It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Universe may NOT be expanding, study suggests.

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on May, 28 2014 @ 04:16 PM

originally posted by: Adaluncatif
Distant galaxies' red shift is not caused by motion away from us. Red shift is caused by "tired light". Light loses energy after traveling for 14-15 billion years, causing the wavelength to get very large (eventually infinite) and the frequency to get very small (eventually zero). This property of light (losing energy with time) is a very slow process and cannot be observed over small distances and small times. We cannot see beyond a distance of 13-14 billion light years, not because of a big bang, but because light is no longer observable after it has travelled that far. There is more stuff out there but we cannot see it.

Tired light sounds more like science fiction than current cosmological theory. But if you can prove it, you would probably become famous...

Problems with "tired light":


There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work.


The tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves.


The tired light model can not produce a blackbody spectrum for the Cosmic Microwave Background without some incredible coincidences.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned how the COBE microwave background radiation fits into this new hypothesis. Although we have discussed hyper-dimensional cubes and tectonic plates.


The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test.

More here

posted on May, 28 2014 @ 05:06 PM
Guys don't you realize the obvious flawed logic that it is?!

They destroyed themselves with this excerpt from the statement here. 0.html

So in an expanding Universe the most distant galaxies should have hundreds of times dimmer surface brightness than similar nearby galaxies, making them actually undetectable with present-day telescopes.

If what they theorize is true then they are incapable of obtaining the data then need to observe said stars. Now with that said i also understand that the implications there stating is that the stars at the farthest visual range are not dimming at the ratio they predicted.

posted on May, 28 2014 @ 05:34 PM
a reply to: Ketzer22

Maybe it circles back in on itself


new topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in