You know, a non-trivial amount of the distrust in science comes from science publications that find some fringe theory, even respectable fringe theories like this one, and then publish articles about how they're 100% right and imbued with the full confidence of science.<p>It's an interesting article, but the tone is terribly wrong.
Is it possible that there are no singularities, even in black holes? Could there be another type of degeneracy pressure (after electrons and neutrons) that permits matter to compress enough to form an event horizon, but not a true singularity/ringularity? I know this is a poorly-understood area of physics but I'm curious if this particular possibility has been ruled out, and if it would have any relevance to BBT and cosmic inflation if it were found to be true.
Tsk, tsk. Not a single mention of Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology</a>
Does anyone have any books they'd recommend on the topic of the Big Bang?<p>The Big Bang theory has always seemed dissatisfying to me, like there's some prima facie aspects of it that defy logic, or are "just so" in quality. It's always seemed to me to be the sort of thing that will eventually be superceded by some more complete explanation; that is, the Big Bang is correct but is part of a bigger story.
This article does a remarkably poor job of explaining what cosmic inflation <i>is</i>. I gave up halfway through when I realized it was never going to explain to me how "inflation" is different from "expansion."
Inflation theory has been around since the 70s.<p><<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)</a>>