It could be, but I wouldn't fault someone for updating a debunked theory by taking into account new data, nor do I see any particular problem with curve fitting.

If Mullat were saying "Look, the data fits this curve, and therefore, my theory is proven" it would be one thing, but he's just saying, "Here are the absorption coefficients required to make the data fit my model"

If you immediately recognize the Tired Light model, that's great! You know the reasons that the tired light model has been debunked. Let him know, if he doesn't already. But you might not convince him.

Years ago, I had a concept of the universe, and people told me I was copying Milne's model. I went out to the library, and ordered a book on Milne, and there on the front page of the book was a picture of my model! I was very happy. Even though he was long dead, at least there was somebody that understood what I was thinking.

People say that Milne's model is debunked. They also told me reasons that it was debunked, but they were unconvincing, or even absurd. So I still continue to reason out how Milne's model could be modified to fit with the data and findings that I have heard about.

Jonathan Doolin

Did you fit the SN1a data to the tired light model?

I did it.

It doesn't fit.

If you are going to revisit a model, you should do your homework. I did and I don't care for Tired Light.

The author would have known his model doesn't work if he had looked into Supernova Data. I even found it.

Once you have found the data, apply the model and examine the figure.

It is not Rocket Science.

Please let me know if you are now convinced that Milne, Mullat, or Mantega's Tired Light model cannot explain reality.

Jonathan Doolin

You can compare the Tired Light Model with HU modeling of the Pantheon Data.

I solved the Hubble Tension and the Crisis in Cosmology. HU H0 = 67.5 km/s/Mpc. The CMB H0=67.485 km/s/Mpc.

Jonathan Doolin

I missed your point:

If Mullat were saying "Look, the data fits this curve, and therefore, my theory is proven" it would be one thing, but he's just saying, "Here are the absorption coefficients required to make the data fit my model"

The issue with absorption and scattering as replacements for redshifting is that the redshift occurs across all wavelengths.

In other words, if a Type 1a Supernova shows a redshift, the host galaxy shows the same redshift across all spectrum.

So, one cannot use absorption to explain redshift.

Someone called Andre' Assis doesn't like the universe to be finite or expanding, so he tried to deny the Cosmic Microwave Background using the interstellar Medium as a blackbody (to be in equilibrium with the stars).

Of course, that doesn't make sense for the same reasons. The CMB is homogeneous to 1 part in 100,000. The ISM is not.

The ISM is transparent. For a blackbody to reach equilibrium multiple scattering/absorption has to take place.

In other words, many people want the universe not to be expanding. That is the reason behind Tired Light. That is the reason behind denying the CMB and blaming it on ISM Blackbody.

These are examples of bad and ideological science.

Every time you see something that is off by a mile, you have to scrutinize the idea before engaging in it.

For example, I wrote a theory - derived the laws of nature. You can see the law of gravitation. It is a Lorentz-Force written for the Absolute Reference Frame. An Absolute Reference Frame means that I am debunking General Relativity.

I wouldn't come forward until I knew that my force replicated the Planets' Precession Predictions by GR.

Then I did the Binary Pulsars and learned that GR is a single-mass model that fails when the two masses are comparable.

In other words, if you create a model, you have to produce some basic support for it.

You cannot say: Hey, Tire Light is a model... that might work...without testing it to see if it works.

By the way, as far as I am concerned, people who cannot do what I did about Relativity didn't do their homework.

Jonathan Doolin

I asked about Milne's Model to ChatGPT.

1. No Gravity (Purely Kinematic Expansion)

• Milne modeled the expansion of the universe as a purely geometric effect, without invoking Einstein’s General Relativity or any gravitational dynamics.
• That meant the model could not describe how matter curves spacetime or how large-scale structure forms.
• Observations of galaxy clustering, gravitational lensing, and the cosmic web all demand gravitational dynamics.

The reason Milne's model doesn't work is that it cannot replicate the SN1a data.

You cannot use Hubble's Law for large distances.

It is a bad model.

That said, I have the Universe expanding at a constant speed (the speed of light) in a 4D spatial manifold.

That model predicts the Supernova Data.

Gravitation does not affect motion along the dimension perpendicular to our 3D hypersurface because all particles surf the Inner Dilation Layer.

Milne's model was a contrived model, designed to fit Hubble's Data. The problem is that the Hubble Law only works for short distances. So, Milne's model was designed to fail.

###############################

###############################

###############################

Yes — that’s exactly right.

Milne constructed his Kinematic Relativity model in the early 1930s specifically to explain Hubble’s then-new redshift–distance relation. Here’s the logic:

1. Velocity Field and Hubble’s Law

• Milne postulated that all galaxies (test particles) were simply moving away from each other in straight lines at constant velocity, according to special relativity.
• If you set up the initial conditions so that velocity increases linearly with distance from a chosen origin, you automatically get

v=H0 d

which is Hubble’s law.

So yes, in his framework velocities were constant in time but proportional to distance. That scaling produced the apparent expansion.

2. No Dynamics (Pure Kinematics)

• Unlike Friedmann models from GR, where the expansion rate evolves due to matter, radiation, or dark energy content, Milne’s universe is just an expanding coordinate system with no gravitational interaction.
• The “expansion” is simply a restatement of initial kinematic conditions, not the result of dynamical equations.

3. Geometrical Re-Interpretation

• By choosing a special relativistic frame and re-parameterizing coordinates, Milne showed that the apparent expansion could be described as if there were a cosmic “big bang” event, even though nothing dynamical was driving it.
• His line element ends up being equivalent to the empty Friedmann solution of GR (the Milne Universe), where spacetime is flat Minkowski space written in expanding coordinates.

✅ So yes: Milne deliberately built his model to reproduce Hubble’s Law by assigning initial constant velocities that scale with distance. But because there was no mechanism to adjust that law as observations got better (e.g. deviations at higher redshift), the model was quickly outpaced by GR-based cosmology.

Would you like me to sketch how his velocity–distance assignment looks in equations (the mapping from Minkowski space to “Milne expanding coordinates”)? It’s a neat trick that shows how he engineered Hubble’s law.

Milne’s model—often called Kinematic Relativity or the Milne Universe—was a cosmological framework proposed by Edward Arthur Milne in the 1930s. It treated the universe as expanding but assumed no gravitation at the cosmic scale, just special relativity and a particular choice of coordinates. Here’s why it was eventually set aside:

1. No Gravity (Purely Kinematic Expansion)

• Milne modeled the expansion of the universe as a purely geometric effect, without invoking Einstein’s General Relativity or any gravitational dynamics.
• That meant the model could not describe how matter curves spacetime or how large-scale structure forms.
• Observations of galaxy clustering, gravitational lensing, and the cosmic web all demand gravitational dynamics.

2. No Matter–Energy Influence

• In Milne’s universe, the expansion rate is unaffected by matter density, pressure, or dark energy—it’s just fixed by geometry.
• By contrast, real observations (e.g., the cosmic microwave background and large-scale structure surveys) show that matter and dark energy influence the expansion history.

3. Conflict with Observations

• Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB): The Milne model predicts no hot Big Bang remnant, but we see the CMB with a nearly perfect blackbody spectrum.
• Primordial Nucleosynthesis: Without early-universe physics (high temperatures and densities), it cannot account for the observed helium and deuterium abundances.
• Supernovae & Hubble Law: Milne’s model gives a linear Hubble law, but supernova data show deviations at high redshift consistent with matter and dark energy, not pure kinematics.

4. Lack of Predictive Physics

• It could fit the observed Hubble expansion (locally, at low redshift), but it could not make successful predictions for other phenomena like cosmic ages, growth of perturbations, or structure formation.
• In essence, it was mathematically consistent but physically empty.

5. General Relativity Won Out

• Einstein’s GR, combined with Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) cosmology, naturally explained the same Hubble expansion and gave testable predictions: gravitational lensing, CMB anisotropies, cosmic structure, etc.
• Milne’s framework was eventually seen as a special, unphysical limiting case of GR (the empty-universe FLRW model with zero matter and zero cosmological constant).

✅ In summary: Milne’s model was “debunked” not because it was mathematically inconsistent—it’s internally consistent—but because it left out gravity and failed to match key cosmological observations (CMB, nucleosynthesis, structure formation). It became more of a historical curiosity than a viable cosmology.

Do you want me to also contrast it directly with your HU framework? It would be interesting to see how HU differs from Milne’s “empty universe” approach.

Sounds like Chat GPT has been trained on articles written by detractors of Milne's model, rather than anything that Milne ever wrote himself.

Milne's model is a model where Hubble's constant is not a constant at all, but rather H=1/T, where T is the time since the Big Bang. It starts with an event, the big bang, and then the particles are all flung out in a single explosion. The shape of the universe is hyperbolic, much like one of Escher's Circle Limit paintings. All of the particles are moving outward at d = v T, but the particles at the outer edge tend toward infinite density.

To say Milne did not predict the CMBR is inaccurate. While Milne did not predict the frequency or wavelength of the cosmic background radiation, he did predict a "continuous background of nebula" where the density of the universe tended toward infinity at the edge of the observable universe.

You're right that he did not predict any exceptions to Hubble's Law. He did not predict that more distant galaxies would have lower Hubble values than nearer ones. While it is unfair to claim that Milne's model is empty (Milne was actually fairly convinced that the mass of the universe was actually infinite), it would be fair to say that in his model, the total outward kinetic energy divided by the gravitational potential energy is near or equal to zero. This is in part because Milne invoked symmetry. With the infinite distribution, he said, the gravitational pull is equal in all directions, and therefore, there is no gravitational potential.

There's nothing in Milne's model that precludes gravity on a local level, that lead to galactic formation, or galactic superstructure. But to claim that Milne didn't consider gravity at all is a complete fabrication. I know I recall at least one chapter where Milne considered the path of a free particle due to the gravity of his distribution. I don't currently remember the result of the calculation, but I do remember it was counterintuitive, because he realized, as I do now, that accelerating toward an event in the past actually moves the event further into the past, and away from you.

So in a sense, he did recognize that by accelerating, you cause the universe to expand, by moving the big bang further into the past. In that sense, you could claim that Milne recognized that the expansion of the universe is purely geometrical. It's done by a hyperbolic rotation around a point other than the origin. He probably would immediately recognized this as a good mechanism for cosmological inflation. In the context of Milne's model we have a very easy explanation for cosmological inflation. All you need is a whole lot of acceleration... i.e. bouncing back and forth.

Milne thought that Eddington was completely wrong about gravity stretching space-time. And so do I. So I agree that Milne did not attempt to describe how mass curves space-time, because he fundamentally said "It doesn't happen." I might agree that gravity slows clocks. It may slow down the speed of light. But directions are perfectly preserved throughout the universe. You can map every event throughout the universe to a Minkowski (x,y,z,t) coordinate system that is ripe for rotation and Lorentz Transformations. And to me, that is a great flaw of general relativistic models. They have claimed that the curvature of space has rendered the Lorentz Transformation unusable. Milne did not agree with that premise, and I do not either.

The idea that Milne's model somehow forbids the modeling of large-scale structure is absurd. We don't need gravity to help us describe the universe on the largest scales, but we can use it to describe the formation of galaxies and stars. Gravitational lensing is not inconsistent with Milne's model, because it only needs a slowing of clocks and the speed of light passing through gravitational wells. Galaxy clustering is in no way precluded by Milne's model. What is precluded is any gravitational theory that changes the coordinates in such a way as to invalidate the Lorentz Transformations.

2. "In Milne's universe, the expansion rate is unaffected by matter density, pressure, dark energy..." Okay... Here is where I thought that Milne's model could use an update. I've introduced a phase of the universe before galactic nuclei have a mean-free path of infinity. Where the universe is under such density and pressure that galactic nuclei are bouncing back and forth is actually a period where the universe as a whole is expanding at the speed of light, but the individual particles within it are bouncing back and forth and getting nowhere. I think that the model deserves that kind of consideration, to add features that may have been left out by the man who originally conceived of the idea. He never really claimed that his theory was complete, after all. He just put out a framework to work on.

And as far as "Dark Energy" goes, that's a problem with the theories that have a Dark Energy problem. They have a curve fitting problem that they can't figure out an answer to, but they know the quantity of unseen energy they need and call it Dark Energy. Dark Energy is not evidence in favor of your theory. It's evidence against it that you don't have an explanation for what this energy is, or where it comes from.

But so far as galactic formation goes, I have suggested inert diatomic hydrogen as a possible source of dark matter.

Conflict with observations: The Milne model did not predict a CMB with perfect blackbody spectrum but he did predict a continuous background nebula. He did not predict it would be 2.7 Kelvin. He did not predict the angular size of the grains. He did not predict the dipole moment. But he did predict a continuous background nebula. I think it's unfair to criticize him for not getting every detail about the CMBR. He predicted a continuous background nebula. Period.

Milne's model may be considered "debunked" by the physics community at large, and that's quite reasonable. People that are absolutely convinced that their theory is correct are going to try to cast other theories in the framework they already know. So instead of describing Milne's model as one where the Kinetic Energy is infinitely greater than the Gravitational potential energy, they describe Milne's model as "empty". Instead of saying "He didn't predict the temperature of the CMBR" you say "He didn't predict the CMBR". Instead of saying "He didn't agree that gravitation curves space" you say "He didn't model gravitation." You just change it a little bit to make it sound worse than it really is.

Anyway, I still like Milne's model. I think it has some weak points that can be strengthened, but it stands up pretty well, and I think it just makes more sense than FLRW cosmology.

My most recent attempt to strengthen Milne's Model can be seen in the article "A Kinematic Explanation for the CMBR Dipole Anisotropy".

But there's something lacking in it right now. I have listed a Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, but it needs a Phase 0, I think. The trouble is Phase 1 has quarks, Phase 2 has nuclei, Phase 3 has atoms, but all these phases have temperature and pressure. If we had phase 0 we could have the particles that have not yet decayed into quarks, and these particles could follow Milne's model exactly. Just moving outward from the center with no temperature and no pressure because they aren't colliding with one another. But as soon as they decay into some other particles, there would be immense temperature and pressure.