4 ms·

I was maybe a bit too cavalier here. I think I understand what the author means - the data that they gather is understood in the context of the model that we th

I was maybe a bit too cavalier here. I think I understand what the author means - the data that they gather is understood in the context of the model that we think is best. But, it isn't as if cosmologists are rigidly holding to the model. Here's a paper looking at extensions to lambda CDM https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.05356 https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.05356. As I mentioned, changing GR is being looked at as an alternative to DE http://www.resceu.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/workshops/resceu08s/presen/koyama-1.pdf http://www.resceu.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/workshops/resceu08s/presen... People aren't challenging some things though - I don't think anyone is seriously working on cosmologies that don't include a big bang, because without one I can't imagine how you explain the CMB.

eaim 7y ago
Sorry but I’d have to disagree: There are plenty of people working on cosmologies that don’t include the Big Bang, or that do include it but only as one facet of a larger theoretical framework. As for not being able to imagine how you explain the CMB without the Big Bang, well, there are plenty of good arguments being made here that put to paid that “limitation.” As well, think of the Michelson-Morley experiment. In that era, no one could imagine how light could propagate through space without the presence of a medium permeating that space. I’ll venture one step further. Dark Matter is to current cosmology what the aether was to 19th century cosmology.