Quote:
|
Originally Posted by VanderL
[snip]
I think that alternatives must be considered, but your list of "observations" is not a list of true observations, every single one (with the exception of the "dark sky at night") is an interpretation already. Allowing intrinsic redshifts is a very simple alternative interpretation that would possibly lead to a completely different list of "observations".
Cheers.
|
That's why the OP stresses the (underlying) observations.
For example, "the CMB" observations are things like the observed intensity of the microwave sky, at a range of frequencies, integrated over a range of (many different) angular beams. An alternative cosmology merely needs to account for these observations.
A second example, "the Hubble relationship" observations are redshifts and whatever went into establishing the distances of the objects observed, plus a determination that these objects are "galaxies". An alternative cosmology merely needs to account for these (this alternative cosmology may, for example, interpret the "galaxies" as something quite different from gravitationally bound, and interacting, systems of stars, gas and dust).