Endless Universe was good though a bit bothersome at times.

I understand that, as competing theories, it is essential to point out the dissimilarities between the inflationary and cyclic models of the universe, but Steinhardt and Turok seemed like they were fighting their way out of a corner throughout the book — and they wrote it!

Being in a defensive stance for most of the book also made some of their arguments seem petty. On p.222 they basically claim that the inflationary model spells the end of empirical science as if there is nothing else to discover about the universe if that theory "succeeds." It's just not true.

Another issue I had was that the authors waited until almost the end of the book to elaborate on any flaws in the cyclic model, leaving me with some very obvious questions in the front of my mind throughout my reading. I know that you don't want to hand over a list of all your character flaws on a first date, but when it comes to science writing, not hearing the faults in a more natural progression was very distracting.

Also, it was one of those books that elaborates on some pretty high concepts to paint a picture of a theory, but then goes on to define what an atom is in the glossary! Most popular physics books claim that no prior knowledge is necessary, but it's never true.

If you don't know what an atom is, you probably won't understand anything covered in this book... and you are scientifically illiterate to an embarrassing degree.

The authors ended the book on a very vague "we'll see what happens" note, so I figured I'd do the same:

Endless Universe was a good read about some very interesting ideas that, frankly, I hope are right! The ekpyrotic (cyclic) model is a beautiful theory indeed, though no self-respecting scientist worth his weight in protons chooses a model based on neatness. Without resorting to the anthropic principle, it does make a lot of sense, but only space-time will tell!