Автор: Reviewer’s comment: …“The “Big Bang” model is general and does perhaps not say anything about the distribution of matter in the universe.
Author’s response: Big-bang models are taken from GR by presupposing your modeled market stays homogeneously filled up with a liquid regarding count and you may radiation. We claim that a massive Screw world does not create such as a state to-be maintained. This new denied contradiction is missing once the within the Big bang activities brand new every where is limited to help you a finite 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.
However, from inside the traditional community, the brand new homogeneity of your CMB are maintained maybe not of 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. expanding 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 is not the fresh “Big-bang” design but “Design step one” which is formulated that have an inconsistent assumption of the journalist. This means that mcdougal improperly thinks this particular reviewer (although some) “misinterprets” what the blogger claims, when in truth this is the author who misinterprets this is of your own “Big bang” design.
He think mistakenly you to definitely his earlier results would nevertheless hold plus throughout these, and you will not one off his followers remedied which
Author’s reaction: My personal “design 1” stands for an enormous Fuck model which is neither marred of the relic radiation error nor confused with an evergrowing Have a look at 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 zero restrict 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 before he had become familiar with GR based models.
Reviewer’s comment: The final sprinkling facial skin we see today is actually a two-dimensional round cut of whole universe at the time out of history sprinkling. Within the a beneficial mil years, we are acquiring light out-of more substantial past scattering facial skin from the a good comoving point around forty eight Gly in which number and you will rays was also present.
Author’s reaction: The brand new “past scattering body” merely a theoretic construct contained in this a cosmogonic Big bang model, and i also consider I managed to get obvious one eg a design doesn’t allow us to discover which skin. We see something else entirely.
