A Rebuttal to the Infrared Redshift Interpretation of Type Ia Supernovae

[Jzz]

The standard cosmological model relies heavily on redshifted light from Type Ia supernovae to support the theory of an expanding universe. It claims that light from distant supernovae is stretched due to cosmic expansion, causing originally visible light to shift into the infrared. However, this interpretation breaks down under scrutiny, particularly when one considers the abundance of naturally occurring infrared radiation already present in the universe. This post argues that the identification of redshifted supernova signals in the infrared is not only flawed—it is physically implausible.

The universe is replete with infrared radiation from countless sources: Interstellar and intergalactic dust warmed by starlight, planetary systems and debris disks, star-forming regions and molecular clouds, warm galaxies, especially those undergoing active star formation, brown dwarfs and stellar remnants, These emit in a continuous range of infrared wavelengths, creating a dense, omnipresent IR background. The infrared sky is not a quiet or empty place — it is crowded, complex, and noisy, much like a city during rush hour.

According to the expanding universe theory, a supernova whose light was originally in the visible range (e.g. around 500 nm) could, at high enough redshift (z ~ 1.5–2), appear in the infrared region (e.g. 1–2 microns). Infrared telescopes are then used to "find" this redshifted signature. But in a universe where: Real infrared radiation is already dominant, and where composite radiation fills the longer wavelengths, —it becomes unreasonable to believe that a redshifted visible-light signal could be distinguished from the surrounding infrared background. The signal-to-noise ratio would be catastrophically low. Identifying such a signal would be akin to trying to hear a single violin note in the middle of a stadium full of drums. The claimed detection becomes not a feat of science, but an exercise in statistical self-confirmation interpreting ambiguous data through the lens of an a priori model.

Redshift in the Infrared is a Mirage. The belief that we are observing redshifted visible light from distant supernovae in the infrared band is, when examined in the light of known infrared saturation and emission physics, untenable. In a universe already glowing with genuine IR radiation, the idea that astronomers are identifying faint redshifted optical signals in that sea becomes not science, but circular reasoning.

To continue insisting that we can see into the deep past through this fog is not only speculative—it may be scientifically irresponsible.

 

[contrarian]

Redshifted light from Type Ia supernovae have specific spectra for elements known to occur in objects of this kind. This IR is specific to the point source.

It seems rather unlikely that such observations are not reliable just because the universe is awash in low-level IR.

If you are getting specifically enhanced spectral lines (i.e. spectra) from a Type Ia supernova point source, it should stick out significantly from the background. Searches provide many papers on this, using spectra to define these supernova, and their distances.

You are suggesting that all of this data is wrong, which seems like a hard sell to some.

https://supernova.lbl.gov/PDFs/spectra.pdf

 

[Jzz]

Redshifted light from Type Ia supernovae have specific spectra for elements known to occur in objects of this kind. This IR is specific to the point source.

It seems rather unlikely that such observations are not reliable just because the universe is awash in low-level IR.

If you are getting specifically enhanced spectral lines (i.e. spectra) from a Type Ia supernova point source, it should stick out significantly from the background. Searches provide many papers on this, using spectra to define these supernova, and their distances.

You are suggesting that all of this data is wrong, which seems like a hard sell to some

Contrarian:

Firstly thank you for the link, very informative and very interesting. The referenced paper on low and high redshift spectra of type 1a supernovae paper tells us that : Redshift (denoted as z) refers to the phenomenon where the light from an object moving away from us is stretched to longer wavelengths, shifting it towards the red part of the spectrum. In astronomy, this is a key indicator of how far away a celestial object is and how fast it is receding from us due to the expansion of the universe. A higher redshift means the object is farther away and we are seeing it as it was further back in time. A lower redshift means the object is closer and we're seeing it more recently in the universe’s timeline.

The paper presents data for 14 supernovae with redshift values between 0.17 and 0.83. These are high-redshift in the sense that they are relatively distant (and from earlier in the universe’s history) compared to local or nearby supernovae with low redshift values (e.g., z < 0.1).

The conclusion arrived at in the paper suggests that Type Ia supernovae look and behave the same whether they exploded billions of years ago or more recently, which is essential because their consistency allows them to be used as "standard candles" to measure cosmic distances and study the expansion of the universe.

A few points: how bright is this redshifted light? According to planck

According to Planck’s law:

For infrared (longer wavelengths), the exponential in the denominator grows smaller (for lower T), and the total radiance is lower than for visible or UV light. The conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the overall radiance will be very low. Let us go into things in a little more detail. A lot of poetic like verse is used to distinguish redshifted light from ordinary light (i.e., from other sources) such as: “A hot object (like a supernova) has a Planck curve corresponding to a high temperature, and it also shows broad absorption lines, like Si II or Ca H&K, that are characteristic of high-energy events.”
This maybe so but look at the facts. Here are the calculations for the intensity drop based on the inverse square law for the two extremities of high redshift mentioned in the paper:
For redshift
z=0.18:
The corresponding distance is approximately 2.38 × 10^25 meters.
The intensity drop factor is 1.76 × 10^-51.
For redshift
z=0.83:
The corresponding distance is approximately 1.10 × 10^26 meters.
The intensity drop factor is 8.30 × 10^-53.

Making a very rough calculation of the signal strength after red shift :
Here are the actual figures for a Type Ia supernova at redshift
z=0.5:
Average Power Output (after redshift correction) over 20 days:
≈3.86×10^ 37 Watts
Observed Flux at Earth (Intensity per square meter):
≈7.03×10^−16 W/m^2

So this redshifted supernova would be: Millions of times fainter than the dimmest star you can see, but within range for professional observatories. Further millions if not billions of infrared sources transmitting at the same frequencies

Coming now to the shape of the spectra, the redshift we see is for the ultraviolet part of the spectrum, what happens to the rest of the spectrum I declare that after being redshifted and at such low intensities they would be all but invisible. That is why I maintain that once an object is redshifted to these extents its reliability drops exponentially to the point where it is no longer credible. Therefore, merely the act of pointing in the required direction is not enough considering the final resolutions, and distances AND redshifts calculated in this manner are open to question.

 

[contrarian]

A few points: how bright is this redshifted light?

Absolute brightness, which can vary depending on gas and dust in the host galaxy, can impact the distance measurement due to attenuation of the SN light. Similar issues for line-of-sight attenuation may also be involved.

Clearly distance measurements are not a simple determination based solely on brightness .

https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/534/3/2263/7778269

 

[Classical Motion]

A wave needs a media. And in some respects, space does have a media. Well, space really doesn’t have a media, but this media is in and occupies space. It’s called static EM. That and distance is the only properties space has. And it really doesn’t have those properties……..those properties in just in space, not of space.

But it’s only field media, not a mass media, and can not vibrate. This field media does not expand and contract. Or interact. A non interactive superposition. Which can be easily demonstrated. Tell me if you need this.

Once you understand the physical dynamic of emission, it can be clearly seen why the speed of the emitter never effects the speed of the light. And why the speed from all emitters, no mater their motion state, is the same constant speed. It’s not magic, it’s mechanical.

The problem is, that there are 3-4 different dynamics that can cause emission.

Single particles emit with one motion, and dipoles emit with a different motion….. and radio emits with another different motion.

But all of these dynamics have one thing in common. An INSTANT emission.

Instant emissions and singular discreet emissions are the concepts needed to understand redshift. Or to understand anything about light. EM radiation.

Radio wave theory comes from detection measurements, not propagation measurements.

Radio theory is mass action-reaction theory, not propagation theory.

Radio waves do not wave, they tap. They blink with a duty cycle. Matter detection converts that tap, the clapper duty cycle, into a vibration. A wave of detection.

 

[Catastrophe]

Electromagnetic field - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Cat

 

[Classical Motion]

I am hoping that some of these new sensors will show a lot of our EM theory is incorrect.

The fields of current we play with are very restricted, limited and controlled. They are angular fields. They rotate and remain connected to the charge. The fields we work with are aligned. Current is an alignment. Producing collective fields. From collections of aligned charge.

The math of angular fields is correct, but the physical dynamic explanation of charge flow(current) are not.

Propagated fields are completely different. These are linear discreet wavefronts. But undiscernible due to flux. And the way matter reacts to light. It rings like a bell. Light shakes matter.

Only duty cycle math can describe propagation. And the measured shift of it.

I believe some surprises are in store for the future.

My comments are strictly supposition and not fit for current student work or study. Old timer comments. Rocking-chair students.

 

[Jzz]

Absolute brightness, which can vary depending on gas and dust in the host galaxy, can impact the distance measurement due to attenuation of the SN light. Similar issues for line-of-sight attenuation may also be involved.

Clearly distance measurements are not a simple determination based solely on brightness .

Contrarian, Cat and Classical motion:
Once again a very interesting reference- that brings to mind the following: In 1917, Einstein applied his General Relativity equations to the entire Universe, assuming a homogeneous and isotropic cosmos—what we now call the cosmological principle. He found that the Universe couldn’t be static; gravity would cause it to collapse. To prevent this, he introduced the cosmological constant (Λ) to allow for a static solution.
This changed with Hubble’s 1929 discovery: galaxies are moving away from us—their light is redshifted. This indicated that the Universe is expanding. Einstein reportedly called his cosmological constant his "greatest blunder." General Relativity, when combined with the assumption of homogeneity, naturally predicts expansion or contraction, depending on Λ and the density ρ.
What’s often overlooked is that when we observe distant galaxies, we are looking back in time. The light we see today left those galaxies billions of years ago. This historical view fits well with the original Hubble constant, showing expansion over time, without invoking dark energy. For instance, if looking back in time were not true, it would be impossible to find type 1a supernovae.
In practice, one might argue that it is not the empirical data driving the cosmic expansion model, but rather the model shaping how data are interpreted—a form of theoretical circularity. The standard model, for example, predicts a particular relationship between redshift and luminosity distance. Yet in processing the data, researchers apply corrections for extinction, stretch factors, host galaxy mass, and peculiar velocities—all based on model-dependent correlations. Thus, the final Hubble diagram may no longer serve as an unbiased test of the model, but rather a reflection of it — a process that risks becoming self-reinforcing.
The problem lies not in detecting Type Ia supernovae — they’re bright and distinctive enough—but in accurately assigning redshift values to objects billions of light-years away, where signals are weakened by factors like 10^52 attenuation. Redshift calculations are embedded in a web of corrections: for dust, host galaxies, and peculiar velocities—many based on assumptions from the model itself. The concern is that the model isn't tested by the data, but rather built into the data analysis, creating a circular argument.
In a Universe flooded with background infrared radiation, isolating the signal of a supernova from 10^23 km away with high confidence seems technologically unfeasible. The situation echoes that of LIGO, where data are extracted through complex filtering, raising questions about where detection ends and theoretical reconstruction begins. It might be of interest to note that the Augmented Newtonian Dynamics (AND) model negates the need for gravitational collapse, in the context of an atom having a very long life span.

 

[Classical Motion]

There’s another problem with redshift that not many talk about. And that is the bandwidth.

Instead of looking at one or two reference frequencies for looking at shift, consider the bandwidth of the spectrum of star emission. That’s a wide high intensity bandwidth.

Shouldn’t that whole spectrum, that whole bandwidth, be shifted?

I don’t see any area in/of the IR spectrum….. that is wide enough to hold all the frequencies(bandwidth) of that light spectrum.

Does bandwidth shrink with redshift? How does that work? Does that mean the bandwidth increases when coming at us?

This does not appear to happen. Where did the bandwidth go with redshift, or for that matter…...CMBR.

Something is not right. What’s the bandwidth of those very old small red dots?

 

[Classical Motion]

If star light didn’t have wide bandwidth, for matter to reflect, we would not have color. Just black and white.

Or perhaps black and red. Or black and any single color.

 

[Jzz]

There’s another problem with redshift that not many talk about. And that is the bandwidth.

Instead of looking at one or two reference frequencies for looking at shift, consider the bandwidth of the spectrum of star emission. That’s a wide high intensity bandwidth.

Shouldn’t that whole spectrum, that whole bandwidth, be shifted?

I don’t see any area in/of the IR spectrum….. that is wide enough to hold all the frequencies(bandwidth) of that light spectrum.

Does bandwidth shrink with redshift? How does that work? Does that mean the bandwidth increases when coming at us?

This does not appear to happen. Where did the bandwidth go with redshift, or for that matter…...CMBR.

Something is not right. What’s the bandwidth of those very old small red dots?

Absolutely it should progress into the microwave and radio frequencies . Apart from that it is a pretty complicated scenario, efforts are made to seperate the spectrum of the galaxy from the spectrum of the type 1a supernova, not always successfully.