Okay this is fascinating!

Evidently there is growing support for the “origin” of the universe actually being an endless series of contracting/expanding universe without a Big Bang. (As opposed to a “Big Crunch/Big Bang” cycle.)

I saw cosmologist Paul Steinhardt talk with Neil deGrasse Tyson where he discusses the problems with the Inflation Model and the Singularity that are the necessary components of the Big Bang Theory, and how the competing theory of infinite expansion/contraction accounts for various qualities of the universe (like its smooth, flat uniformity of patchiness (yes, evidently that is the appropriate way of thinking of it)) without creating untestable side-effects like multiverses. It better incorporates Dark Energy (as opposed to treating it like an “Oops, also, there’s Dark Energy” like the Big Bang model does) and explains why we’ve not detected Inflation Period gravitation waves that the Big Bang model predicts we should, and also takes into account increasing entropy. Wild!

Did some searching and found a talk by Paul Steinhardt that is too chock full of equations that are utterly beyond me *pout* but did eventually find these two articles that explain the theories much better for a non-mathematical person like me:
https://www.bbc.com/…/20200117-what-if-the-universe-has-no-…
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/big-bounce/

From what I can tell, the Big Bang Theory is still the more accepted theory by the bulk of cosmologists, which is to be expected until a competing theory has more proof… but, it kind of seems as though this ever-bouncing-universe theory already explains the evidence better AND incorporates evidence the Big Bang Theory kind of skirts, so, Im wondering what more it will take to become the dominant theory?