Tired light and supernovae

I don't think you're getting the proposition right.

If someone sings a song that takes two minutes at rest relative to you ... it will take longer to sing it if he is receding from you at velocities which are significant fractions of light velocity because the source of the signal is stretched out instead of standing still relative to the viewer. Each piece of the signal has to cover more "ground" to get to the same destination. It has nothing to do with special or general relativity or even with the expansion of the universe for that matter. It has more to do with Gallilean relativity.

It's just a simple, well-known principle of relative motion and finite light speed. The argument is whether the graph of the signal stretching fits the expansion of the universe idea or whether the data is not sufficient to make such a claim ... or ... whether the data is fundamentally misinterpreted.

I do understand what you are saying, but the data you provided only supports the conclusions with all other variable being 0. Works in math and economics, but not reality. I also have some objections to your particular example.

If supernova a takes 10 days (x) to do something and the signal travels to us at the speed of light, in order for supernova b to do the exact thing and take 20 day (2x) then it would have to be accelerating at the speed of light to summarily take twice as long. But, I may again be missing something.

If someone is talking on the radio with you and is receding at a velocity which is an appreciable fraction of the velocity of light ... he will be heard to talk very slowly and he will take a longer time to say anything. That's all there is to it.

This is also true in tired light models for someone truly receding from you. However, tired light models do not posit that cosmological redshift is related to velocity but rather to absorption of some of the light's energy in the intervening space. Hence, a signal from such a source should appear to be redshifted but ... the total time over which the signal is sent will not be lengthened. The data at present support the BB model (if you accept their interpretation of the data which Tom does not for the reasons stated by him further up the thread).

If I were to hold the trigger of a bullhorn for ten seconds while standing still, it would be observed to last ten seconds to an observer. If I wished to make that 10 seconds last 20 seconds for that observer, I would have to travel away from him at the speed of sound for the durations of the ten seconds in order for a 20 second duration to occur. The same holds true with you expample of the duration of the supernova. In order for the event for one supernova that takes 10 seconds to take 20 seconds for the other implies that the supernova that takes 20 seconds is traveling away from us at the speed of light plus whatever the speed the 10 second supernova is recending. This is not possible and there must be some other varible that causes the cumulative effect.

If your rational that motion is causing this phenomena is correct, it supports an inward expansion of the universe much better than an outward one. The BB and outward expansion are in big trouble. The evidence is mounting and it is just a matter of time.

I looked back on the chart I saw originally and you are right. However, all the data points are at less than z=1 so the choice of "what takes 20 days will then take 40 days" was a bad example because there is no data point at the extreme of z=1.

Nothing is changed. The data, as presently interpreted, favor the Standard Model.

EBTX,

Thanks for the clarification, that was where I suspected the problem lay. However, the data still does not support anything but red shift being the result of expansion and does not support the standard model over inward expansion.