B Experimental evidence on cosmological redshift

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the cosmological redshift, attributing it to the expansion of space rather than the "tired light" hypothesis, which suggests photons lose energy over distance. The Tolman Surface Brightness Test is highlighted as a key argument, showing that if redshift were due to energy loss, surface brightness would decrease differently than if it were due to space expansion. Participants clarify that while dark energy accelerates expansion, the universe can expand without it, and the redshift phenomenon is consistent across different cosmological models. Misunderstandings about the nature of redshift and the implications of faster-than-light recession are addressed, emphasizing that no objects actually travel faster than light, but distances can grow at such rates due to the universe's expansion. The conversation concludes by reinforcing the importance of distinguishing between coordinate-dependent interpretations and the invariant nature of redshift measurements.
  • #31
JimJCW said:
The following articles
Are not valid references.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #32
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.
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.

That the solar system evolved from a cloud of dust. Even that there are trillions of galaxies each with hundreds of billions of stars.

It's not a good argument against a theory simply to say that the theory is mind boggling.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
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.]

Please see Wendy Freedman’s 2021 paper, Measurements of the Hubble Constant: Tensions in Perspective, in The Astrophysical Journal.
 
  • #34
Why are you arguing with yourself?
 
  • #35
Vanadium 50 said:
Why are you arguing with yourself?

If I seem to be not committed, it’s because I wish to find the truth.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
134
Views
11K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K