I have swept nothing under the rug. I clearly explained already that I feel that the current state of cosmology is similar to the few years before relativity, when physicists were puzzling over the properties of aether, the paradox of the Michelson-Morley experiments, the inconsistencies of Maxwell's equations, etc. There was no unanimity in the physical community back then either. I claim you are sweeping physics under the rug when you disparage the validity of science at the time of the big bang.
Yes, we are skeptics. Any experiment that makes a non-conventional claim is repeated by others, such as cold fusion. Also there is no accepted "best" theory of cosmology yet because skeptics won't allow any room for doubt.
You are grossly exaggerating again.
No. There is a lot more to it than that.
I'm not worrying about your understanding. Your understanding is hopeless if you refuse to acknowledge and scoff at quantum mechanics in the big picture. No. I don't mean string theory nor loop theory. Those are just two of the possibilities under study. For example, the Casmir effect is old school quantum mechanics, but must have a bearing on cosmology in a way that is not understood yet.
Since you haven't answered any of my (and dr who's) post with any credibility -- come to think of it, you haven't expounded on quantum mechanics itself, except mention the sufficiently vague 'quantum fluctuation' as the magical answer to anything and everything -- perhaps it is time to put your physics phd where your mouth is.
What part, exactly, of cosmology do you imagine quantum mechanics answers, hmmm?
And since you haven't been talking about horizon, homogeneity, flatness and lambda, it is fair to assume that quantum mechanics doesn't answer any of these. That you have the temerity to drag quantum mechanics in a discussion about gravity plainly demonstrates your intention to mislead.
And since you have a penchant for posting irrelevant pieces of information, I'll simply tell you what you're thinking.
What quantum mechanics describes is a
PROBABILISTIC reality. Something could, at the
SAME time, be here and there, existing and not existing, good and evil, male and female, dead and alive (and here, you can conveniently insert all sorts of logical contradictions) in this theory. And while I agree that it is incomplete, necessitating better mathematical models,
IT ONLY SERVES TO IMPROVE EPISTEMIC LIMITATIONS. AT SOME POINT, IT CANNOT PIERCE THROUGH WHAT IS ONTOLOGICALLY INDETERMINATE.