bangstrom said:
The same observational evidence that supports the SM also supports a good number of alternative theories.
That has ever been part of the problem. Hubble seems historically ignored past the seminal 1929 paper - his fight was for a static universe with arguments that the brightness did not correlate with an expanding universe - others seemed to argue that the brightness curve was due to evolution of the objects in question.
A frustratingly large number of phenomena can be explained either way. Either you posit a completely unknown redshift mechanism for a nonexpanding universe or quasars brighter than a thousand galaxies for an expanding universe.
Not having a reliable means to get independent distances means that expanding universe theories are used in part to prove themselves via redshift α distance rules. Supernovae were supposed to be the nail in the coffin, but we've seen that they're not.
If the Standard Model went, so would the pressures for a number of phenomena: "reignition", anthropic principle, the rather short 13.7 billion year timeline, the mystery behind metallicity of "early" galaxies, dark energy, dark matter (at least the exotic kinds), "big bounces" (I can't
believe that's started to come around again from WMAP analyses), possibly even SMBHs, though I wouldn't rule those out.
I
really, really, really want the Webb to survive. Short-sighted is both a terrible pun and the truth behind the defunding effort.