[wasabi991011]

>Unknownatons you say?!! What evidence do you have for this? Well, I have none. But if I stack up the zero evidence I have for it against the stack of zero evidence that others are showing me that redshift can only indicate accelerating expansion in the spacetime fabric, it’s a wash.

This is where the lack of expertise in physics really shines through, and exemplifies my problems with this article. In science, a lot of knowledge and intuition gets built up but not published because it's "too obvious", and doesn't get communicated to laypeople because it's a mix of too advanced and too unimportant.

It's much more believable to me that physicists implicitly understand why there would be many more issues with alternatives theories to the expansion of the universe. And physicists rarely claim to have a perfect model anyway, opting for "best model that currently fits the evidence".

Maybe more evidence will come out against the expanding universe theory (the new JWST results could be the beginning) and will lead to a paradigm shift. And I appreciate highlighting the big assumption of "redshift is from Doppler". But the bulk of this article has low credibility to me.

[Bradley_A_Pliam]

I've been a part of a subculture that lied to me, something not related to physics or STEM, but after years of drinking the koolaid I finally learned the emptiness of what the community of 'experts' were saying and what so many followers were swallowing whole. This experience damaged my ability to just believe experts. It has affected me in such a way that I don't just give people a license to do handwaving indefinitely. I've come to realize that my intuition could've freed me earlier on from the falsehood that an entire population was swallowing. This time around, I went with my gut. This time I want to know if there is coercion at play (calling people "crackpots" and shaming) or if there is evidence that needs to be laid out.

[richardfey]

There's definitely need of more scientists and not of more experts. Experts means "with experience", which might be of greater quantity or quality than average, but that doesn't cut it. Experts is also where charlatans and quacks abund, because we don't usually keep their opinions and work against the same bar as we do with scientists and scientific publications.

[Bradley_A_Pliam]

Violating the cosmic speed limit is not only not a "perfect model" it's an atrocious model. Wouldn't you agree? It's a model that incorporates hard contradictions to itself.

You are saying I'm a lay person? You nailed it. I'm quite curious though about what would be so "advanced" that pop-science writers would not want to at least allude to it, since just Doppler redshift observations seems like not such a sturdy foundation, especially without anything else buttressing it!