> > Today's space telescopes provide no direct view of anything
> I have no idea what that means. They literally observe the sky...
Seriously! At this point they're just spitballing.
> I have no idea what that means. They literally observe the sky...
Seriously! At this point they're just spitballing.
But, it isn't as if cosmologists are rigidly holding to the model. Here's a paper looking at extensions to lambda CDM https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.05356. As I mentioned, changing GR is being looked at as an alternative to DE http://www.resceu.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/workshops/resceu08s/presen...
People aren't challenging some things though - I don't think anyone is seriously working on cosmologies that don't include a big bang, because without one I can't imagine how you explain the CMB.
As for not being able to imagine how you explain the CMB without the Big Bang, well, there are plenty of good arguments being made here that put to paid that “limitation.” As well, think of the Michelson-Morley experiment. In that era, no one could imagine how light could propagate through space without the presence of a medium permeating that space.
I’ll venture one step further. Dark Matter is to current cosmology what the aether was to 19th century cosmology.