If we set redshift observations aside is there any other evidence of expansion?

[Greenlight]

i asked AI and said the CMBR
but there is a cosmological crisis that says cmbr doesn't agree with redshift.
if expansion is inferred by redshift, what other evidence do they have to corroborate?
as redshift can be caused by time dilation or means other than motion.

 

[Helio]

i asked AI and said the CMBR
but there is a cosmological crisis that says cmbr doesn't agree with redshift.
if expansion is inferred by redshift, what other evidence do they have to corroborate?
as redshift can be caused by time dilation or means other than motion.

The problem with AI is that it hasn't learned how to take some things with a grain of salt.

The problem isn't that redshifts don't reveal expansion, but that the redshift estimates taken from the CMBR (13.8 G years ago), almost, but not quite, match what is observed locally. This is the recent problem called the "Hubble tension", which shows about a 4 or more kps/MPC difference between these values that are outside their margin of error. [Perhaps they will bump the value for DE and fix it.]

You might enjoy reading some of the strong evidence for the BBT here --- Big Bang Bullets II

 

[Astraeus]

Please consider all of the things they had to make up to get expansion models to function. Infinity, Singularities, Dark Matter, Dark Energy.

Objectively speaking, these things should really tell us that something is wrong. However, I can't deny the functionality of these theories. Unfortunately, that functionality has led us to believe that our contrivances are realities.