[Psycho_Bunny]

Brian is writing on a subject he doesn't seem to understand very well.

For instance, he cites that inflation seems impossible given limitations such as the speed of light but fails to mention that inflation is theorized to have occurred in the instant prior to the solidifying of the physical laws of the universe.

[mvpel]

Indeed - how can you talk about the “speed of light” before light itself even exists?

[GourmetDan]

"Brian is writing on a subject he doesn't seem to understand very well. For instance, he cites that inflation seems impossible given limitations such as the speed of light but fails to mention that inflation is theorized to have occurred in the instant prior to the solidifying of the physical laws of the universe."

Brian's understanding is fine. Yours is a different matter.

[js1138]

For instance, he cites that inflation seems impossible given limitations such as the speed of light but fails to mention that inflation is theorized to have occurred in the instant prior to the solidifying of the physical laws of the universe.

Inflation doesn't involve changes to the speed of light.

[SampleMan]

For instance, he cites that inflation seems impossible given limitations such as the speed of light but fails to mention that inflation is theorized to have occurred in the instant prior to the solidifying of the physical laws of the universe.

Right. So inserting a period of time where the normal laws don't apply, because the normal laws can't explain something, is good solid science.

Personally, I'm in wonder at the prospect that there is exactly the right amount of matter in the universe to create a "big bang" and not a bit more. What are the odds of that? Would you not perhaps think it more likely that if a large super-crunch of matter were going to explode, that it would do so at some point before it all came together? Perhaps when 100 billion galaxies came together and not 500 billion? And that would rip through pre-existing matter.

If there was a big bang, I find it highly unlikely that there was only one. In fact, could the expansion not be increasing because there is a lot more matter out there? In effect, the now visible universe is but one kernel in a pot of popping popcorn. The difference being that matter is thrown back and forth.

[editor-surveyor]

" but fails to mention that inflation is theorized to have occurred in the instant prior to the solidifying of the physical laws of the universe."

That is "step two" Here. :o)

[demshateGod]

“....inflation is theorized to have occurred in the instant prior to the solidifying of the physical laws of the universe.”

So they can just throw out the physical laws of the universe in order to keep their theory valid? That’s not science. That’s miraculous. Just say the universe has always existed. That makes more sense. But then an intelligent creator makes a lot more sense.