Into the standard cosmology, a massive Bang is thought for almost all facets even though it is
Reviewer’s opinion: Exactly what the author shows on other countries in the papers is one to the “Models” usually do not give an explanation for cosmic microwave records. That’s a valid achievement, however it is rather dull because these “Models” are actually refuted for the reasons provided to your clover pp. cuatro and you may 5.
Author’s response: Big bang designs is extracted from GR from the presupposing your modeled universe stays homogeneously filled up with a liquid out-of amount and you will rays
Author’s response: I adopt the common use 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.
I claim that a large Bang market doesn’t allow it to be such as your state to-be maintained. The new denied paradox is actually missing because inside the Big bang activities the latest every where is limited to a small frequency.
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: It is not the fresh new “Big bang” design however, “Model 1” that is formulated that have a contradictory expectation because of the writer. This means that the writer wrongly believes this reviewer (although some) “misinterprets” exactly what the creator says, when in reality it’s the publisher which misinterprets this is of your “Big-bang” model.
Author’s response: My “design 1” means an enormous Shag design which is none marred because of the relic light mistake neither confused with an ever-increasing Check 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 maximum to the extent of the radiation distribution in space. This is compatible with the “Big Bang” model.