[Fungi]

Pure speculation, nothing more.

[Blue House Sue]

We were here ten billion years ago, maybe 100 billion years ago, and we will be back to start over all again in ten billion years.

[kevao]

If a contraction phase preceded the expansion stage, then what preceded the contraction phase?

[bkopto]

"Eliminating the singularity or Big Bang brings back the bouncing Universe on to the theoretical stage of cosmology. The absence of a singularity at the start of spacetime opens up the possibility that vestiges of a previous contraction phase may have withstood the phase change and may still be with us in the ongoing expansion of the Universe," Neves said.

The notion of God and His creation must be eliminated at all costs.

[mindburglar]

Galactus is from there.

[Arthur McGowan]

It’s obvious that time had a beginning. Otherwise, how could it get started?

[Bullish]

I’m gonna wait until they figure out this universe before I delve into that one too much.

[JimSEA]

It would seem to me that an infinite series of contractions and expansions of the universe would be equally amenable to the existence of God as would the Big Bang. Of course both ideas are difficult to get your head around.

[nonsporting]

If time “had a beginning”, then that requires a time frame within which to place its beginning — a time before time.

[null and void]

The birth of the universe was preceded by contractions?

How, um, quaint...

[aquila48]

“Neves suggests the elimination of a key aspect of the standard cosmological model: the need for a spacetime singularity known as the Big Bang.”

In other words, the big bang is nothing more than an assumption.

[norwaypinesavage]

"A concept from mathematics that expresses indefiniteness, singularity was used by cosmologists to characterize the "primordial cosmologic singularity" that happened 13.8 billion years ago, when all the matter and energy from the Universe were compressed into an initial state of infinite density and temperature, where the traditional laws of physics no longer apply."

Mathematics and physics are two distinctly different fields. Mathematics works well to describe many, if not most, aspects of physics, but not all. Mathematical singularities work well to describe many physical things, but not all. You can mathematically describe a trumpet like shape with finite volume but infinite surface area - you can fill it with paint, but there is not enough paint inside it to paint it, even thought the wall thickness is zero. The trumpet is simple. It has a radius, 1/x, that asymptotically approaches zero along its length, x. Such is life with math.

I don't believe the Big Bang could have ever started with all mass in the universe squeezed into a volume of zero. That's not possible with physics. It may be convenient to describe this as such a singularity, and the mathematics may work out just fine with such an assumption, it is nevertheless not possible. In fact, the mathematics don't work out 'just fine'. The 'Big Bang' physicists require the "inflation" period (during the transition from mathematics to reality) where "the laws of physics didn't apply". Could this may have required a little help from "the hand of God"?

[backwoods-engineer]

They're absolutely DESPERATE to avoid an absolute beginning of the universe. As hardcore atheists, they don't want to be accused of "rushing off to join 'the First Church of Christ of the Big Bang'."