The discussion revolves around the theoretical basis for a hot Big Bang, exploring concepts related to cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), nucleosynthesis, and alternative models such as a 'cold' Big Bang or the "tired light" hypothesis. The scope includes theoretical considerations and competing models within cosmology.
Participants express disagreement regarding the validity and theoretical foundation of alternative models like the "tired light" hypothesis. There is no consensus on the adequacy of the hot Big Bang theory versus alternative explanations.
Some claims about the predictions of the "tired light" hypothesis and the hot Big Bang theory are presented without resolving the underlying assumptions or the implications of observational data.
The latter, and also "cold" nucleosynthesis. The redshift/distance relationship can also be explained in a much more visualizable and intuitive way as an inherent redshift of ancient matter's light emissions/absorptions, and that the latter have gradually been getting bluer since then. Also, Fritz Zwicky sought a reasonable explanation back in 1933, with his "tired light" hypothesis. But such ideas haven't been seriously pursued because they lacked a theoretical foundation.Drakkith said:As opposed to a 'cold' big bang? Or no big bang at all?
No, they were abandoned because their predictions don't match observation.hkyriazi said:But such ideas haven't been seriously pursued because they lacked a theoretical foundation.
That's right, as explained in detail here:Vanadium 50 said:No, they were abandoned because their predictions don't match observation.
...is a lot more than what you're describing in your OP. I suggest taking some time to work through a good modern textbook on cosmology, such as Liddle:hkyriazi said:the theoretical basis for a hot Big Bang