In message , Ralph Hertle
writes
Martin Brown wrote:
In message , Ralph Hertle
writes

Martin Brown wrote:

Google "Lyman forest" ought to bring something useful up.
Combine it with "tired light" and you may get exactly what you seek.

Martin:

'Tired light' is a term that suits then advocates of the BB; it is a
derogatory term that is intended to place an emotional wet blanket

[ your reply: ]

And "Big Bang" was also a derogatory term used by the main advocate
of old Steady State theories, Sir Fred Hoyle, to pour scorn on the
new upstarts.


True, and is the term, "tired light", the revenge of the Post
Modernists and the social metaphysicians who are attached to
expansionist -creationist science?

Since the universe seems to match the predictions of hot Big Bang models
rather well it would be churlish not to take those models seriously.

Tired light as a serious contender was shot down in flames a long time
ago. Only a handful of scientists from the old Steady State era still
cling on to the forlorn hope that they might have been right after all.
Most of them rely heavily on Arp's cherry picked pictures of odd galaxy
quasar "associations" showing coincidental line of sight alignments.

Observational evidence has long since settled this debate in favour
of hot Big Bang cosmologies and the name, short and simple has stuck.

The term, Big Bang, did stay, and the term, ironically, actually
expressed the intention of the BB scientists in the discussions current
at the time.

And it happens to accurately describe the universe we live in.

Short names like this often stay in use. Tired light - for light that
loses energy and gets tired after long journeys seems like quite a
nice way of describing it to me.

The proper scientific question to ask is, "What happens to light
photons as they traverse the openness of outer space that causes the
diminution of their energy levels?"
Climbing out of a deep gravitational potential well will do it, but
there is no evidence that we have seen any galaxies where that
contribution was dominant or even significant.


What "well"? What is the physical evidence for that?

It was first demonstrated on Earth using an experiment based on the
Mossbauer effect (Pound & Rebka). A photon escaping against gravity
loses energy in strict accordance with GR - it is gravitationally
redshifted. The amount of energy lost depends on the strength of local
gravity.

Why "galaxies?" What is the meaning of that?

They are collections of stars.

You do not understand what physics is if you deny the three concepts
that I provided in my previous post, and equally appalling, you imply
that you think that science is a matter of social agreement.

No. It is you who do not have the first clue what science is.

And distance measures using supernovae as standard candles avoid
relying on using redshift to determine distance. Nothing can trump
the observational evidence - nature is the final arbiter.
Regards,

I don't quite understand what you are saying due to your grammatical
errors. What in photometry is a "standard candle".

It is clear that you do not understand much about physics or astronomy.

A "standard candle" is an object that you can recognise from a large
distance and know immediately how bright it must be. Type Ia supernovae
are reckoned to be pretty good ones. Knowing how intrinsically bright it
is you can deduce it's distance from how bright it appears to us from
Earth.

Social metaphysics, a concept in the philosophy of science, is
everywhere a false concept, including physics.

You don't like the Big Bang. So you want to warp physics to match your
off the wall ideas about how things ought to be.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown