In article <17526ef5-0233-47a6-b2cf-231ff59c607a@googlegroups.com>,
Lawrence Crowell <goldenfieldquaternions@gmail.com> writes:

"The scientists carefully compared the size and brightness of about a thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies. They chose the most luminous spiral galaxies for comparisons, matching the average
luminosity of the near and far samples.

Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical.

These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in contradiction
with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the
expanding Universe hypothesis."

Something does not sound right here. I sought out some preprints
of papers below. It strikes me as unlikely that with thousands of
astronomers and astrophysicists that luminosity of galaxies was as
badly mis-measured as this claimed result reports. Also these results
are somewhat dated now with no follow on.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0275

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509611

I've already replied to this in general terms, intentionally not reading
the article linked to, because I know that I would have heard about this
had it been a correct result. I've now read the article linked to. It
is from 2014, and it discusses a 2014 paper. Giveaway: one of the
authors is Eric Lerner, infamous for his book The Big Bang Never
Happened, and well known crackpot. Ned Wright even has some web pages debunking Lerner:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html

Yes, Lerner has a reply to Wright.

I think that this is enough information. People can read both sides of
the debate on the net; there is no use in going over it again here.

Could a proven crackpot come up with some good science? Yes. Did he in
this case? No. As I noted in my other reply, while it is difficult to observationally confirm exactly the predicted form of the decrease in
surface brightness with redshift, if it did not exist, then all galaxies
which could be resolved by a small telescope would be visible. As
anyone who has looked through a telescope knows, this is not the case.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)