The discussion centers on the cosmological redshift phenomenon, which is attributed to the expansion of space rather than the 'tired light' hypothesis. Key arguments include the Tolman Surface Brightness Test, which demonstrates that if redshift were due to energy loss, surface brightness would decrease in proportion to (z+1)-1, while expansion leads to a decrease proportional to (z+1)-4. Participants clarify that the expansion of space can occur without dark energy, although dark energy influences the rate of expansion. The consensus is that redshift is a result of the stretching of spacetime, not merely a Doppler effect from moving objects.
PREREQUISITESAstronomers, astrophysicists, and cosmologists interested in the mechanisms behind redshift and the expansion of the universe, as well as students and researchers studying cosmological models and their implications.
Are not valid references.JimJCW said:The following articles
A lot of scientific discoveries are overwhelming. That a single fertilised egg can develop into a fully grown human being. The evolution of life including intelligent, conscious humans.JimJCW said:Big Bang is the prevailing model of the universe. What you are saying is believed by most people. However, the idea that the observable universe expanded from a tiny point of Planck length (1.6×10-35 m) to the present radius of 4.4×1026 m (46.5 Gly) is so overwhelming that some people may have traces of uncertainties back in their minds.
JimJCW said:Big Bang is the prevailing model of the universe. What you are saying is believed by most people. However, the idea that the observable universe expanded from a tiny point of Planck length (1.6×10-35 m) to the present radius of 4.4×1026 m (46.5 Gly) is so overwhelming that some people may have traces of uncertainties back in their minds.
The following articles related to expansion of space [have been deleted by the moderators since they are not valid references.]
Vanadium 50 said:Why are you arguing with yourself?