# Going inside Scientific American, February 2017

## They’re started a *Cosmic Controversy* over the very nature of inflation.

**Heads-up! Your article has a broken link to a very key reference**:

- Go to:
**https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/a-cosmic-controversy/** - Go to the second paragraph up from the bottom, and at the end of that paragraph, you will find these words and the link as you have it right now: “For more details, see our 2014 paper “Inflationary Schism” (preprint available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.6980).”
- That link does not work. This link does:
**https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.6980** - You’ll readily see that the “close parenthesis” should not have been part of the linked address. I make mistakes like that all the time.

**Also, regarding that article’s contents**:

- One is pushed to ask, “How can so many smart people miss the obvious?”
- Our understanding of the big bang is wrong. Ask Turok.
- Our various understandings of space and time are wrong. Ask Arkani-Hamed.
- Our understanding of infinity is wrong. Ask Tegmark.
- These three are right to be critical but they have no radically new insight.
- The obvious is a natural inflation; and within it, the obvious is base-2.
- The group of dissenters are all tied up in knots.
- The original authors are at least trying to break free. but, the big bang also has the universe in knots.
- Of course, at some time near the beginning there were sounds, but perhaps it was more like Kepler’s
*Harmonice Mundi*! In that light, this page will eventually be linked to an article about harmony (being written). - Maybe it all started simply and expands naturally using base-2 notation or simple doublings from the Planck units to the Age of the Universe.

Analysis: https://81018.com/planck_universe/

Chart of the numbers: https://81018.com/chart

Simple theory: https://81018.com/spacetime/

Natural Inflation: https://81018.com/thrust/