''if a renowned scientist like Paul Steinhardt comes up with a theory about inflation in 1982 and then disowns it in 2014,''
''i stand by my claim''
Another good example of flawed logic...it doesn't matter a tinkers damn if you stand by your claim, it's not up to you. Nor is it up to Steinhardt, nor is it up to me, or up to anyone else. Only evidence, if or when it comes to light, can prove or disprove the Cosmological Inflation model.
You claimed that Steinhardt had proven it to be false, but was is your claim that was false. Nobody has proven or disproven Cosmological Inflation because the evidence is currently inconclusive.
That is how things currently stand, but yet again, you taughtbuffet claim to have a definitive answer, an answer that Steinhardt himself does not claim, that CI has been disproven.
Really, you should just admit that you made an erroneous claim and be done with it.
''The majority of cosmologists maintain that the case for inflation is substantial. It has successfully predicted a number of detailed features of the cosmos. And so far, the only alternative explanation for those features — a cyclic, breathing-lung model of the universe — strikes many as overly complicated and theoretically dicey.
“It’s as if you had five witnesses who fingered the same suspect, and a sixth one whose eyesight wasn’t that good who couldn’t really tell,” said Marc Kamionkowski, an astrophysicist at Johns Hopkins University. Ten years from now, if telescopes 100 times more sensitive than BICEP2 still see no gravitational waves, he said, “that might make us wonder.” https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150130-joint-dust-analysis-deflates-big-bang-signal/
