>Is just that a theory. From the little I read it appears
>that his theory is problem driven. It seems that his
>inflation theory answers questions that seem to be troubling
>cosmologist such as "flatness" etc. Which probably is why he
>recieved so many awards.

Exactly, because it does a very good job at those things. But out of that it has lead to *possible* explanations for the grand questions of where did the universe come from etc., but obviously this is not hard, verifiable proof, but rather plausible scientific explanations that are compatible with the laws of physics.

> So he draws upon theory which has not been tested or
>verifiable for a prediction that the universe should expand
>exponentially.
>The truth is no one knows what the physics of the universe
>is within minutes of the big bang, both temperature and
>density are too high too measure how matter behaves. As the
>saying goes this requires a great deal of faith to believe
>in this as well.

Like I said, I never claimed that it was anything more than a theory.