Why the Big Bang Model does not allow inflationary and cyclic cosmologies though mathematically one can obtain any model with favourable assumptions

Various versions of standard Big Bang Model (BBM) including the current LCDM cosmology require an “inflationary” phase for the nascent universe (Δt∼10-32Δt∼10-32 s) during which the size of the universe blows up by a factor of ∼10781078. However, the so-called Rh=ctRh=ct cosmology (Melia, 2013a) claims that the isotropy and homogeneity of the present universe can be understood without assuming any inflationary phase. To this effect, Melia and his coworkers have often invoked “Weyl’s Postulate” and “Birkhoff’s Theorem” to qualitatively argue for this novel model. On the other hand, here, we explore for a cogent analytical basis of the Rh=ctRh=ct proposal which is claimed to have such a profound implication. First we show that (i) if the spatial flatness of the BBM would be presumed, Rh=ctRh=ct cosmology may indeed follow. To further explore this issue without prior assumption of flatness (ii) we equate the twin expressions for the Energy Complex (EC) associated with BBM computed by using the same Einstein pseudo-tensor and quasi-Cartesian coordinates (Mitra, 2013b). This exercise surprisingly shows that BBM has tacit and latent   self-consistency constraints: it is spatially flat and its scale factor a(t)∝ta(t)∝t. Accordingly, it seems that, there is no scope for the other models including inflationary and cyclic ones. The real lumpy universe may be too complex for the simplistic Big Bang model.