Using earth derived quantum evidence for cosmic-origin theory

I accept the challenge. From what I can understand, Pro contends that "earth derived" quantum evidence is the basis for popular cosmological models, and posits a new hypothesis instead. Unfortunately, it appears that what pro is positied appears to be pseudo-scientific babble, or at least will remain that way until pro can explain the new model further.Concerns about the model proposed:It appears that pro is slapping together several scientific sounding words, making some new words up (curvational) and hoping that the resulting sentences have meaning. I would like pro to give more information on the following items and terms using reference to modern physical concepts: "Spatial points" that were oscillating "self-compatibility of space" how "oscillatory fatigue" (a process in which crack propagation in oscillating metal structures can lead to failure) can be applied to points in space The mechanism of oscillatory fatigue Where the energy of this oscillatory fatigue goes Given we observe spontaneous symmetry breaking, I request a mathematical formulation of the spatial potential "etheric forces" "cruvational process" "nodes" Pro also makes the claim that "any other model for the origin of cosmic systems would have led to chaos". I wish for pro to support his claim rather than just assert it, and demonstrate theoretically or with reference to peer-reviewed articles how modern cosmology would lead to chaos. I would also ask pro, given he is disagreeing with the field of cosmologists, on what grounds is he basing his disagreement. Does he have access to data cosmologists don't, or does he believe that, without any formal instruction in cosmology, he has managed to outsmart the entire field of cosmologists?Predictions of the model proposedI request pro post a theoretical formulation of his model so that it can be tested against cosmological data. In addition, I request pro give a list of predictions which would allow his model to be tested.Misunderstanding of modern cosmologyPro states that modern cosmologicl models are based on quantum derivations. This is not correct. The Big Bang model of cosmic evolution is neither a quantum theory, nor is it based on quantum evidence. In fact, I wish it was, as uniting quantum mechanics and general relativity would then be a solved problem - but unfortuantely no one has found a way to do it so far. For those interest in getting slightly more technical, Big Bang cosmology essentially follows the Friedman equations [1], which have nothing to do with QM.In addition to this, the evidence supporting a Big Bang model, including (but definitely not limited to) supernovae data (and general redshift data), large structure formation, BAO oscillations and the power spectrum of the CMB are all not quantum effect, and none of them rely on Earth bound laboratory experiments.It would seem then that pro has misunderstood the basis of modern cosmological theories as well.ConclusionPro, misunderstanding modern cosmology to have a theoretical basis in quantum mechanics, has proposed a new theory of... something. Pro fails to explain the shortcomings and observed problems of modern cosmological theories, and fails to address why his proposed theory is superior, nor how it is theoretically formulated, nor what predictions it makes, nor how it can be tested. Pro's proposed theory seems to be a nonsensical pseudoscientific stringing together of scientific sounding words that, at the moment, makes absolutely no sense to someone currently working in an interntional cosmology team. Pro's proposal is at the moment but fancy words strung together; if pro wants to make it scientific, he must address my previous points and make his model theoretically sound and testable.(Note1) I am part of the Dark Energy Survey team as an honours student, in the OzDES (Australian) arm, for context. Proof can be provided as requesed[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...