Abstract

HHigh 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 supernovae 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 quasar 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 expansion. 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 redshifts?

Together, both sets of data are consistent with a Universe that did expand in the past but stopped expanding 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 redshifts have differing redshifts dependent on distance. It is proposed that in this scenario, redshifts are due to the New Tired Light theory alone.