2 ms·
I don't like playing that card, but I am a physicist, a cosmologist actually, and I wrote in my last post how it breaks. And I used the qualifier "approximation
by mr_mitm 2y ago
I don't like playing that card, but I am a physicist, a cosmologist actually, and I wrote in my last post how it breaks. And I used the qualifier "approximation" in my first post of this thread. If you don't assume homogeneity on large scales you don't get a big bang. Or at least I'm not aware of any of the routes you are talking about. Even observing receding galaxies does not necessarily imply a big bang, which is why the debate wasn't settled until the discovery of the CMB. Until then, the steady state universe was still viable, which is basically an eternally expanding universe.
- andrewflnr 2y agoAre the features in the article big enough to break the CMB predictions? I'm kind of taking it from the article and surrounding works that they're big enough to break cosmological homogeneity as commonly understood, but maybe that's wrong too.