He likely believes in the Big Bang too which is an absurd, and disproven theory. There are far too many mature galaxies that are far too old for the Big Bang theory to be correct.
You may be thinking of someone else. I'm not aware of Carroll having "his own theory" that he's "staked his entire reputation on."
In any case, he's explained his position, even in the quote I provided. He's simply describing what general relativity says about this. If you have some issue with it, you can respond on technical grounds, without needing to resort to ad hominem.
> He likely believes in the Big Bang too which is an absurd, and disproven theory.
Big Bang is not "disproven" - the Lambda-CDM model of the Big Bang is still known as the "Standard Model of Cosmology," and nothing has replaced it as a consensus among mainstream scientists.
> There are far too many mature galaxies that are far too old for the Big Bang theory to be correct.
The issue of galaxy ages has a number of reasonable explanations in the context of Lambda-CDM. One of them could simply have to do with age estimates, which is an area that suffers from limited observational data that's difficult to interpret. Recent work on the Hubble tension may help resolve that, e.g.: https://news.uchicago.edu/story/new-webb-telescope-data-sugg...
The idea that galaxy ages "disproves" Big Bang theory is at best, a misunderstanding of pop science hype, and at worst pseudoscience. That's not how science works, especially in cosmology where most evidence is very indirect and subject to interpretation.
The CMB originates from what's called the surface of last scattering. Prior to that time, density was such that photons couldn't travel very far without being absorbed. During that period, matter was in an ionized plasma state, consisting of free protons, neutrons, electrons, and some light ionized nuclei like deuterium, without any bound electrons. In this scenario, there were no objects bigger than a light nucleus. It would be impossible for stars or galaxies or even dust particles to form in that situation.
Reinterpretation would depend on what the evidence was. This isn't an area that we're particularly unsure of. There's a very comprehensive theory of the evolution of the early universe, supported by all the evidence we have for quantum theory. I recommend Steven Weinberg's book The First Three Minutes if you're interested.
When people still insist on believing the CMB proves it even when we now see fully formed galaxies at the edge of the observable universe, it's only because they're vested in that theory, and they know if it's wrong then they've been badly wrong for their entire lives. Only people with decades of vested belief in the Big Bang are hanging onto it for dear life, while open minded objective people correctly claim the evidence is against the Big Bang, and it was never anything but a wrong guess.
The Event Horizon theory doesn't postulate a "beginning" of everything, in the comical "it popped into existence" nonsense of the Big Bang. The EH theory doesn't try to establish a first-mover or uncaused-cause. It just describes how the universe is without trying to describe any "magical" beginnings. The Big Bang is a theory about magic, not a theory of science.
Can you point me to any papers about this? Preferably peer-reviewed.
The reason scientists do peer review is captured well by the Mike Tyson quote, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face,” which we can rephrase as, "Everyone has a theory until they undergo peer review."
The point is that your theory is almost certainly wrong, but you won't find out how wrong it is unless you describe it in enough detail for others to check it.
That's just nonsense. My analogy about boxing is not shit-talking, it's pointing out what you're actually doing: talking a big game with no ability to back it up.
I'm doing you a favor by pointing that out, because if you somehow don't realize it, it might help prevent you from turning into a complete crackpot.
Go do an honest evaluation against the Crackpot Index: https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
I'd do it for you, but I can't even do that because your idea isn't documented.