AuT vs The Big Bounce

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/big-bang-big-bounce-universe
Geilen and Turok  came up with a very similar model whch included a pass through the singularity for supporting the 1922 model of a steady state universe of contracting and expansion.
This is AuT to a large extent.
The main difference between the two models is one of depth rather than substance.
The two are not, however, the same although Geilen and Turok are the two physicists that are 3 years behind (as opposed to the five years) everyone else is.
Why?
Their methodology for collapse relies on space which is an effect.  They are looking at a quantum gravity collapse of everything in the universe (conceivably not space,  although I would concede that if the rest of AuT was taken for granted, space would collapse like everything else).  They correctly model on quantum gravity, but their collapse is rather more complete than the collapse required by AuT but both are "smooth" transitions, AuT is a less smooth transition at the quantum level however, and only achieves smoothness due to averaging of inflection points.
They do not explain curvature, but take it for granted.
Essentially their smoothness is not based on averaged inflection points, but space-time phenomena.  The fact that the two models arive at the same place is because space-time phenomena reflect Algorithm based solutions.
Because of this, they don't get the the issue of why each successive universe is so different from the one before and, in truth, it took me 3 years working with the right model to get there.
The mathematics are certainly better because they solve a single variable algorithm for multiple variables, but that is a mistake rather than a triumph.   What is more telling, however, is that they correctly identify quantum gravity while failing to have a model explaining how historical references can exist in a quantum environment.
Still, they are trying to explain the right concepts and if they work hard (or read my book) they'll be in the right place in 3 - 5 years and in the interim, I have a place to submit my book proposal.
The problem is that there is just too much of a transition and too much of it is just in words.  The underlying model is there, but to shorten this from a book to a paper is a challenge of time as well as mathematics and time does not take kindly to being an illusion.

http://www.vevo.com/watch/GBH481500074?syndicationid=bb8a16ab-1279-4f17-969b-1dba5eb60eda&shortlink=jzAuJ1&utm_campaign=ing&country=US