Well-written, Avi, except for the hot and dense beginning of the material universe that you mention just real quickly.

--

The point is that the hotness can be debated (but is often accepted at face value, not a good scientific action).

The adiabatic cooling process is abused. Only when we have a trajectory of 380,000 years distance and needing to end up at 2.7 Kelvin, then we need to have a super-hot starting point.

But that is the model that has no starting point based in logic.

When we spool the film backwards, then the movie stops at 380,000 years.

Physicists fill in the dots and they are doing this willy-nilly. They are not paying attention. They are saying that the movie goes all the way to some center spot that cannot be comprehended mathematically. They are adding nearly 380,000 years of distance to the film that they do not have any data about. They are making up a model with a bizarre center that is not scientific, but made up.

The source for matter, expressed at the CMBR, need not have travelled 380,000 years in distance. The starting point could have been as little as 5,000 years in distance, on the condition that the remaining 375,000 years in distance was taken up by energy that itself did not get involved with the resulting material outcomes.

The Big Whisper model competes with the Big Bang model. The actual data is the same, but the model distinct.

I like analogies, so I'll end with an analogy to show how both models differ.

When there are twenty dots, then physicists are drawing connections between the dots and end up with the face of a Cyclops.

When I draw the connections, I may not be good enough to draw a human face, so let's just call it a gorilla. But what the gorilla has is a set of two eyes and not just a single eye like the Big Bang model.

The Big Bang model contains an aspect that cannot be.

Thank you for the good article, a pleasure to read.