3 ms·

Not supported by data. There is plenty observational evidence that the redshift is due to cosmic expansion, e.g. galaxy surface brightness evolution, CMB, time

Not supported by data. There is plenty observational evidence that the redshift is due to cosmic expansion, e.g. galaxy surface brightness evolution, CMB, time dilation, the list goes on. The website you link poses a number of unsubstantiated claims without any answer to the numerous problems it raises. Then he links to this hilarious notebook; https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1K1qoUFvqZp1fWbpcKJWq63nflgwS0ZHh?usp=sharing https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1K1qoUFvqZp1fWbpcKJW... I don't mean to sound rude but this doesn't look like the work of someone who has spend any considerable amount of time actually studying the Universe.

sahil50 5y ago
What if I could rebut all the rebuttals? - The analysis of supernovae light curves is calibrated in a way that presumes galactic recession. More detail here https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.11237 https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.11237. - The 2.7 K cosmic background radiation is consistent with non-expansionary, non-big-bang models. Cosmic temperature was predicted 50 years before Penzias and Wilson. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#Ti https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#Ti... - The mechanism for photon energy loss (can we call this "photon hubbling"?) is not scattering by free electrons. I speculate it is the cost of traveling, of a photon forging its way through spacetime. E_t / E_0 = e^(-Ht). In the act of moving, the photon is warping spacetime. It doesn't travel for free. And, what's your view on Dirac's large numbers hypothesis?