I have never said alternative cosmologies were not existing. They are models, and they are well alive. For these reasons, they deserve to be studied. Anything that is not excluded deserves to be studied. And the future will tell us what is viable and what is not. Personally, I prefer the standard cosmological model, because it is simpler. Anything simple is always good. But maybe this will not survive future data :)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The simple conclusion, a law of physics that has not been discovered causes the cosmological constant to disappear. But while many theorists love this constant to go, various astronomical observations-over the age of the universe, the density of matter, and the nature of the cosmic structure-all separately indicate that it may still exist.
What? No! At least I think (not sure to have fully understood your comment),
We have a model that features that constant and that agrees very well with data. This is currently the best model relatively to data, which is why it is commonly coined as 'standard' cosmology,
On the other hand, alternatives exist, some people are working on them, because we must stay open minded.
However, data today can not point to one or the other options. Which is why it is worthy to explore all options.
Yes, I can understand that. Is not the cosmology investigation involves uncovering the form through modeling, which is then tested. The testing process will determine the model closest to the truth. In a realist interpretation, if it is assumed that complete truth about the Universe can be attained, it is a perfect correspondence between the statements in ideal theory and the structure of the Universe in the independence of its existence. Neither the standards nor the relativity of our cosmology have their respective beliefs which are more apt to be opted in.