Authors: Lyndon Ashmore
High redshift broadening of supernovae light curves, taken at face value, is the only direct evidence for expansion and is often used to discount Tired Light Theories. However, the authors of these papers look at high redshifts since these results are said to give “conclusive evidence for expansion.” But what of the smaller redshifts?, what do they show? This paper reviews supernovae aging data and shows that if we ignore Malmquist biases and that fact that brighter supernova Ia do have intrinsically broader light curves, then the main stream super-novae evidence is that whilst there may be expansion at high redshifts, there is no time dilation and therefore no expansion at low redshifts. That is, if we are to believe the main stream version of supernovae light curves then we must believe that the Universe is presently static. These results are then compared to average Hydrogen cloud separation in the Lyman alpha forest in qua-sar spectra. These also show that at high redshifts the average spacing between Hydrogen clouds reduces as the redshift increases – showing evidence that the clouds are moving further apart with time and therefore expan-sion. However, at low redshifts the average spacing is constant - again showing a static Universe in the region. Is it just coincidence that both sets of data show expansion at high redshifts and a static Universe at low red-shifts? Together, both sets of data are consistent with a Universe that did expand in the past but stopped ex-panding some time ago. The density of the Universe would then be equal to the critical density and we would have reached the point where the expansion has been arrested. There is then no need for inflation, ‘dark energy' or ‘dark matter.' However, in this static epoch of the Universe the Hydrogen clouds and supernovae at low red-shifts have differing redshifts dependent on distance. It is proposed that in this scenario, redshifts are due to the New Tired Light theory alone.
Comments: 3 Pages. Accepted for publication at the 19th Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, Albuquerque. N.M. 2012
[v1] 2012-07-04 12:23:29
Unique-IP document downloads: 113 times
Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.