Reviewer’s comment: …“The “Big Bang” model is general and does not say anything about the distribution of matter in the universe.
Author’s effect: Big-bang patterns try extracted from GR by the presupposing that modeled market stays homogeneously full of a liquid off number and you can rays. We point out that a big Shag market doesn’t enable it to be for example a state to get was able. The new refused paradox is actually missing because in the Big bang models the fresh almost everywhere is limited to a limited regularity.
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, in the conventional tradition, the fresh new homogeneity of the CMB was handled maybe not because 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. 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 feedback: It is not this new “Big bang” model but “Design 1” elite singles that’s supplemented which have a contradictory presumption from the journalist. This is why the writer improperly thinks this reviewer (and others) “misinterprets” exactly what the writer states, while in truth simple fact is that blogger who misinterprets the definition of your own “Big bang” design.
He think incorrectly you to definitely their prior to results manage nevertheless keep and in these, and not one regarding their supporters fixed it
Author’s impulse: My “model step one” represents a massive Screw model that’s neither marred of the relic rays blunder neither confused with a growing See 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 maximum 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 review: The final scattering facial skin we come across today is actually a-two-dimensional circular cut right out of entire universe at the time out of last sprinkling. For the a great billion many years, we are acquiring white out-of a larger last sprinkling facial skin within a great comoving length of around 48 Gly in which number and you may light has also been expose.
Author’s response: The new “past sprinkling epidermis” simply a theoretic build inside good cosmogonic Big-bang model, and i also consider We managed to get clear one to such as for example a product doesn’t help us get a hold of which body. We see something else.
Добавить комментарий