You're making a general mistake in your approach to how learning works. Explanations are neither monolithic nor unchanging, nor is there some kind of direct inheritance of credibility at work where the entire field of knowledge must be scrapped because the first paper 75 years ago is imperfect. There are literal generations of work corroborating and refining these ideas. Some avenues are still incomplete, and there are some things we may never know. This is all to be expected.
Which is not presently the accepted framework, for good reason as we don't see galaxies slowly fading into the microwave. There's a substantial frequency drop between the farthest detectable galaxies and the CMB, which requires explanation.
To be clear here, I'm not saying that our modern model of cosmology isn't weird. It's weird to cosmologists, too. But it's the best and most consistent explanation of the totality of the data that we have right now. It's also entirely possible that we've arrived at fundamental misunderstandings. If so, and if those misunderstandings can be revealed by observations within our power to make, they'll be eventually corrected. Nothing we've seen meets that standard yet, as far as I know. And if/when that happens, it will still take years of work to confirm and redesign the framework.
Last edited:
