|
A "law" is merely a formulaic approach to an idealised form of a theory. e.g the laws of gravity, ohms law, hubbles law. In many cases the law can be disproved in real world applications. This is analogous in many ways to societal laws which lawyers tend to make of mockery of in many cases.
The paper I cited was not intended to dispute Hubbles Law, but rather to indicate the nature of the universe when special and general relativity are applied. Nor was the paper meant to dispute the standard treatment of redshift as it certainly does not do this..
I am unaware of any empirical data since the paper was published that changes the points made in the paper. In fact I would argue that very little of any significance has happened in cosmology in the last decade. Merely book-keeping in many ways.
As to your question "How much evidence does it take for you to accept something" that will entirely depend on the person. On the basis of the evidence before me I "believe" that there is a strong possibility that the cosmological model is sound, but I would not be ambitious enough to enshrine it as a law. I can test the merits of Ohms Law and the laws of gravity here and now and many times over. Thus I can give it a high confidence level and say that with 90% confidence this law represents the idealised situation, and it can be suitably modified to allow for the real world. There is no way I can test Hubbles Law or the cosmological equation other than by induction.
Accordingly, I would not seek to criticise those (as you do) that hold either no view or a contrary view on the standard model of cosmology this to include religious views, given the unsure ground upon which we stand. You are in good company though given that luminaries like Hawking advocate the same approach, but then I suspect his interest is in selling books.
|