRT are just more red flags for a theory that insists on extrapolating the interpretations of observed red shift backwards in time to a point (which they then cannot explain anyway), for lack of any better idea.
Well, here is a coherent description of another (better?) idea. One that is claimed to be consistent with GRT, and does not require "magic" forces or "creation of something from nothing". Yes, it does require an infinite time for the universe into the past, so those who insist that there must be a "beginning" will not be happy. But, those who are willing to accept the concept of infinite time will be pleased that the problem of how matter was created without an equal amount of antimatter, will be pleased - it wasn't "created from nothing" - regular matter has always existed. But, that does raise the issue of what "antimatter" really is, since we know something that can annihilate regular matter does exist.
This theory shakes the whole of cosmology and some quantum mechanics assumptions as well, so I expect it to be attacked vigorously.
Please focus the attacks on what is wrong with this theory, rather than just arguing that the BBT is "better".
I have always felt that this line of reasoning seems to warrant more consideration than I have seen it being given. It has always bothered me that the BBT postulates a "universe" so dense that it would collapse into itself if not for the "magic assumption" of "inflation" to somehow violate the well-proven rules of General Relativity Theory. And the BBT's proponent finding the need for even more "dark energy" and "early dark energy" violations of GRT are just more red flags for a theory that insists on extrapolating the interpretations of observed red shift backwards in time to a point (which they then cannot explain anyway), for lack of any better idea.
Well, here is a coherent description of another (better?) idea. One that is claimed to be consistent with GRT, and does not require "magic" forces or "creation of something from nothing". Yes, it does require an infinite time for the universe into the past, so those who insist that there must be a "beginning" will not be happy. But, those who are willing to accept the concept of infinite time will be pleased that the problem of how matter was created without an equal amount of antimatter, will be pleased - it wasn't "created from nothing" - regular matter has always existed. But, that does raise the issue of what "antimatter" really is, since we know something that can annihilate regular matter does exist.
This theory shakes the whole of cosmology and some quantum mechanics assumptions as well, so I expect it to be attacked vigorously.
Please focus the attacks on what is wrong with this theory, rather than just arguing that the BBT is "better".