Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
|
That should tell you something. Tired light was being revisited by this paper in 1972 after it had already been abandoned for decades. It looked at an old 1930’s idea to see if all the 1930-1970 observations still discounted it. In other words, the paper that I linked is dated because this idea has been dead for a very long time. I also link modern papers that mention in passing that such-and-such observation or study disproves the old question of “tired light”.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
It states that galaxies are moving apart.
Observations show us that galaxies cluster.
|
Oh, boy. Clusters are not a counter observation to recession or cosmic expansion. Both galaxies and galaxy clusters show redshift. This was well-known in 1972 as the link, in fact, discusses clusters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
The link is not worth saving. Have you actually read it.
|
Pluto, if you're unsure what a galaxy cluster is or how one could be receding because of cosmic expansion, don't assume the information you're reading is to blame. The link properly examines expansion vs. non-expanding "tired light" scenarios.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
|
What mistaken assumptions does it make? Please be specific.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
as for wiki infomation. Alot of that is opinion based and needs updating.
|
Can you please quote the part you think needs updated and show how you would change it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
You say simply ruled out by many observations.
Please supply those observations.
|
Surface brightness measurements of 47 starburst galaxies at redshift 5−6 done in 2007:
Quote:
By taking the constancy of intrinsic surface brightness as given, if we were to do similar calculations using an alternative “tired light” models, that predicts a much weaker redshift dependence, typically (1+z)−1, the difference in predicted surface brightness between an expanding cosmology and a “tired light” model would be a factor of (1 + z)3 ∼ 73 ∼ 300. While a full application of the Tolman test (Tolman 1930, 1934) needs to properly account for both possible evolution and k-corrections, neither effect approaches the factor of ∼300 expected from cosmological surface brightness dimming. Thus, we derive strong evidence in favor of the expanding Universe and against any alternative “tired light” models from the surface brightness measurements.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...709.0520v1.pdf
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
Its not us simple as it looks. The intrinsic properties are only now been understood, particularly ultra dense compact matter that plays a part in supernova process.
|
What would compact matter have to do with redshift being cosmological expansion vs. tired light?
You might want to read what coldcreation has said regarding tired light in the Redshift z thread posts #
262 and
265.
~modest
