[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:


View post   

>> No.15904576 [View]
File: 282 KB, 661x608, tiredlight.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15904576

>>15904278

>> No.15887994 [View]
File: 282 KB, 661x608, tiredlight.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15887994

>>15887449
seethe and cope

>> No.15481191 [View]
File: 282 KB, 661x608, tiredlight.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15481191

>>15480991
>can't refute a single word
>"l-lol b-bait..."
peak ignorant and stupid
>>15481004
>Nope.
yep, absolutely
>Hubble's objection was that a his measurements would imply the universe was only 1-2 billion years in age. It turned out his distance measurements were trash, the new value of the Hubble constant is 10 times lower.
no, Hubble's objection when huge redshifts started to come in was essentially, "the idea that this is caused by expansion is retarded"
>Bullshit.
not at all, those are the facts
deal with it or stay an ignorant retard
>100 years later and there is still no known interaction which could cause tired light.
fully possible to infer that it must be the cause, as all lines of evidence point towards it
>All known processes either; depend on wavelength or scatter the light in angle.
nope, you can e.g. have directional scattering by a lattice
there are countless possible explanations
we know it's what happens regardless
>It is basically tied-light-of-the-gaps, it does whatever you need it to.
no, it does exactly what's observed
Big Bang on the other hand is the most ridiculous gap-filling mental gymnastics retardation ever to exist
>Also nope.
yes, absolutely, Tolman surface brightness test shows tired light is correct, just as every other line of evidence does
>Time dilation in supernovae can't be explained.
doesn't happen, you dumb retard, the idea that it happens has always been circular reasoning where Big Bang assumptions have been assumed and used to adjust the data to what Big Bang cultists need it to be
>And the fact that JWST and other telescopes show high redshift are different (e.g. heavy element abundance) shows that Lerner's model is again wrong.
lmao, we're reaching new levels of cope
>"yes, JWST shows the impossible...but it's just different, okay??"
my sides
>nope
yep, 100%
>One has to actually build a testable model which can be tested/refuted.
tired light has been supported by all observational evidence ever made, deal with it

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]