During the practical cosmology, a big Shag is believed for most facets even though it is
Reviewer’s feedback: Precisely what the author suggests throughout the other countries in the report are one to the “Models” cannot give an explanation for cosmic microwave history. Which is a valid conclusion, but it’s alternatively boring since these “Models” are already refused for the reasons given on the pp. cuatro and you will 5.
Author’s reaction: Big-bang models are extracted from GR by the presupposing the modeled world remains homogeneously filled with a liquid out of amount and you can radiation
Author’s response: I adopt the common have fun with of terms (as in, e.g., according to which “Big Bang models” are GR-based cosmological models in which the universe expands persistently from a hot and dense “primeval fireball” (Peebles’ favorite term) or “primordial fireball”. Thus, they comprise a finite, expanding region filled with matter and radiation. ignored for others, as when a radiation source is claimed to be more distant than 23.4 comoving Gly. Before judging correctness, one has to choose one of the models and reject the other. I show that, in a Big Bang universe, we cannot see the primeval fireball. If one, instead, assumes the universe to have been infinite at the onset of time, as some like the reviewers Indranil Banik and Louis Marmet do, one has either already rejected the idea of a Big Bang or confused it with the very different idea of an Expanding View.
Reviewer’s comment: …“The “Big Bang” model is general and does not say anything about the distribution of matter in the universe. Therefore, neither ‘matter is limited to a finite volume’ or ‘matter is uniform everywhere’ contradicts the “Big Bang” model.
We declare that a giant Bang world does not ensure it is for example your state are maintained. The new denied contradiction try absent while the inside Big bang models new almost everywhere is bound in order to a small regularity.
Reviewer’s comment: The author is wrong in writing: “The homogeneity assumption is drastically incompatible with a Big Bang in flat space, in which radiation from past events, such as from last scattering, cannot fail to separate ever more from the material content of the universe.” The author assumes that the material content of the universe is of limited extent, but the “Big Bang” model does not assume such a thing. Figure 1 shows a possible “Big Bang” model but not the only possible “Big Bang” model.
Author’s response: My statement holds for what I (and most others) mean with the “Big Bang”, in which everything can be traced back to a compact primeval fireball. The Reviewer appears, instead, to prescribe an Expanding View model, in which the spatial extension of the universe was never limited while more of it came gradually into view. However, in mainstream tradition, the homogeneity of the CMB is maintained not by widening the universe like this (model 5), but by narrowing it to a region with the comoving diameter of the last scattering surface (model 4). This is the relic radiation blunder.
Reviewer’s review: This isn’t new “Big bang” model but “Design step one” which is supplemented that have a contradictory expectation of the creator. This means that the writer improperly thinks this particular customer (while others) “misinterprets” precisely what the creator claims, while in truth simple fact is that creator just who misinterprets the definition of “Big-bang” design.
Author’s impulse: My personal “model step one” stands what is meetville for a big Bang model which is none marred because of the relic light error nor confused with an evergrowing See design.
Reviewer’s comment: According to the citation, Tolman considered the “model of the expanding universe with which we deal . containing a homogeneous, isotropic mixture of matter and blackbody radiation,” which clearly means that Tolman assumes there is no restrict to the extent of the radiation distribution in space. This is compatible with the “Big Bang” model.
