I thought the concept of "singularity"
came from Hawking, then was subsequently dismissed by him, rather than arising directly from pop-science.
My philosophical concern with a bang or inflation (however gentle) that has a proposed beginning, is that of Newtons 3rd law, "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". If we are to conserve this law everywhere, and if an action did not exist in perpetuity, where's the other half when the first "action" began? Or is the law already conveniently contained for introduction within the actions and forces we have today (I wonder)? Or perhaps, to save face, Newton's laws break down, as does Einstein's, in such a "too early" application.
In an eerie coincidence in early February (before this threads referred press release), I was trying to come up with a proper reference to help support an iffy statement I had made here regarding the early universe. A couple of days later it dawned on me that the elusive reference I sought should have been Newtons 3rd Law, but it was too late to possibly save my thread. A few days later yet, this present topic press release came out including such a
reference to Newtons 3rd Law (I don't know much about the integrity of this source.)
Regarding Newtons 3rd Law, it seems to me that the total sum of actions, and total sum of reactions should preferably be identical for all time in perpetuity, throughout the universe. It seems the way to see this would therefore be to pit all established inertial actions against all resultant inertial actions, and we might even include gravity if the Equivalence principle (to inertial acceleration) is to hold (a+b=b+a). All these continuous actions, and counteractions, must in turn, be transmitted by electrostatic repulsion. Then the total forces involved in actions by both inertial mass and gravitational mass logically, and indefinately, would exactly equal the total force of repulsions at any given time, or in grand total altogether. In a way, gravity and electrostatics seem to naturally be conditionally united (albeit opposed but united), as we cannot technically acknowledge existence of one without the other.
The preceeding is not to argue the vastly different potential strengths of electrostatic forces vs gravity, but merely that they are at least observed to be matched in opposing equilibrium where ever mass makes near contact with other mass. As
Feynman said, my hand does not pass through the table because electrostatic forces prevent it from doing so, in spite of all atoms being mostly open space. The same is true of my feet on the floor as I stand in gravity... or stand in Einsteins accelerating elevator in Equivalence to gravity. Of course an object (or heavenly body) in free-fall experiences no forces of either kind and does not count.
To conserve Newton's 3rd Law throughout all history, I think it might be possible to more fully apply Newtons 3rd Law, in that we generally observe inertial action to have an equal counterpart in electrostatic repulsion, quite representative of two presently known fundamental forces (if gravity is truly Equivalent). I'm thinking this perspective is now simply more self-evident rather than speculative, or I would not suggest it as food for thought, nor question it here. And it seems to me, to only work if there were no distinct beginning as the thread topic suggests.
And for the record, the forces would be measured in dynes... not joules... argh... as I mis-stated in my earlier thread. It is probably less harmful when I call my children by the wrong name. Perhaps I was vaguely thinking of how all work must be transferred and mixed them.
This is admittedly a different way to look at things. I hope it is not entirely invalid nor useless.
Wes
...
would you believe I meant "explained " . Trust me fellas if I meant to be religious I would have used promulgated 
