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.

 

[Greenlight]

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

I don't believe that redshift reveals expansion.
has anyone proven it?
is there any corroborating evidence?

 

[contrarian]

is there any corroborating evidence?

The expansion of the universe is also supported by the high abundance of light elements.

That they vastly outnumber larger elements indicates a starting point for all elements.

Big Bang Nucleosynthesis

 

[Jzz]

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

One could argue that redshift tells us only about how the light was affected on its journey — stretched due to past conditions of the universe (e.g. a rapid early expansion or initial velocity), but not necessarily because the universe is still expanding today. The mainstream interpretation (ΛCDM model) treats redshift as resulting from the continuous stretching of space during the entire light path — i.e., a photon’s wavelength increases not just from a single event, but as the universe expands throughout the photon's journey. This implies that space is still expanding right now. I would say that the problem lies with the ΛCDM model. Modern cosmologists are bending data to try and follow their model, which as it turns out does not have much if any empirical support.

If we consider the present-day radius of the Universe to be approximately 46 billion light-years, cosmic expansion would mean that the distance between objects should be increasing over time. For instance, in a Universe with a radius of 1.3 × 10²³ km (approximately 13.8 billion light-years), a galaxy or star that is 100 million light-years distant would, due to the scale factor of expansion, now be approximately 333 million light-years away. This suggests that, if cosmic expansion were truly affecting distances, we should see galaxies and stars appearing much farther apart than previously thought. However, this increased distance isn’t immediately reflected in our measurements, possibly due to the way we measure cosmic distances, the limitations of observational tools, or the fact that it is space itself that is stretching. And just how much sense does that make?

The cosmic expansion model, along with the concept of dark energy, largely depends on the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and its estimated redshift of z = 10, which is thought to represent the early Universe. However, the CMB has increasingly been shown to be (Augmented Newtonian Dynamics Theory) more of a reflection of the present-day composition of the Universe, rather than a snapshot of a distant, early cosmic past. The fact that the CMB is remarkably consistent across the sky, with very little variation, challenges the idea of ongoing cosmic expansion. If the Universe were still expanding at an accelerating rate, we would expect to see more significant changes in the CMB's temperature and distribution, (given that it is a present day phenomenon) which should reflect the dynamics of cosmic inflation and expansion over time. The unchanging nature of the CMB instead suggests that the assumptions tied to the standard expansion model may need to be reconsidered, or that expansion, as we understand it, may not be driving the cosmic phenomena as currently theorized.

 

[billslugg]

AND is another aether theory. Aether is not needed. Each charged particle has force lines that extend to the edge of the universe. Those force lines are the aether. No aether needed.

 

[Jzz]

AND is another aether theory. Aether is not needed. Each charged particle has force lines that extend to the edge of the universe. Those force lines are the aether. No aether needed.

Bill sluggs
It's interesting that a medium such as aether is so easily dismissed, especially given that throughout physics, media play a foundational role in the propagation of waves—sound requires air, water waves require water, and even electromagnetic fields require a framework of definition. The idea that "force lines" alone can substitute for a medium raises more questions than it answers: What sustains these force lines across cosmic distances? What defines their tension, directionality, and interactions? If they truly "extend to the edge of the universe," then in essence, they behave like a medium—one that connects and transmits information between distant points.
Calling this concept "not aether" is more a matter of semantics than substance. If aether is defined as a pervasive structure or field that allows forces (or waves) to act at a distance, then what is being described is functionally indistinguishable from an aether, regardless of the name. Dismissing aether-like theories outright ignores the growing evidence that space is not truly empty—quantum fields, virtual particles, and dark matter all suggest a rich, underlying structure.
Finally, it’s worth noting that modern physics has, in some ways, circled back to concepts that resemble the aether under different guises—such as the quantum vacuum, Higgs field, or virtual photon field in quantum electrodynamics. Far from being obsolete, the idea of a medium is evolving. It deserves respectful scientific scrutiny, not blanket dismissal.

 

[Classical Motion]

One of the things that has always puzzled me is the large linear structures that we see. They tell us it’s plasma streams. If I recall some structures are 23 million LY long. About 7.9 LY away, ½ universe history. And other large streams too.

But these structures would be impossible to construct with our present theories about space and the matter in it.

If those linear structures were formed by ejecting plasma…… how could it possibly be a straight line?

If that line is made of plasma….. it took much longer than 23 million yrs to form. For plasma can not move at c.

And second, plasma is intermittent. That means the emitted trail will be curved, because of emitter motion. In order to form a straight matter line, the emitter would have to be still.

And if the emitter is still, it would be the first still object ever seen. I assume.

A large linear structure violates what we see from all other objects we see. For all objects are moving.

Plus, A long straight line would distort with space expansion.

If those structures were incident to us, it would help confirm space expansion. But then we would not see them.

Our MW only has a dia of 120K LY. Very small structure in comparison.

A large time consuming linear space structure like that is a mystery.

For me.

 

[Jzz]

One of the things that has always puzzled me is the large linear structures that we see. They tell us it’s plasma streams. If I recall some structures are 23 million LY long. About 7.9 LY away, ½ universe history. And other large streams too.

But these structures would be impossible to construct with our present theories about space and the matter in it.

If those linear structures were formed by ejecting plasma…… how could it possibly be a straight line?

If that line is made of plasma….. it took much longer than 23 million yrs to form. For plasma can not move at c.

And second, plasma is intermittent. That means the emitted trail will be curved, because of emitter motion. In order to form a straight matter line, the emitter would have to be still.

And if the emitter is still, it would be the first still object ever seen. I assume.

A large linear structure violates what we see from all other objects we see. For all objects are moving.

Plus, A long straight line would distort with space expansion.

If those structures were incident to us, it would help confirm space expansion. But then we would not see them.

Our MW only has a dia of 120K LY. Very small structure in comparison.

A large time consuming linear space structure like that is a mystery.

For me.

The formation of immense, linear plasma structures results from a complex interplay of gravitational forces, magnetic fields, and plasma dynamics. While gravity organizes matter on cosmic scales, magnetic fields and plasma behavior ensure the coherence and directionality of these structures. Ongoing observations and theoretical advancements continue to refine our understanding of these colossal cosmic phenomena. An interesting thought is that if dark matter is truly a ,medium that encompasses the entire Universe, then the existence of such a medium might better explain how these large scale linear structures exist. Some theories propose that magnetic fields could play a role in collimating plasma over large distances, maintaining the coherence of these filaments. Others suggest that these structures might not be solely composed of plasma but could also involve dark matter or other exotic components that provide additional stability. Gravity plays a pivotal role in the formation of the universe's large-scale structure. Galaxies are not randomly distributed but are arranged along vast filaments, forming a cosmic web interspersed with voids. If this is the case the presence of a medium such as dark matter (aether) would explain many of the presently unexplained phenomena.

 

[Ignat]

the standard expansion model may need to be reconsidered

I totally agree with that.