Here I am starting trouble again. So far I have asked about observational weaknesses in standard cosmology and the redshift distance relationship. Most seem to agree that there is a redshift distance relationship, but debate what it looks like (how much "intrinsic" and how much "cosmological" redshifts). The request for observational weaknesses simply drew a blank. There don't appear to be any.
Note that any observation is subject to interpretation; indeed, that's how we make sense of observations. So, any observation can be interpreted as being consistent with more than just one theory. To me, an observational weakness is an observation that cannot be made consistent with the theory, at least not without fundamentally unreasonable assumptions being involved.
There are plenty of alternative theory interpretations of observation, some better than others, and some more serious than others, and they are all hashed out (more or less) in the various threads.
So now I am motivated to move on to a new question: What's wrong with Big Bang cosmology? What is it about the idea that so many people just don't like it, even when they can't think of a concrete reason for rejecting it? Are objections based on some philosophical point? What's going on?
Cheers.
