[dhimes]

My point is that the Big Bang Theory preceded the Inflationary Theory by decades. Inflation came along to explain things that the original theory did not. We now still, however, refer to the big bang- as I am suggesting will happen with Black Holes even if the original Black Hole theories are replaced by something else.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8372341

[lutusp]

> Inflation came along to explain things that the original theory did not.

Again, inflation does not replace the Big Bang theory, it complements it. Big Bang and inflation are both parts of our current understanding of the early universe.

[dhimes]

In the sense that Newton's laws are recovered from Special Relativity as c->infinity, yes.

The Big Bang theory was more than just the idea that there was a "big bang" at the start of space-time. It was its own theory. And in the current theories, the 'big bang' at the start remains. But much else has changed.

Since we've carried the thread so long, I'll relate something marginally off topic that you might find kinda cool. At the time (I was in grad school then), it was a big deal to make the from Big Bang to Inflation, for political reasons. The "Big Bang" theory, in order to explain the smoothness of the observed universe, required a very special Creation event. Natural law wouldn't do it. This was a comfortable place because 80-90% of Americans believe in a Creator, and science was saying it was necessary. So Church leaders and science got along (except for the batshit folks).

When Inflation gained acceptance, this need for a Creator to explain the smoothness went away, and there was genuine concern in the field about the ability to continue to get funding from these Americans.

So, really, I suspect that the 'really dark dense thing' will remain, and be called a 'black hole,' even if our understanding of 'Black Holes' significantly changes.