In article ,
davd writes:
"This paper deals with the proposal that the Universe is not expanding,
but that redshifts are produced by a tired-light mechanism. This
hypothesis is used to infer that the observation of Type 1a supernovae
are consistent with such a static universe by re-calibrating the
Type 1a using the Phillips relation modified by assuming a selection
effect.

Why doesn't the observed light curve stretch -- higher-redshift SNe
take longer to decline -- rule out tired light as providing the bulk
of the redshift?

There are, of course, lots of other arguments against any tired light
explanation. It's not as though the possibility has been ignored.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA