I read through these and try to understand them but mostly I don’t like those theories, because (in part) more and more there are disparities between them and observations.

So I came up with some ideas myself, one of which I wrote in here :
“New physical cosmological model : is it coherent ?”

But it may take a few years or a few thousand before we have a good cosmology.

I believe in this community you have to write the word “rule” in the title, like so :
Banana? Banana rules !
(you can edit the title even after posting, that is, if you want so)

I do believe there is a strong link to be understood between what is observed in this post and what was posted :
X-Ray echo suggests our galaxy was “active” (quasar-like) just 200 years ago - Nature
by @CanadaPlus one month ago.
Thanks for this (X-Ray echo) post and for the last comment you made here in the other thread, about Penroses’ current work.

So I will read through some of this and try to come back with something worthwhile to say.

Update : I read some more and most of that is just out of my reach. The only paragraph I kind of understand somewhat is this :

(…) conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) theory.[67] In this theory, Penrose postulates that at the end of the universe all matter is eventually contained within black holes which subsequently evaporate via Hawking radiation. At this point, everything contained within the universe consists of photons which “experience” neither time nor space. There is essentially no difference between an infinitely large universe consisting only of photons and an infinitely small universe consisting only of photons. Therefore, a singularity for a Big Bang and an infinitely expanded universe are equivalent. [68]

…and now I need some rest.

I like what you say. So, in a few minutes I will make a new root comment inside this post so you could continue this thread some more with me.

I think what’s also great with Penrose is that he doesn’t care about money or politics, which are major factors guiding what other physicists will say.
He already proved himself and doesn’t need to argue about pity things. He can even allow himself to make some jokes about 10^(10^100) or talk seriously about it… I wouldn’t know.
Finally, if I add the immense chance of talking to him this wouldn’t be my preferred topic.

Under this very article you provided you can read, at criticism :
At a conference in 2015, Penrose said :

“inflation isn’t falsifiable, it’s falsified. … BICEP did a wonderful service by bringing all the Inflation-ists out of their shell, and giving them a black eye.” (…) Penrose’s shocking conclusion, though, was that obtaining a flat universe without inflation is much more likely than with inflation – “by a factor of 10 to the googol power!”

Please read about this guy :

Roger Penrose (…) mathematician, mathematical physicist, philosopher of science and Nobel Laureate in Physics.

I read much more than the average person about it and my experience & education allows me to know how scientific research works. The fact is, not only inflation but Lambda CDM is dead.

There is a lot more to say about it.

The title of that paper is :
“Supermassive Primordial Black Holes From Inflation”
I have read about inflation since many years and it is viewed increasingly as impossible and falsified.
I don’t work in this field. For me this is just a hobby. Are you a physicist ?

Cosmic microwave background (CMB) is very smooth ; if there was black holes in there I guess we would see (huge) unevenness.

Hummm, or at least, that stupid LCDM would lead to such an expectation. … that model also put CMB at :
400 000 to 500 000 years after the BBang.
and most distant visible galaxies (and black holes) at :
330 000 000 years after BB.

if we go by this number we have a few hundred million years to produce such big things out of something very smooth.

if we used a different model we could have much more time.

Wrong expectations from wrong model.
I wonder if RMOND (TeVeS) would be better here than LCDM. Research money is mismanaged.