I appreciate the effort you put into this but, quite frankly, I don't need a lecture on cosmology.
Physical cosmology assumes that the universe is a contingent phenomenon, hence has a finite existence. Therefore, there most definitely was a time when the universe was a 'baby'. I most definitely agree.
However, you assume that inflation is true without considering what exactly this means - that the universe is homogenous throughout the hubble radius.
What you see 15 billion lightyears away is the universe 15 billion years ago, correct? Curiously though, the background radiation 15 billion lightyears away is the same here. Any big bang cosmology would say that is impossible.
Enter inflation. A plank time after the big bang, the baby universe underwent an inflationary stage where the rate of expansion was more than a THOUSAND TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT. That is apparently the reason why the universe appears to be homogenous.
What do we make of the invariance of c, then - the cornerstone of ALL known physical laws?
Another thing is cosmological constant lambda - or the tensile vaccum energy of space? You are talking of an energy density that remains constant as space expands thereby preventing gravity from pulling the universe into a big crunch.
Consider a box of lambda that is not diluted as you increase the volume of the box. The only way you can do this is if you create lambda out of nothing, correct?
Furthermore, einstein's field equation predicts that under the action of lambda, all matter in the universe would have 'escaped itself' long before the 15 billion year estimate of its age.
Unless you can turn the effects of lambda on and off arbitrarily, that is.
I think you are fully aware how ulitmately fatal your argument is.
We are talking of two fundamental 'forces' - gravity on one hand, acting to crunch the universe on itself and lambda on the other, acting to expand it.
For a static universe, neither expanding nor contracting, these 'forces' must necessarily be equal, or omega (their ratio) equals 1.
For a 15 billion year old universe expanding at a rate of the hubble expansion, you need an omega between 0.(add 49 9's) and 1.(add 48 zeroes and 1). A small deviation from this will quickly result in either a big crunch or an entropic heat 'death'.
You may not wish to state it outright but that is a bit contrived to be the basis of any scientific 'theory', wouldn't you say?
Please refrain from using entropic models in this discussion because it simply won't fly, even within the scale of our solar system. Conventional science says that the solar system was formed from a swirling, thermally homogenous cloud of dust by virtue of GRAVITY alone. That's a movement FROM MAXIMUM TO MININIMU ENTROPY right there, in complete defiance of the laws of thermodynamics, and right under our noses to boot!
The truth is, there is NO other explanation for an expanding universe other than the cosmological constant lambda. And even if you are inclined to accept it at face value and ignore how curious this 'thing' is, you are still confronted with violations of the lorentz invariance and the conservation of mass and energy.
And why stop there? Why not violate all the laws of physics? Every single one of them are intimately related to the above laws anyway.
And if you expect to be taken seriously, you would realize that your scientific babble is nothing more than 'filling in the blanks' in a more technical and complicated language.
Tell me - have you ever seen a space-time singularity in your life? Have you ever measured the effects of inflation? Have you ever held some lambda despite it being the most abundant thing in the universe? Have you ever measured a planck lenght, time or energy, hence effectively piercing heisenberg's uncertainty?
Hmmmm?
