Author’s impulse: Big-bang designs was obtained from GR by the presupposing that modeled universe remains homogeneously filled with a liquid away from number and you will rays. New denied paradox is actually absent while the during glint mobile the Big-bang models new almost everywhere is bound to help you 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.
Yet not, into the mainstream traditions, the latest homogeneity of the CMB is managed maybe not by the
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. broadening 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 opinion: That isn’t this new “Big bang” model but “Design 1” that’s formulated that have an inconsistent presumption by the creator.
Author’s impulse: My personal “model step 1” stands for a huge Screw model that is none marred by the relic radiation blunder neither mistaken for an ever-increasing Examine model.
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 restriction to the extent of the radiation distribution in space. This is compatible with the “Big Bang” model.
Author’s response: The citation is actually taken from Alpher and Herman (1975). It reads like a warning: do not take our conclusions as valid if the universe is not like this. In believing that it is, the authors appear to have followed Tolman (1934), who had begun his studies of the thermal properties of the universe in advance of he had become familiar with GR based models. He thought erroneously that his earlier conclusions would still hold also in these, and none of his followers corrected this.
Reviewer’s comment: The last scattering body we see today is a two-dimensional circular cut fully out of your own whole universe at that time away from past scattering. In the a mil years, we will be acquiring light out-of a much bigger history scattering skin during the a good comoving range around 48 Gly in which matter and you will light has also been establish.
Author’s response: The fresh “past sprinkling body” is simply a theoretic build within this an effective cosmogonic Big-bang model, and i also thought We managed to make it obvious one particularly an unit will not allow us to find that it body. We come across something else.
Thus the writer improperly believes this reviewer (and others) “misinterprets” exactly what the publisher says, when in reality it will be the publisher just who misinterprets the meaning of your “Big-bang” design
Reviewer’s comment: The “Standard Model of Cosmology” is based on the “Big Bang” model (not on “Model 1″) and on a possible FLRW solution that fits best the current astronomical observations. The “Standard Model of Cosmology” posits that matter and radiation are distributed uniformly everywhere in the universe. This new supplemented assumption is not contrary to the “Big Bang” model because the latter does not say anything about the distribution of matter.
Comentarios recientes