Rascal ... If I read you correctly .......... ?
I read four of the links you offered including the one Neutralino suggested, as well as the Wiki. I had never heard or read on it before.
'Tired Light'
supports theories that the Universe is not expanding, but is somewhat static.
'Tired Light' does
not support theories that Space is expanding.
'Tired Light' proposals
would support your contention that both matter and space are expanding in proportion.
Nice try, I almost fell in. But for the following reasons I don't agree with it.
The maths don't fit. In the link that Neutralino proposed 'errors in tired light cosmology' it can be clearly seen that in a study of 60 supernovae that redshift exactly fits the decay pattern, whereas 'tired light' would be independent of this decay.
The CMB is consistent. It would not be with 'tired light'
The resolution of distant objects would not be in 'focus', but somewhat blurred, depending on how far the light had come.
The Wiki lists many more observations and measurements that are inconsistent with the theory. But it does not rule it out absolutely:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by From the Wiki There are nonstandard cosmologies who rely on tired light mechanisms though the vast majority of physicists and astronomers accept the conclusions of various studies [citation needed] that such an effect either does not or cannot account for cosmological redshifts. |
cool bananas .... greg
PS: Xmas seems to have bought some sort of viral spiritual mania to most of the members on our forum. I am glad you haven't caught it yet ... its lonely around here ... bearing this in mind I will take the opportunity to wish you a happy one old mate ... cheers ... LOL