Why can't you just solve le Hubble Tension with the Voyagers and really (radio) bright objects using triangulation?
I get that in comparison to the distances involved its not much but it doesn't seem like they even tried this.

No grant money for that

>>16729226 (OP)
Apart from >>16729230's excellent and intellectually complete point about no grant money available for spaffing even more money into space, the problem is paralax, or lack of.

All you get is a different perspective on the planets that hopefully lines up with the current heliocentric model and has no surprises. But the stars are too far away so they don't change relatively.

Ever since red shift was disproven and it turned out stars and galaxies are allowed colours we are back to not knowing how far away they are again. Everyone look the other way quickly.

Explains it. Short.
https://youtu.be/QOlkWDK61nE

>>16729256
>thunderbolts project
based plasma cosmology schizo

The solar system, and the rest of the Milky Way, are not expanding with universe. Gravitational bound structures do not expand with the rest of the universe. You need to look on large scales, even within our local group of galaxies you cannot measure expansion.

Also spacecraft aren't generally great test bodies, see the pioneer "anomaly". The anomaly was talked about for years as potentially being evidence for new physics, but new calculations of the thermal recoil show that you don't need any new physics to explain it. This demonstrates how hard it is to account exactly for all the small effects which you need to model and understand very well to do this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly

Voyager could never be used for this because it uses it's thrusters, which are not perfectly precise in the amount of thrust they provide.


>>16729256
>Ever since red shift was disproven
lel no. Electric universe cranks say the stupidest shit.

>>16730825
>The solar system, and the rest of the Milky Way, are not expanding with universe. Gravitational bound structures do not expand with the rest of the universe
You must be 18 to post here. You cannot observe the bounded structures. You receive their emissions wich have to expand. If not you will not observe your expansion wich is hallucinated deduction at all.

>>16730956
>You cannot observe the bounded structures. You receive their emissions
i.e. observing them. And OP is talking about directly measuring expansion, not looking at light.
>wich have to expand.
No they don't.
>If not you will not observe your expansion wich is hallucinated deduction at all.
You'll have to translate that one to english for me.

>>16730957
> No they don't.
Why

>>16730958
Because the solar system and the galaxy are gravitationally bound. They don't experience expansion. Expansion can only be observed on large scales, beyond a few million lightyears.

>>16730960
>They don't experience expansion
That's obvious and was never part of that bigbangbullshit. Sorry i couldn't imagine this forum has gone recently even more stupid as usual.

>>16730994
If you agree then why did you argue the point in the first place?

>>16729277
>based plasma cosmology schizo
I'll take that as a compliement :)

The thing is, they are right. No one can answer the red shift problem inside the existing paradigm. Why would quasars be in front? Why would different galaxies be joined but have different red shift?

And most tellingly, how come it is redshift away from Earth and not away from a universal center? It isn't likely that Earth happens by chance to be on the very spot a big bang occured.

Once you go electric models start working with no silliness about dark matter or dark energy.

>>16731247
>Why would quasars be in front?
They're not. You're just mindlessly repeating the same old claims made by Arp. He was so sure the quasar was in front, but then it was confirmed the quasar had absorption lines at the redshift of the galaxy, proving it is not in front. At best it could be inside, but it could also be behind.

>Why would different galaxies be joined but have different red shift?
They're not. Arp started off with hundreds of these galaxies, and then with better data it witted down to one or two where he (subjectively) believes it looks like there connected. It's just cherry picking.

If what Arp said was true then high redshift quasars and low redshift galaxies should be correlated on the sky. Arp claimed this himself but only using the data he handpicked, making it meaningless. With tens of thousands of galaxy quasar pairs other researchers showed no correlation. Arp's effect is not real, it vanishes with large samples.

>And most tellingly, how come it is redshift away from Earth and not away from a universal center?
Lel. The big bang has no center. It is a homogeneous model. Maybe at least have a high-school level of understanding before claiming you have debunked the mainstream.

>Once you go electric models start working with no silliness about dark matter or dark energy.
There is no electric universe model. They cannot even agree on what redshift is. You point to plasma cosmology, which was an an expanding cosmology. Arp's claims and plasma cosmology are contradictory.
It's easy to claim you can explain everything when you make no attempt to do physics, or test your ideas against real data.

>>16731267
A particular arrangement of elements is not a test though anon. Measurement is not a test. What od you make of the JWST pop-sci faggotry?

>>16731633
It is a test. If it was really in front there should be no absorption at the redshift of the galaxy. If it is behind or inside then there must be some.

JWST has shown lots of cool stuff, including lots which further debunk Arp's claims. In particular JWST has found dozens of high redshift galaxies clustered around high-redshift quasars, at the same redshift. Which shouldn't occur under Arps model, but it does. it's another confirmed prediction of the standard model, where quasars are massive galaxies in the early universe and so strongly cluster with fainter galaxies. It has also revealed the quasar host galaxies themselves.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.08254
https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.07986
https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.09894

>>16731674
Ah, so you are cherry picking and have tipped your hand. Measurements do not count as experiments. All one would have to do is define tunable parameters as the astronomers do that they tweak to whatever resulting measurement. Good show.
Arps - I don't even know what this is btw - but the meta arps = arps + dark fudge factor. Fudge factor always blows you the fuck out because it gets to be set to whatever the current gestalt of the paradigm. So you are only talking about a fringe arps, essentially you are strawmanning because you don't want to deal with the underlying metaphysical contradictions rampant in your own belief.

>>16731680
>Measurements do not count as experiments.
I said test, not experiment. It is a test.
>All one would have to do is define tunable parameters as the astronomers do that they tweak to whatever resulting measurement.
Tell me what tunable parameters there are to tweak in looking for the presence of absorption lines.
>Arps - I don't even know what this is btw
Halton Arp was a fringe astronomer. You are regurgitating his claims, apparently without any understanding.
>the meta arps = arps + dark fudge factor. Fudge factor always blows you the fuck out because it gets to be set to whatever the current gestalt of the paradigm.
Lel. How many fudge factors did Arp's model include? He had intrinsic redshift (no physical model), spontaneous generation of matter, and the overall cosmological redshift. He had no idea how any of these things worked. That is three, and bear in mind his model never got as far as explain the stuff dark matter is needed for.

And how many fudge factors does the electric universe contain? No idea, because they have never even attempted to write down something that could be objectively and quantitatively tested. Despite claiming on their youtube videos to know how the universe works, there is no EU cosmology. There is nothing to test, other than vague ideas and handwaving, which changes depending on who you listen to. It's easy to claim everything is simple, when you have never even bothered to reconcile your hypothesis with real observations of the universe. You complain that models can just be tweaked after the data comes in, that means nothing coming from someone defining a "paradigm" which isn't even written down.