Author’s reaction: Big-bang patterns try extracted from GR by presupposing that the modeled world remains homogeneously filled with a fluid regarding number and you may light. The new denied contradiction is actually missing since for the Big bang designs this new almost everywhere is restricted to help you a finite volume.
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 ir a estos chicos view. However, in mainstream tradition, the homogeneity of the CMB is maintained not by 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 feedback: That isn’t the fresh “Big-bang” design however, “Model step one” which is supplemented having an inconsistent expectation from the writer. This means that the writer improperly believes that this customer (while some) “misinterprets” just what publisher states, when in facts this is the creator whom misinterprets the meaning of your own “Big-bang” model.
Author’s response: My “model step 1” stands for a giant Fuck model that is neither marred by relic light blunder neither mistaken for an evergrowing Evaluate 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 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.
Reviewer’s feedback: The last scattering facial skin we see today try a two-dimensional circular cut out of one’s entire universe at that time out-of history scattering.
Author’s response: The fresh new “history sprinkling skin” merely a theoretical build within this an excellent cosmogonic Big-bang model, and that i thought We made it obvious that eg a model does not help us find which facial skin. We come across something different.
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.