the greatest story ever told!

Dissension in the Ranks - A CRITICAL THINKER Emerges

Inflation Theory was, by most accounts, developed by two gentlemen initially: Alan Guth of MIT and Andrei Linde, currently at Stanford. Sometimes a third contributor is mentioned, Alexei Starobinsky, but this is not consistently done. I will follow the dominant narrative. Linde and Guth were the original inventors of Inflationary Theory. It is interesting that Wikipedia* (Inflation (cosmology) par. 4) says inventors and not discoverers! Newton discovered the laws of gravity. He didn't invent them. The implication is clear, if perhaps, unintended: Inflationary Theory is made up, and not a genuine scientific discovery, on the order of discovering x-rays, or electrons, or the laws of motion. You can invent the descriptive details of a new field, in the way Isaac Newton "invented" the symbols of calculus. But you cannot invent fundamental realities; they can only be discovered. For instance, Euler's number 'e' is discovered, not invented, because it is fundamental! Nevertheless, this "invent[ion]" happened late in the 1970s according to Wikipedia, but was further developed in the early 1980s. Why was that? Why did it need further development beyond its invention? Inflationary Theory was invented to answer questions that "conventional Big Bang Theory" could not. But, as soon as it was invented, it created new problems, which it itself could not resolve. Thus, the theory that had been invented to be the solution to the problems that the last theory created, was itself, now creating new problems that would need further band-aid fixes to temporarily solve. Metaphysics it tiring. It is at this point, that the third, of the fathers of Inflationary Theory, comes into the picture - Paul Steinhardt. Hear him relate his contribution to its development. Then assess his reasons for why he no longer supports it!

"One of the rare exceptions who's been questioning that claim" is a very mild way of stating his current position on the subject. He outright rejects not only Inflation but the entire "Big Bang" part, of the Big Bang Theory. Hear is scientist and science communicator Brian Keating describing Steinhardt's change of mind concerning Inflation Theory and its natural consequence, the multiverse:

This vehement opposition is no small matter. It represents a huge risk to one's career, to the chances of future success within your field, and to the continued support of your colleagues. It is the unwillingness to take such risks on the Intellectual community that creates path dependence for whole sciences, which renders them corrupt and incapable of making genuine advancement. As Bjorn Ekeberg said,

Steinhardt, to his credit, is one of those "very few" scientists who are willing to critically re-examine the foundations of their field - in what I would assume, is his search for truth. In his own words: "I'm one of the rare exceptions who's been questioning that claim lately." I want to emphasize the reasoning behind Steinhardt's about turn on the invention of Inflation Theory, by again referring to the words of Professor of physics at the university of California San Diego, Brian Keating, a personal friend of Steinhardt's:

So Steinhardt came into the picture of Inflationary Theory as one of its three founding fathers, and even with his band-aid contribution - how the runaway effect of endless Inflation could be stopped - he realizes that both the Big Bang and its supposed rescuer Inflation Theory are wrong! Importantly, unlike many of his colleagues, he has the courage to say so! Thus Inflation Theory is not saved from its illogical consequences, which have no observational evidence to back them up, nor any experimental proofs to establish their truthfulness. Steinhardt's succinct explanation for why the Big Bang is wrong is presented in a lecture he prepared for the Simons Foundation. In it, Steinhardt goes through the empirically established reasons why the Big Bang cannot be true. The lecture is entitled Time to Take the 'Big Bang' Out of the Big Bang Theory? As you will soon see, the title is in the form of a question, not because Steinhardt is unsure of the evidence, that he is - for the evidence is overwhelming and complete - but because he wants to gently propose the idea that the Big Bang is wrong, so as to get a listening ear. In his presentation he makes the following undisputed points, which we will present as quotes, with accompanying explanations.

A Tale of Two Cities

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness...." Let's parse out the quote, as is our routine. Why does Steinhardt say the two ideas that have been merged into the Big Bang Theory are on "very different scientific footings?" Because, one is backed by empirical evidence and the other doesn't have a "shred of empirical evidence." So, Big Bang Theorists, like the ITER physicists - who deliberately conflate what they know to be two very different realities, in order to create a certain narrative that is divorced from the reality of the situation - are mixing together ideas that can never dovetail, for one is evidence backed, while the other has no evidence to back it up. Worse than that, as you will shortly see: all the evidence goes against the second idea!

We must now address Steinhardt's claim that, the "abundant amount of empirical evidence for the Big Bang Theory" consists of evidence "beginning with Edwin Hubble's observations from the 1920s, all the way to the most recent observations...." We can immediately spot the mistake Staindhardt has fallen into. He, himself is conflating two things that do not belong together. The observational evidence that is in abundance is about the expansion of the universe. The Big Bang Theory, is about extrapolating from such evidence, what might have happened in the past, if we simply rewind the expansion and run it backwards! Such rewinding until we get back to the beginning, is based on assumptions. One such unfounded assumption is that the mechanism which created the universe is evolutionary. This, in turn, produces guesses, based on supposed evolutionary processes, of what rewinding the expansion of the universe might look like. These secondary guesses include the assumption that all the matter in the universe gets squashed into denser and denser concentrations as Space - the volume within which matter is housed - shrinks, the further back in time we go. This shrinking supposedly continues until, at the beginning of time, we have everything so tightly compacted that it produces infinite properties: infinite density, temperature, curvature of Space etc. Not only is there no evidence for any of these assumptions; all the evidence that does exist, shows that such scenarios could never have happened - as we have already proved.

Hubble, who was the first to discover such evidence came to the exact opposite conclusions that those who came after him arrived at, simply because his conclusions were based on an assumption-free reading of the actual evidence! All of which deals with how expansion progressed. Put another way: all the evidence has to do with how the expansion occurred; and none with the reversing of that process. Stated differently, yet again: all of the evidence is directly related to the forward march of time and none with the backward march of time! The new Apple Ultra smartwatch has a 'backtrack' feature. As you walk or perhaps hike in an area without recognizable landmarks, where you could easily get lost, you can leave a digital trail of beacons that will help you find your way back once the hike is over. In such a situation, how would you use such a feature? By ignoring the beacons and guessing which way you came? That would be counterproductive. Similarly, in tracing the history of the universe, all scientists have to do is to retrace the steps of the historically observed evidence. No, extrapolation is necessary - where there is evidence! It is important that we realize, what, the word extrapolate really means. It means: "to predict by projecting past experience or known data."* (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary) Have you ever gone a treasure hunt, with a reliable map? Did you feel the need to extrapolate past what the map told you? Or, in an effort to be the first to find the treasure, did you stick as closely as possible to what the map told you? So, it is with tracing out the history of the development of the universe. The people who ignore the beacons of our map - the Mighty CMB - to extrapolate, do so because they don't value what they will find - if they follow the evidence! Instead, they wish to insist on the promotion of unfounded theories, that go "past experience or known data." But that is not science, for:

A leading guiding principle in the search for the truth of the historical development of the universe is its continual Critical Density - from its initial conditions, to its current state. For this reason we must take a more careful look at Critical Density before continuing. Hence the sections entitled ...

The Importance of Critical Density

The fourth apparent salient feature of the Mighty CMB is critically important. From it we learn that the geometry of Space itself, is Flat! What does that tell us about the nature of the universe at this very early stage in its development? It tells us, that at that exact moment in the history of the universe, there was an equal balance between the amount of matter in existence and the volume of Space within which it was housed. This is called zero curvature by scientists. Of course, the amount of matter within a certain space is also called its "density." Scientists believe too much matter will mean the universe will eventually collapse in on itself - due to the overwhelming force of gravity; and too little mass, means the universe will expand forever and matter will become more dilute over time. And, they assign shapes to these scenarios. These shapes fit into two general groups: positively, and negatively curved shapes. Positive curvature is a sphere. Negative curvature is represented by a saddle shape, as in a horse saddle. Thus zero curvature means the universe is not curved, but Flat. This means it will neither expand forever, nor stop and start collapsing in, on itself. For this reason zero curvature is said to be a critical threshold that determines the fate of the universe - a Critical Density!

For us, Critical Density is much less dramatic, if just as informative. It's importance comes from informing us that at the moment the Mighty CMB appeared the universe had a certain ratio between the amount of Space available and the amount of matter in that Space. Subsequent measurements, of later stages of universal development - through Keating's triangle experiments, for instance - similarly confirm that this relationship between volume and matter has held constant, throughout the history of the universe! That is what is important! Thus, all stages of universal development have been marked by zero curvature. The universe, is, and has always been, at Critical Density. Here's a question: what does that mean?

It's simple really. The universe began with much smaller dimensions that had a certain mass within them. That established a ratio between mass and volume. Today, the universe is much larger in dimension, and yet, the same ratio persists between matter and the volume of Space within which it is housed. Thus, with the expansion of Space, there must have been an addition of matter. Let me rephrase that: continual Critical Density from the early to current universe, tells us that as Space extended, more matter was added in order to maintain Critical Density. That is the only explanation that is supported by the evidence. You can word this reality in a hundred different ways, but the essential point is always the same: there is more matter in the universe today, than there was at its beginning - at the moment the Mighty CMB appeared.

We do not care as of yet, where the matter came from, or how it got there. All we are interested in, is in understanding what the data is telling us. At this stage, we can say no more than what the data reveals. All we can conclude with assurance is:

THE UNIVERSE HAS BEEN AT CONSTANT CRITICAL DENSITY FROM THE APPEARANCE OF THE COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND TO THE PRESENT. BUT, THE VOLUME OF SPACE HAS GROWN IN THAT TIME - HENCE, THE MASS OF MATTER MUST ALSO HAVE GROWN - WITH IT - IN THAT TIME

We continue the failed assumptions of extrapolated metaphysics.

What the ASSUMPTIONS Say

The extrapolation of the forward looking expansion of the universe, back into the distant past, is not based on evidence, but on extrapolating and theoretical modelling. It is the model that makes the assumption that the universe was hotter, denser and more compact in its history than it is today. The facts tell us the exact opposite, as you will soon find out. The universe is currently at critical density. What's more, the universe has always been at critical density - as borne out by the Mighty CMB! Since, the universe has larger dimensions today, than it did in its past, i.e., since it has more volume today than it did in the past, but exhibits the same critical density, that can only mean one thing. Over time, as Space expanded, more matter was added to the universe to maintain a constant density - critical density! There is no other deductive possibility for how all the facts fit together. There are only four variables: time, critical density, the volume of Space and the amount of matter in the Space. We know three of the four variables and have to solve for the fourth one. That is the easiest kind of problem to find. Time has changed; Space has expanded; critical density has remained constant, so the only way the last variable can move to maintain critical density is to increase in line with the expansion of Space. This is not rocket science. Such data represents the best kind of evidence, the kind that nullifies, every scenario - except one! In such cases, that solitary scenario - no matter how implausible - represents the truth. Since, we have previously covered, to a granular depth, the falsification of the Cosmological Principle and its two debunked pillars of Isotropy and Homogeneity, which is what Steinhardt incorrectly refers to here, as having being proven to be true, we will not waste any time rehashing the empirical and observational evidence against those debunked concepts.

What the EVIDENCE Said

So, Steinhardt is incorrect on that point. The "abundant" evidence, is for how the universe expanded, not for how the expansion of the universe can be extrapolated back to a non-existent primordial soup. We know that, because if that is what the evidence indicated, we would not have to extrapolate, to get to the primordial soup, we would just follow the evidence to it! Extrapolation, means when the evidence stops, we go beyond the evidence and create a story, that you can link to a theorized entity or event for which you have no direct proof. If there is proof; it is not extrapolation. So Paul is wrong to say there is evidence for extrapolating to the Big Bang. Remember when Lord Kelvin 'extrapolated' his temperature scale back to -273.15 Celsius for absolute zero? Why did he have to extrapolate? Why didn't he just say the experimental proof takes me to -273.15 degrees Celsius as absolute zero? It was because, there was no such experimental proof. Indeed, even today, no experiment has reached -273.15 Celsius, or 0 Kelvin - that is, absolute zero. But current experiments have gotten much closer to that target than had experiments in Lord Kelvin's day. Lord Kelvin had no experimental proof. No proof! Those are the conditions under which he, and all other scientists, would rightly need to extrapolate. In his case, his intuition and reasoning were correct, so he arrived at the proper conclusion. On the other hand, where the reasoning and modeling is built on empty assumptions and illogical evidence-free metaphysical reasoning, the conclusions will always yield incorrect conclusions. But the situation is vastly different with the development of the universe. Light, by which we have learned all we know about the universe, tells us everything we need to know, not only about the initial conditions at the beginning of the universe, but it also leaves us backtrack beacons, that guide us through the whole history of the subsequent development of the universe. This is accomplished through markers, or beacons, such as critical density, red-shifted galaxies, the zero curvature of Space, the laws of thermodynamics, and the Mighty CMB.

Resolving the mysteries of the genesis of the universe has to do with finding the narrative that will collate all the facts logically into a simple, and coherent model of how the universe came to be. On the other hand: extrapolating, in the face of overwhelming evidence for how the universe expanded, means we want to ignore the beacons, that we have found in the light signature of the universe, the Mighty CMB: because they point to a history we are not comfortable acknowledging! With Steinhardt's claims that the first idea in the Big Bang Theory is valid thoroughly disproved, we now concentrate on what he next identifies as a point of interest - the second idea.

Idea TWO: Science of the Gaps

In this quote Steinhardt proves what I have just spent several paragraphs explaining: extrapolation only happens in the absence of evidence, so you cannot say a current extrapolation is backed by evidence. If it is now backed by evidence it is no longer an extrapolation. This comes out in his statement that: "to get to the Big Bang we have to extrapolate 15 orders of magnitude higher ... than anything we've observed in a laboratory." As a precursor to our deep dive into idea two, which is Steinhardt's debunking of Inflationary Theory, let us first review what its supporters claim it accomplishes. We will use as our guide Professor Brian Keating, with whom we have already become acquainted. He is an devoted believer in Inflation Theory. In a detailed 30 minute video he lays out the supposed strengths of Inflation Theory. Three questions, that the "conventional" Big Bang Theory couldn't answer, but which the non-existent Inflation field is supposed to address. After Keating's descriptions of Inflation's solutions to these problems, we will delve into what Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of the theory proves, through the evidence of the Mighty CMB, that Inflationary Theory cannot be true!

That's a fantastic start! The aims of Inflation theory cover everything we are interesting in uncovering. Now, we want to consider not the aims, but the claims! Just how does Inflation propose the universe developed? And, whether or not those claimed predictions - the extrapolations beyond "experience or known data" are in harmony with already established experimental data and observations? It is fine to extrapolate past known experience and data, if for instance, there is no experimental proof for your idea, and you are somehow limited by the technical limitations of your time, but, such predictions must fall within the confines of already known experience and data! At this point, it is important to mention that the theory that is going to be proven right, will be proven so, based on facts, and not based on conventional wisdom, or the majority opinion - or any other subjective factors. In other words, what deems a theory to be correct is its agreement with the empirical facts as produced by experience, and observational data, not how many people think it is right, or how deeply biased people are against it being found to be right. The truth is not reached by consensus, but through Evidence Profiles! Keating continues:

So far, so good as to detailing its claims. Everything Keating has outlined agrees with what we have already established from Guth himself, as to the claims of Inflation Theory. We continue:

Again, kudos! That's setting the bar correctly. Identifying the mechanism is what we want. If Inflationary Theory can prove that it possesses the mechanism that links the early universe to the current universe, it will indeed have been proven to be true and factual. Note Keating's disqualifier: the current universe - the galaxies etc. - can help us to understand the ancient universe only if a mechanism can be found to link and explain how the early universe developed into the current universe! That's a big point. If Inflation Theory can do that - it is the truth! Indeed any theory that can do that will have furnished the Evidence Profile that establishes it, as the truth, behind the origin and development of the universe. Keating continues:

You will agree, I am sure, that the truth cannot be swayed by the personal biases of the people hearing it. From this last quote of Keating's, we come to appreciate that what Robert Lawrence Kuhn said in a Closer to Truth interview he conducted with renowned cosmologist George Ellis: "Some would say that one of the underlying motivations for postulating the multiverse - many different universes - is dealing with the fine-tuning problem that we find in ours." To which, Ellis responded: "Yes, absolutely!" The sentiment is certainly echoed in the words of Keating in describing how the peculiar features of the universe make sense if imposed by fiat, that is, by God. Carefully weigh his statement: "Some of those [gaps] involve the fact that the universe has certain properties that are unexplained if not imposed by fiat, and cosmologists hate fiat." That's a strange circumstance, as scientists claim to be looking for the theory that best explains the universe we see around us. Yet, in Keating's quote, we see the opposite attitude: they reject the only theory that explains the properties of the universe simply, because they hate God - for, as he said "fiat ... is another word for God." Think about that means! He is effectively saying "If God is the mechanism, the properties are explained naturally, and simply, but we hate God, and we'd like to do away with those explanations. Instead our hope is to find a solution that doesn't depend on God, but on elements of nature for the origin of nature." Already, if you are thinking person, you know that won't work. You can't use a portion of the whole to explain the whole. Otherwise that portion is greater than the whole and is not a portion. In any case the central problem for Big Bang cosmologists is a made up one. One that only exists because of their refusal to acknowledge the simple answer that all the evidence points to:

As we stated earlier, testing the truthfulness of theories depends only on whether the theory or model is proved true, or false, by empirical experimental evidence and observational data, and by nothing else: not opinion, not bias, not consensus - not even hatred! Nothing else, but the evidence and observations. But, as we have seen, scientists proudly admit that the motivation behind pursuing alternate, extrapolated explanations of the fine-tuning of the universe, is "to do away with" fiat, or God as the reason behind such fine-tuning of certain properties and the universe's initial conditions. You will shortly learn why these initial conditions are such a big deal. In any case, we will soon see, which version of reality, the laws of physics support - and which they debunk! But there's good news and bad news. There good news is there is no middle ground! And the bad news is ... there is no middle ground!

From this point, onward, we are going to look at the explanations Inflation Theory provides for the existence of these "certain properties," as presented by Keating. He has published two videos on YouTube: one dealing with defining the problems, entitled: There are PROBLEMS with the Big Bang Theory!; and a second where he lays out the solutions Inflation proposes. That video is entitled: This is NOT how the Universe Began! That title is meant to emphasize the fact that Inflation theory is not a theory about how the universe started, but about how it developed. For ease of presentation and learning, I will not present the matter, as he has - divided into two separate videos: problems versus solutions. Rather I will divide the information by subject. That is, I will provide both the problem and its solution, by subject. Then move onto the next subject, and again, present both its defined problem(s), and their proposed solution(s), as per Inflationary Theory. There are three identified problems, that arose from the Big Bang, and which Inflation Theory was designed to solve. They are, the Flatness problem; the horizon problem; and the monopole problem.

It is important that we give their argument due expression, so that we can cover all the bases. We will take all their claims into account in our discussion. Recalling that the name for this episode of the blog and podcast is Credentials. In other words, since we will be explaining how God created the universe, we must be thorough in our exposition, because it will only be done once. It would be good, if you yourself, took the proper time to familiarize yourself with all the concepts as we go along, instead of skimming ahead to the "good parts!" You will only experience the genuine surprise of learning the truth about these topics once! Don't spoil it, by being in a rush to finish the information in one chapter, only to be confused by the details of a further chapter because you didn't take the time to be diligent in covering all the material. Prepare your mind for wonder. Prepare your psyche for industrious learning. Then you will be in the right frame of mind to follow in lock-step as the information is presented in the manner most appropriate to cover all the bases and ensure the greatest gain once the conclusions are reached. Once we turn the corner to putting it all together, things will move to fast for you to start researching specific details. So, don't cheat yourself. We are almost there.

We get back to the exposition. In talking about how Inflation tries to solve for the Big Bang, we will present all of Keating's quotes with carefully annotated timestamps, and references, as to which video the quote is taken from. We continue our discussion by focusing on the Flatness problem.

Defining the FLATNESS Problem

For now, let us just acquaint ourselves with the facts, as borne out, by observational data and empirical evidence. All scales of triangles in the universe, have the unique quality that they follow the laws discovered by Euclid, that parallel lines never meet, and the interior angles of a triangle will always add upto 180 degrees. That, in turn, means the universe is spatially Flat. (I use the term "flat" with a capital letter, to emphasize that it reflects a shape). What is the significance of the fact that this law is true at all scales of the universe? Remember that the further out we look into the universe, the father back in time we are seeing. Hence, this law holding true to all scales, all the way back to the Mighty CMB, means the universe has been spatially Flat, throughout its history. It has been spatially flat from the birth of the Mighty CMB, to the present day. Put another way: the universe, from the time of the Mighty CMB appearing until now, has always been at critical density! Those are the facts.

The reason such fine-tuning is "mysterious," is that this particular shape, called Flatness, is the only shape of Space that produces "zero curvature," that is, it is the only shape that produces Critical Density. Such a universe is one in which, from its beginning to the present: the amount of Space, that is the volume that can hold matter, has always been exactly right for the amount of matter that is in it. To give an example using numbers, it would mean that when there was 1 volume of Space, there was one unit of mass within it. And when there was 15 volumes of Space, there were 15 units of mass within it. How many units of matter would be in 185 volumes of Space in such a universe? 185 units of matter! It maintains critical density. Critical Density establishes and maintains perfect balance between the amount of Space that exists, and the amount of matter that fills that Space. Now, scientists think of the relationship between Space and matter as a tug of war due to gravity. In their minds, when there is too much matter for a particular volume of Space, then the Space will contract and collapse in on itself. On the other hand, if the amount of matter in a set volume of Space is too little, they imagine that gravity will be to weak to hold the material objects in their relative positions, resulting in Space expanding forever, leaving a diluted universe where material objects drift farther and farther away from each other! Thus there are two tug of war scenarios and the perfect balance scenario in terms of shapes! The tug of war imbalances are referred to as closed or open shapes; and the perfect balance of Critical Density as Flat. In this case, Flat meaning neither closed, nor open, but neutral. For this reason, the perfect shape of Critical Density is also called zero curvature! To appreciate why Critical Density, or zero curvature, or the neutral mathematical shape called Flat, is the least probable outcome, we must understand the Flatness problem:

The quite "fatal" problem of the consistently Flat nature of Space in the universe, is a problem for fiat, or God hating cosmologists, precisely because this sort of fine-tuning, only makes sense if it was established by God. Since, we know that scientists mean God, when they use the term "fiat," we will just call a spade a spade, and use the direct term for what they are euphemistically referring to as "fiat." We continue our learning by considering Keating's next words,

Indeed! Now we have a puzzle to solve. If the curvature of the universe were a chance variable, why would it not be one from the infinite range of positively curved options; or one from the again infinite range of negatively curved options? Whatever, shape the curvature was would have been interesting, and worthy of investigation, but the choice of 1 out of 1, is more striking than a choice of 1 from an infinite series. We now get into why zero curvature is so puzzling.

Inflation's Solution to the FLATNESS Problem

Immediately, your Spidey sense should be screaming in alarm! Keating tells us that the universe was growing before Inflation; it was growing during Inflation; and it kept growing after Inflation. He further states that the only thing in the universe at this early stage was radiation, as matter could not exist. Elsewhere, he states, that not even subatomic particles could exist, because of the staggering temperatures. Recall that the temperatures are said to be infinite. Thus "nothing material could really exist without getting completely annihilated and converted, via E=mc2 into pure energy." There's only one problem. Expanding the universe through heat is work. The universe in this scenario is an isolated system with one heat reservoir. But we know from Carnot's heat engine, that heat can only do work when there are two reservoirs: one heat reservoir, and the second a heat sink. Without that, heat cannot transfer, and when heat is not transferring, it cannot do work! Inflation's description of "how the universe grows during radiation domination" is fundamentally flawed and just plain wrong. No complicated mathematics needed. The universe acting as such a machine would be violating the second law of thermodynamics. It would be a perpetual motion machine of the second kind! For if the system doing the work is the whole universe, where would the second sink be because the universe is "everything that exists."

So Inflation's mechanism for how the universe expanded is wrong. The Inflation theorists, Guth in particular, argue that at this point in the universe lambda - which is also known as dark energy, or the exotic, repulsive form of gravity that pushes matter apart - was the pushing mechanism. In direct contrast, gravity has been proven experimentally to always be an attractive force, that pulls matter together. As Hossenfelder kindly pointed out, there is no proof that the Inflaton field has ever existed. You cannot replace hated facts with cherished fantasies and call that Science. We continue with Keating's further claims:

Utter nonsense. The only sentence in that whole quote that is true, is the very first one: "if you go back ... early in time. You find that the universe is incredibly flat!" In fact, we can do better than that, the universe is not just incredibly Flat, it is perfectly Flat. Perfect Flatness, you will remember has to do with the universe being at perfect Critical Density! Recall Dianna Cowern's definition of Flatness,

Being at "just the right mass density," is of course, the definition of Critical Density. We have known since the days of Hubble that the universe has been different sizes in its history. It is bigger today, than it was in the past. Therefore the Flatness problem has to do, not with how it expanded, but with how the concentration of matter kept pace with expanding Space. Any solution to this problem that does not address that variable is aimed at deception. We will borrow a quote from the next topic to be covered because it has bearing on this one:

What we are interested in, is the statement of the relationship between an expanding universe, as caused by Inflation, and a constant mass energy mix, as defined by Keating and Inflation Theorists. He is here saying that, all the matter that would later become the stars, planets, and galaxies etc., was already in existence as the universe was expanding - "just after Inflation". The phrase "those arose" is not referring to the matter itself, but to its finished state as galaxies. This is clear if you watch the video. There is some information he doesn't utter, but presents in slide form. At 27:02, there is a slide where the following statements are written:

And ...

We are not interested in the sizes of the spheres that never existed. We are not interested in anything other than their definition of how much mass was present in the universe both before and after Inflation. And, their answer is ... the same amount of mass! Now, an expanding universe means an expanding volume of Space. If we have an expanding volume of Space, but the matter content remains the same, it means we have lost Critical Density. The universe is no longer Flat shaped! The universe no longer has "zero curvature!" That is the significance of a universe that is expanding in size, but has a constant amount of matter throughout. It breaks Critical Density. These facts establish that Inflation's proposed solutions to the Flatness problem are a not solutions at all. Just a kicking of the can down the road, because they claim to patch one contradiction while create more of their own. We add one more layer of observation to our critique, Keating's own definition of the Flatness problem:

The use of the interior angles of a triangle adding to 180 degrees is a measurement tool. You don't have to be bothered about understanding its nitty gritties, though is is quiet simple. What interests us is that this measurement tool gives the same results throughout the universe! What's significant about that? Any variable that is the same throughout the universe, means, it has been constant throughout the history of the universe. Remember that the farther out into the universe we look - or measure - the further into its history we are looking - or measuring! Now, what are the interior angles of a triangle the measurement of? They measure Flatness! They measure Critical Density! Thus, what the above quote - which is correct, scientifically tested and proven to be accurate - is telling us, is that the throughout its history the universe has always maintained perfect Critical Density. Contrary to the claims of both the Big Bang Theory and Inflation Theory. As Einstein said:

We can restate that as "Extrapolations without experiment are void." If your guess, no matter how good it was said Feynman, "If it disagrees with experience, the guess is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't matter how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experience, it's wrong. That's all there is to it." Further, truth in such and all matters does not depend on consensus and popular opinion. It matters not how many foolish Intellectuals are clamouring to sustain their livelihoods by burying their heads in the sand. The truth is determined by the facts, and never by opinion. Keating's arguments for Inflation Theory are illogical and at odds with the evidence at face value. You don't even have to dig deep, or strain you thinking to see the contradictions. We have seen plainly that, as it relates to the Big Bang's retreat into the gaps - due to the Flatness problem - Inflation has not helped the Big Bang regain its footing. Instead it proves to be another nail in the coffin. We will next discuss the MONOPOLE problem.

Defining the MAGNETIC MONOPOLE Problem

The holy grail for scientists is to try and discover of everything. To achieve that they would have to merge the 4 fundamental forces into one super force that will then explain how all of reality works. The four fundamental forces are: gravity; the strong nuclear force; the weak nuclear force; and the electromagnetic force. There are three stages that they propose to this blending of all fundamental forces, and they are ordered in terms of the energy levels Big Bang Theorists believe were needed to force the forces together! As such the lowest energy level would force the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear force together, creating what is called the electroweak force. Next, comes a higher energy level that is supposed existed in the early universe that would blend the electroweak force with the strong nuclear force in what is known as the Grand Unified Theory, or GUT for short. That would leave only gravity remaining and the infinite energies it would take to unify gravity with the other 3 fundamental forces are claimed to have existed only at the Big Bang. The proposed theory that scientists are looking daily dreaming up theories for is called, perhaps predictably, the Theory of Everything! It is also known as TOE, for short. Keating explains in a slide at 9:03 of his video that:

How do magnetic monopoles come into these unification schemes, and what are they? In his There are PROBLEMS with the Big Bang Theory video, Keating describes how monopoles are created at phase transitions. With each unification of forces event, occurring backwards as scientists extrapolate to the Big Bang, they happen at temperatures that form new forms of matter. One such exotic form of matter are called dyons, and monopoles are the most basic form of dyons. Don't ask. Who knows? This is metaphysics, and I'm not a metaphysicist. I give you two quotes, the first from Keating and the second from Wikipedia:

Of course, that is directly opposite to his claims elsewhere, that at the beginning of the universe, there was no matter, only photons. Photons do not undergo phase transitions. So, it's a puzzle, as to what matter is supposed to be undergoing these phase transitions? Below is his quote to that effect.

This radiation dominance is claimed to have lasted for the first 380 000 or so years of the universe. So, what was transitioning? Recall that when scientists invoke ethers and assign them functionalities, it produces null results. Recall the case of Maxwell and his variables for the medium that was supposed to be the mechanism for spreading light. The variables were null, because they represented something that didn't exist. Similarly, the extrapolated existence of monopoles produces a null result, as testified to by Wikipedia and Keating,

And ...

Bold prediction. Null result. Of the existence of monopoles Keating says there were predicted to be trillions and trillions and trillions of them. Creating the very obvious problem of why none have been found. You will find Inflation's solution to the monopole problem utterly uninspiring. Though not unsurprising - if you've been paying attention.

Inflation's Solution to the Monopole Problem

In a classical example of changing the parameters of a theory to address its shortcomings, Wikipedia says the following about the scientific community's non-solution to the monopole problem:

Is that not exactly the claim deGrasse Tyson leveled against the Bible at the beginning of our blog? Let me refresh your memory:

Pitiful. More formally, Keating gives the following solution:

So the monopoles went from being predicted in the "trillions and trillions and trillions" to being "literally forbidden!" It would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. Is there anything emptier than an Intellectual? We turn our attention to something worthwhile, using reason to debunk Keating's claim that we don't see monopoles in the universe because the expansion of Space pushed them outside our horizon. Once again, the Mighty CMB forms the Celestial Sphere, that is, it is the farthest entity in the universe, encapsulating all that physically exists. There are no stars, galaxies, or any other baryonic objects beyond it. Thus it is the horizon. Recall, that at any scale you can measure the interior angles of triangles in the universe, always add upto a 180 degrees, assuring us that the universe is at Critical Density! But if Inflation had expanded Space to proportions outside the Mighty CMB, it would have done so without matter going along for the ride. That in turn would mean the universe is no longer at Critical Density! However, by his own admission, the universe is at Critical Density. Thus there can be no Space outside the Mighty CMB - the limit of all physical matter. And, that in turn, means the monopoles are not outside our horizon. They just don't exist! Is there any difference between this and the hard wired ferver of religious fundamentalism?

We next move to the Horizon problem. However, to do the horizon problem justice we are going to look at it through the prism of Paul Steinhardt, who prepared a whole talk that debunks it scientifically.

Defining the Horizon Problem

The Horizon problem has much to do with a topic we have already learnt a lot about - establishing and maintaining thermal equilibrium! Believers in the Big Bang say the Mighty CMB was created at the point of last scattering - when the universe became transparent and photons could travel unimpeded. Those photons set loose, in an instant of time, so long ago, are supposed to be today's CMB. Already the story should strike you as absurd. How can photons created in one instant, and never again produced, stream continuously? The CMB was discovered in the mid 1960s, how could it possibly still be streaming almost 6 decades later? We carry on. According to their calculations, the universe itself, was a certain size at that point in time, which they refer to as the horizon. If you're sitting next to a window with an outside view, look outside and spot the horizon. At this stage in universal development, the horizon didn't just indicate how far you could see, it also indicated the edge of the universe itself. So far, so good. Now, since the universe is much larger today, than it was, at that imaginary time in the past, they calculated how many times that horizon size, of the last scattering in the ancient universe, would fit into todays sky? Their answer is about 40 000 times. Put another way,

That is easily understandable. 40 000 would never bring the same dish, unless they planned to do so by communicating with each other beforehand. Chalking that up to coincidence is what scientists admit would be "straining credulity." They have no problem admitting that. The problem arises once they realize the implications such coordination implies about whatever synchronized the sameness of the temperature of the Mighty CMB:

Ah, a proposed solution. We will now hear how Inflation Theory proposes to solve this problem, keeping in mind that whatever conspiracy "synchronized" all the temperatures much, much earlier than the point of last scattering, would have had all its synchronicity erased by the random nature of continuous quantum fluctuations in the hot Big Bang soup - between implementing the conspiracy, and the moment of last scattering. Nonetheless, we listen as the problem is further explained by Keating:

Inflation's Solution to the Horizon Problem

Let's think back to our section on heat energy transfer and about how objects reach thermal equilibrium. It is always through contact. Heat moves from hotter to cooler bodies, not via an ether, such as Phlogiston or Caloric, but through causal contact of actual entities. Remember Count Rumford's underwater cannon experiment? In it he proved that heat is not an ether, but the product of the motion of atoms. Heat in material substances is produced by friction. In the case of conduction, it is through the motion of atoms or molecules. In the case of convection, it is the same entities, now freed of their bonded structure - whether a lattice, or some other movement constricting formation - that have become mobile, and through their mobility come into contact with other atoms or molecules, thereby transferring some of their heat energy to the colder atoms or molecules. Even with radiation, it is a continuous stream of photons making contact, that establishes an equilibrium over time. In all circumstances, thermal equilibrium is achieved through the dynamics of contact! That's why synchronizing an equilibrium event without contact is such a great mystery. Nonetheless, let us look at Inflation's proposed solution to the Horizon problem.

Already, Keating is trying to throw us off the scent, because the problem has to do with how the hot Big Bang was in a quantum flux, meaning each particle of matter supposedly had its own temperature in the unstable hot plasma soup. And, that, according to the Big Bang model, gets worse the smaller the universe is. That's because the smaller the universe, the denser its matter content becomes. The denser the matter content, the higher the temperature. The higher the temperature, the wilder the temperature fluctuations, and thus the less uniform the plasma would be. Keating continues:

Everything is wrong with the above proposal, but we will only dedicate ourselves to confronting the three parts I have highlighted. Firstly, in this scenario, for the universe to expand, it must do work. As everything that exists is defined as being inside the universe, it means there is nothing outside it. From Keating's description, the only thing in the universe is a photon-fueled heat reservoir. The problem is, we know what it takes to do work. All heat engines require three parts as per Sadi Carnot's excellent work in devising refinements to the heat engine. All heat engines require two heat reservoirs: one - a heat source - that fuels the engine; a second, a heat sink, as due to entropy there is no mechanism that can use all of its heat to do work! Some of the heat will be lost to the surroundings, as exhaust. Otherwise, such an engine would be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. But, since the universe is everything that exists - has no surroundings for heat to "flow" to. The proposal is not thought through properly. In the first place, for heat to "flow" it needs a temperature gradient, as you well know. Otherwise there is a deadlock - it cannot transfer. And no work will be done. The estimates by scientists of the force it took to expand the universe are that it represents about 70% of all the energy in the universe. In other words expanding the universe was - by far the biggest job in the history of the universe. Yet, Big Bang Theorists' proposed explanation is a scenario in which no work can take place! If that's not the definition of lazy thinking. I don't know what is. And their getting paid to come up with these ideas. Lots and lots of them. It's not like some homeless guy was rambling in the streets and this is what passersby heard. No, this is what all cosmologists over many generations and countless PhD's have produced. Really? Is this the best you can do? Really? In any case, under these conditions the laws of thermodynamics, which guide all natural processes in the universe, tell us the universe would not, in fact, could not have expanded.

A further point is that thermal equilibrium is reached through multiple collisions that bring the temperature of different parts of a body, or different bodies with different temperatures into equilibrium. It is achieved through many back and forth collisions, not through one master photon that tells "different regions of the universe to set your thermostat to my value." There is no such thing as "information be[ing] allowed to propagate" through such instructions. In what way is this different from the "fiat" they so despise? Does this scenario not sound to you to be exactly how scientists imagine fiat to work? In reality, it is not enough for the information to propagate in one direction only, because each impact only achieves a partial communication. For instance, if two atoms were besides each other and one was at 200 kelvin and the other at 100 kelvin, perhaps each collision would only transfer 10 kelvin of information - or heat energy. Let us simplify our illustration by saying only the hotter atom is moving and thus colliding with the cooler one. In this case it would take 5 collisions for the 200 kelvin atom to lose 50 kelvin and transfer that heat energy to the 100 kelvin atom. Thereafter, both would be at 150 kelvin and the collisions would stop, as both atoms would now be at thermal equilibrium. There is no such thing as the 200 kelvin atom telling the 100 kelvin atom to "set your thermostat to my value." That would be a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics: energy cannot be created or destroyed. The problem is clear: the thermostat would be 200 kelvin in this case, and you have a situation in which the two atoms went from having a combined heat energy of 300 kelvin, to now having a combined heat energy of 400 kelvin, if the second atom were to "set its thermostat to my value." Where did the extra 100 kelvin of heat energy come from, if it didn't transfer - or wasn't communicated - through multiple interactions over a period of time? The extra 100 kelvin of heat energy would a violation of the 1st law - hence, impossible. A second point regarding this claim, is that, it is not enough for the information to propagate in one direction only, it has to ping pong between the two respective atoms or bodies, until equilibrium is reached. Keating's suggestion is not based on physics! As ever, cosmologists are living up to the dictionary definition of their field: "a branch of metaphysics that deals with ...."* (Merriam-Webster) The rest doesn't matter. The fact that it's based on "metaphysics" explains why nothing it claims harmonizes with the known laws of physics. We are not interested in metaphysics. That's why whatever comes after "metaphysics" in the definition doesn't matter! Those things don't exist in the real world - they are metaphysics. They matters only to the people who get paid to come up with them.

I would like to highlight a consistent theme behind the majority of scientific work in our current age. You can watch the whole video of this scathing takedown by Hossenfelder, but I will just highlight a few of her relevant quotes, that show the Intellectual based motivations behind scientific research.

Surely, you discern the similar pattern between scientists on their perch and priests on their pews. Doling out mystery after mystery, with the only key to solutions being their continued elevated - and expensive - service on your behalf. Has mankind not seen this movie before? Is this not what the shamans and magic practicing priests have done throughout all human history? In 2022, do you not yet know how this ends? Where is the cult of Artemis? Where are the Mayan medicine men - and the gullibles who followed them? The end of empire is never a neat cordial transfer of power ... there are consequences to our decisions. This might seem like a detour, but it is what all this false science is about! It is the impetus behind all the shoddy thinking and Mac truck sized holes I am repeatedly highlighting to you. The motivations behind current scientific research are Intellectual based not intelligence based. It's about them, not you - or the greater good of mankind. That's the common thread behind all the examples we have already covered. What I'd like to come to appreciate is that it doesn't matter what the topic under discussion is, the process - and motivation behind it - is always the same "Feed my belly!" That's why I'm not bothering to flesh out the technical details of the error by physicists that she's highlighting in this episode. That would be an unnecessary detour in our own journey. Just focus on the motivations she highlights for the existence of these theories. She continues:

Perhaps, we are too zoomed in for the problem to be clear for everyone. To illustrate that this is a problem with Intellectualism as a whole, and not just how it affects the sciences, let us zoom out, away from the world physics and astronomy to bureaucracies that are founded on credentialism in general. We are now looking at the incentives behind how all bureaucracies function. Here's economist Thomas Sowell - who literally wrote the book on the the subject (its called Intellectuals and Society):

That is the POINT! Now in the social context the incentive of Intellectuals to exacerbate the problems that already exist. But this is not true in the Science context. The universe works fantastically well. So, in that context, physicists have to create non-existent problems which, of course, only they can solve! Here's Hossenfelder:

Does that not remind of Keating's words: "Those galaxies, those quasars etc., can have us understand how the universe originated, if and only if, Inflation comes along with a mechanism to predict how the Inflationary fluctuations turn into large-scale structure - like galaxies and quasars that we can observe." AND THAT'S THE MONEY LINE! That's what will ensure continued government funding! Certainly, the pattern is clear for all to see. I am writing in October, and its Nobel Prize season. Some weeks ago, some useless Intellectual won a Nobel prize and the caption describing him in The Guardian newspaper went something like "Nobel prize winner has never worked at a real job." The man was grey and balding! Isn't science wonderful? That's a question, not a statement. In these examples who see the pattern that Intellectuals, in our case scientists, question the natural explanation to observed reality - it doesn't matter what the subject is: God, matter/anti-matter ratios, why does peanut butter go with jelly? It doesn't matter what the subject is, they take the exact stance. In the case of God, it's reject "fiat" and find a "naturalistic, or materialistic origin story of the universe." Thereafter they insist that reality is based on their alternate fact: in the case of God, it is the now ubiquitous Theory of Evolution. Establishing those two goals secures your future livelihood, for the rest of the time is dedicated to finding - the mechanism! I must admit: it's a power move - if you're an empty headed nerd incel who had no other way of being successful in life. Chalk one up for the guys with the grey teeth. If you think that's just my take, here's Hossenfelder exposing how the game is played for you:

That's the Bob Rubin Trade, I've been telling you about! To apply Hossenfelder's reasoning to our subject: scientists agree the natural explanations for the observed universe and its initial conditions and fine tuning is "fiat." They reject that and instead insist the solution is the Big Bang. Then comes the most important step, turning the search for the mechanism into a cash cow. In this way they can spend the rest of their time and your money devising the "ideas" for which they were educated. Complicated jargon-filled ideas about describing - not explaining, as you will remember from Ekeberg, but describing - "mechanisms" for just how what we observe in the universe is their model and not of the natural explanations they initially rejected. Since their models "of the gaps" are riddled with logical inconsistencies, there will always need to be newer and newer versions, and the all consuming task for everyone involved in the bureaucracy is how to milk their theory for every last drop of mortgage payments. That's where Naval's observation about "the central challenge facing game designers" comes in: Intellectuals circle the wagons trying to "delay the moment until you realize it's a complete waste of time!" As bad as that sounds, the reality is much, much more sinister!

More on that later, for now we end our vivisection of Intellectuals by coming full circle on Sir John Glubb's observations about the life arc of great empires. Sowell is asked why earlier generations of educated men like the founding fathers of the American empire were not like the current Intellectual class, though they too were highly educated? His answer is the point behind all Intellectualism:

Let us continue!

There are so many mistakes in Keating's small portion of text, that I have to be disciplined in pointing out only the most striking ones, but I have to add a small note to the last point. It takes multiple collisions to reach equilibrium; but the opposite is true of breaking it. In that case a system in equilibrium only needs one non-equilibrium input, one fluctuation, to break perfect uniformity. Just like if your one hand was touching ice, and the other was at room temperature, it would take vigorous and repeated rubbing to get them to both be at the same temperature again. But if both your hands were at room temperature, it would only take one hand having one contact with an ice cube for them to fall out of thermal equilibrium. In the same way: there is no way for nature to program fluctuations to be at equilibrium at some future date, in a quantum fluctuating environment. So, even agreeing to the ridiculous claim that Inflation could have solved the uniform temperature problem in a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the universe started, the very first of the trillions of fluctuations that occurred between then and the supposed appearance of the Mighty CMB 380 000 to 400 000 years afterwards, in a super-heated quantum fluctuating plasma soup, would have wiped out any trace of a previous thermal equilibrium.

No, the reality is that for this scenario to work the synchronizing would have to done immediately before the appearance of the Mighty CMB. And, the number of required collisions would be decided by the temperature range multiplied by the number of particles in the system. In our earlier example the temperature range was 100 kelvin, and that took 5 interactions, between 2 particles. To keep it simple, let us only consider the one variable of temperature range and discount the number of particles involved. We can say if the temperature range was wider, it would take more collisions to reach equilibrium. In a hot Big Bang quantum mess, it might have taken many more. It is for that precise reason that Keating argues that "it turns out you have to synchronize it much, much earlier than the time of the CMB, because there's not enough time at 380 000 years to get the conspiracy to work. You have to set it much, much earlier." But for ease of argument, lets say the temperature range would dictate 1000 collisions for all photons to come to thermal equilibrium. Then those 1000 collisions, would have had to be the last 1000 collisions leading upto the appearance of the Mighty CMB. Again, that would require coordination by fiat - and Big Bang cosmologists are back to square one. Do you see the frustration behind the words: "But the Big Bang ... has many ... gaps. Some of those involve the fact that the universe has certain properties that are unexplained if not imposed by fiat, and cosmologists hate fiat. It's another word for God." Can you feel his pain? Spoiler alert, he has no pain. He's living comfortably earning a living producing simple-minded ideas. You would know that, if you've been paying attention.

As we continue, just to make double sure, I am not misrepresenting the claims of Big Bang Theorists, I will repeat the Guthmeister's confident assertions about Inflation, for your convenience:

AG: So, inflation gets around that in really a very simple way. Is that if you trace back the universe that we're looking at now, to what it looked like before inflation, it was vastly smaller than anybody would have thought without the inflationary theory.

DC: Vastly smaller is not an exaggeration. Before inflation, everything in our observable universe fit in a volume a billion the size of a proton. Then the universe went through two expansions - inflation and after [inflation]. Both expanded space by a factor of 10 to the 28 [1028 = 10 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000], but the second expansion took 13.8 billion years. That first expansion, inflation, took 10 to the minus 38 seconds [.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds]. It's just an unfathomable rate! Back to you, Guth.

AG: And it was during the time before inflation, when the universe was incredibly tiny, that there was plenty of time for every piece of the universe to communicate with every other piece. And plenty of time for it to come to essentially a uniform density of energy, and uniform temperature.

Firstly, we recognize that Inflation is supposed to have taken a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the beginning of the universe; or, the beginning of time to occur (Inflation theorists are not quite sure what it was the beginning of. Not a good start). That doesn't seem to leave "plenty of time to come to ... [a] uniform temperature." But we'll leave that aside. The problem is that the Gutherino has confirmed our previous point: Inflation occurred within the first 3 minutes of the universe being born, according to the claims, yet after that and before the Mighty CMB there were 380 000 to 400 000 years of quantum fluctuations! Any uniformity of temperature achieved by Inflation in that trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, would have been wiped away immediately afterwards as the hot plasma quantum soup continued to bubble and boil - for a further 380 000 to 400 000 years. Not so! According to the magical world of Banal Guth. (He promised so much, and delivered so little.) In his world, its "really ... very simple." I am sure it is, since his theories don't have to live upto the laws of physics. The most awkward aspect of this simple minded idolater's thinking, is that it worsens the very problem he is claiming to fix. In the simple constructions of his mind, the problem was that light didn't have enough time to reach opposite ends of the universe, according to the estimated age of the universe. So the "simple" solution is to shrink the distance light has to travel, to what Dianna Cowern described as "a billionth [of] the size of a proton," and move the "equilibrium event," as Keating put it, to before the Inflation and the Big Bang epoch. Hence, the equilibrium event took place inside that incredibly small volume of the singularity. While Inflation took place within 10 to the minus 38 seconds of something - they don't know what - tracing back from that unknown, also takes an infinity of time, or quite possibly represents no time - since time would not yet have existed. In either case, it takes away the time constraint to accomplish the synchronizing of temperatures. The only problem is that, that point: "during the time before inflation, when the universe was incredibly tiny" is called the singularity. It was a time of infinite temperature! As such no synchronizing, equilibrium event could have taken place. It is impossible! Why?

Since the temperatures were infinite, it means the "temperature range" between the particles that have to reach equilibrium was also infinite, so that even with an infinity of time to carry out equilibriating collisions, thermal equilibrium could never be reached! The singularity is the only place where actual infinities exist, because both it and its actual infinities are science fiction. (The impossibility of ctual infinities will be discussed in detail shortly.) Thus, by placing the task of bringing the wildly fluctuating temperatures to the same uniform temperature, in the singularity, he has doomed the task to failure. But is seems daredevil Super Alan Guth has no fear of pulling off such a stunt. As far as he's concerned it's abracadabra, biggity boppity bop - "INFLATION!" Do you know why "the universe that we're looking at now ... was vastly smaller than anybody would have thought without the inflationary theory?" Perhaps, it's because those people were allowing the facts to constrain their thinking. But not so with the Guthster - he's beyond data. He's an Intellectual whose job is to come up with ideas, all day, every day. The facts are for weak minds, with skin in the game. He's on another government funded level, where risks are outsourced to taxpayers, and the action of foisting metaphysical ideas on a public hungry for distance from God never meets with negativve consequences. Thus, his mind can overcome any obstacle, because it is not tied to reality. It's a magical place where anything is possible - even the impossible. Oh to be Alan Gandalf! I said I would be disciplined. We cannot afford to reply to every mad suggestion, for they are all mad. Let us stick to that promise, and focus on the last of our three highlighted points of major error.

The last portion of Keating's quote we would like to highlight for correction, are the words: "... We can show that the fluctuations in the amount of heat energy in this early universe were as uniform as required to solve the horizon problem." That statement is logically impossible. It equates two contradictory concepts. Fluctuations cannot be uniform; and something which is uniform is not fluctuating! The definition of fluctuate is provided by Wordnik: "To vary irregularly, especially in amount." Another definition they provide is "To move now in one direction and now in another; to be wavering or unsteady; to be irresolute or undetermined; to vacillate" Merriam-Webster adds, "to shift back and forth uncertainly", and the sample sentence they use? "Temperatures fluctuated." They give a second definition: "to rise and fall in or as if in waves." This time the sample sentence of the word in use is "The boat fluctuated on the rough sea." We get the picture. Now claiming to be able to show "that the fluctuations ... were as uniform as required to solve the horizon problem," is like saying, "we can show that the rough seas were calm." Its a logical impossibility! By the way, how uniform would the heat energy or temperature have had to be to reflect the temperature of the celestial sphere, the Mighty CMB? It would have had to be perfectly uniform, in all directions. We know that because, when the Mighty CMB appeared it was all one temperature. Even the tiny variations of 1 part in 10 000 of a kelvin, around the baseline temperature came afterwards, as we will soon learn. At first appearance, there were no fluctuations at all, hence it was at thermal equilibrium with matter.

We have completed Keating's defense of Inflation theory, so let's now find out why one of its founding fathers thinks that it is not only a bad band-aid for the Big Bang Theory, but that the Big Bang Theory itself is so flawed that it has to be abandoned all together!

Would You Sit on a Three Legged Chair with Only TWO Legs?

Having documented the claims of Inflation Theory, we now turn our attention to look at how the facts, as borne out by the Mighty CMB, led Paul Steinhardt to refute both it and the Big Bang as models that explain how the universe came to be. Apparently, some scientists still have their faculty of critical thinking in tact, and the integrity to apply it. You can imagine how hard it must have been for Steinhardt to turn on the community he helped to found and build, and to assert the truth of the invalidity of Inflation Theory and the Big Bang model. Listen to how Keating, who counts Steinhardt as one of his friends describes the situation,

Steinhardt's contribution to Inflationary Theory was inventing a way for runaway Inflation to come to an end: for once Inflation starts, there is no mechanism to stop it. However, as he has grown in his studies of the universe, he has become a vocal opponent of the theory due to its many failings to explain what we see. It is great at coming up with extrapolations: fancy stories about what might have happened, in the early universe. But, it cannot come up with a single idea that reflects actual reality. Recall Hossenfelder's words,

But Steinhardt, goes further. Not only does he show that there is no evidence, empirical, or observational that supports the Big Bang Theory, and its temporary band-aid - Inflation Theory, but he goes further, proving that the Big Bang actually stands in opposition to all known facts about the universe as brought out in the Mighty CMB. Everything we know about the universe, we have learned from studying light. As the Celestial Sphere, the cosmic microwave background is the most fundamental physical mechanism mankind has for learning about the structure of the universe as a whole! Think carefully about the full impact of that statement. Individual stars, tell us something about this or that region of Space, or the universe, but the Mighty CMB has universal reach, it surrounds the whole universe - and thus has a far, far greater database of empirical evidence and observational date to share with us! And this, information covers the whole history of the universe - from "initial condition" to the current age. Do you see where this is going?

We hand over to Steinhardt. From now on, we will have a side-by-side comparison between the claims of Inflation Theory, on the one hand; and the facts as presented by Steinhardt, on the other. Feature by feature.

The Steinhardt Correction: How Inflation CONTRADICTS the Mighty CMB

We are now going to start bringing together all the different learnings we have accumulated: from the laws of thermodynamics, to spectroscopy, to electromagnetism, to astrophysics ... everything we have learned about now combine to give us a clear picture of reality, as seen through the data of the Mighty CMB. So, as we bring the facts to bear around the topic of the Mighty CMB, and what it tells us about the initial conditions of the universe and how it must have developed thereafter, we will be applying our logic and reason. Steinhardt's contribution is only to highlight the ways in which the Big Bang and Inflationary Theories contradict the science of Physics. He also gives basic reasons, but the in-depth analysis will come from our own reasoning powers.

Earlier, when we were going through the detailed lessons provided by PM Robitaille about the laws of thermodynamics, and why understanding thermal radiation is so critical to understanding the true nature of astrophysics and the many false claims of cosmology - as based on Kirchhoff’s Law - the information we were learning about might have seemed abstract - with how it applies in real life, not being so clear. In the same way many math students ask: "how will I use this in real life?" That is because it dealt with so many thought experiments and tests. And, often their application in real life was not obvious. However, if you took the time to familiarize yourself with the details, your diligence will now stand you in good stead. For you will now be able to see clearly, just how such laws impact the development of the universe - dictating what can and cannot take place! Below, please find the solitary conclusion from this section. We now move on to Steinhardt's presentation, of idea 2, in which he will give us 5 pieces of evidence from the Mighty CMB that prove the Big Bang could not have happened, and that Inflation is a misguided attempt to save a fundamentally flawed, intellectually bankrupt theory. But we will do so by way of the promised dissection of the topic of Actual Infinities.

THE UNIVERSE HAS BEEN AT CONSTANT CRITICAL DENSITY FROM THE APPEARANCE OF THE COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND TO THE PRESENT. BUT, THE VOLUME OF SPACE HAS GROWN IN THAT TIME - HENCE, THE MASS OF MATTER MUST ALSO HAVE GROWN - WITH IT - IN THAT TIME