The original tired light hypothesis was rejected as an explanation of the hubble red shift relation because it predicted more distant galaxies would appear fuzzier then we observe. The predicted the fuzziness was a consequence of scattering causing the red shift. However, perhaps a new version of the tired light hypothesis involving some new concepts could explain the hubble red shift relation.
eg. what if light is instrinsically prone to loose energy with distance and the energy it gives up becomes something else like dark mater or dark energy? Harry On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 11:54 AM H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > Eric Lerner argues the "unexpected" data from the JWST is expected in an > non-expanding universe. Of course if the universe is not expanding he also > says explaining the hubble redshift relation would require some new physics. > > Harry > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 7:32 PM Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> As Lerner admits, the CMB is the main thing which is holding the big bang >> theory together. >> >> Yet the 'experts' really can't explain exactly how CMB radiation, which >> is moving away from us at light-speed from a single point in time, manages >> to somehow magically be reflected back so as to be observed by us as a >> rather strong signal. >> >> Maybe CMB should not be observable in 3 space at all. >> >> IOW - it can be argued that the cosmic background is itself poorly >> understood and not the best feature with which to base important derivative >> theories on (like the big bang)... >> >> >> H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Eric Lerner comments on the first data from the JWST: >> >> The Big Bang didn't happen >> What do the James Webb images really show? >> https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215 >> >> >> Eric Lerner's claims are deflated in this article: >> >> https://www.cnet.com/science/space/no-james-webb-space-telescope-images-do-not-debunk-the-big-bang/ >> >> Harry >> >>
