Re: New Testable Consequence for the Reality of Expansion

On Mar 16, 7:25 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 16, 6:57 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 16, 5:04 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]

A third suggestion, that surface brightness changes because of new
properties of light, seems to fit in with what is observed too.

Except that's bull***, Mike.

You have no idea how to relate these "new properties of light" to the
surface brightness of an object.

I'm saying that at distances where redshift is observed, the inverse
square law needs to be modified.

God, are we playing this little game again, Mike?


Expansion accomplishes this by adding extra space.

It doesn't work that way. This has been explained to you before.


Tired light does not accomplish that.

But slow light does, because by traveling slower, it's like it had
farther to go.

It also doesn't match the Tolman surface brightness test. Your tired
light theory is wrong. Please *** off to where-ever you came from.
Find a new hobby. Get a girl. Just go away.
.

Quantcast