Tired light has been thoroughly debunked. This paper came up a few times now on HN, and it's almost crackpottery. I know shallow rebuttals are frowned upon, but it's such a waste of time. I'll at least link this: https://www.iflscience.com/why-its-extremely-unlikely-the-un...

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39726388

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39742010

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41760006

Proposing new competing hypothesis is the very nature of scientific progress.

Dark matter and cords theory are still imperfect working draft compared to other paradigms.

Unless you can link to a systematic study proving the CCC+TL is flawed there is no guarantee you are on the good side of scientific progress. Flat earthers where once convinced they were not on the side of crackpotery.

As someone with a PhD in cosmology I'm well aware how scientific progress works. This paper is simply not well done. It's lacking basic plausibility checks. It's a waste of time to give every badly formulated idea your attention, you'll drown in noise.

> there is no guarantee you are on the good side of scientific progress

I know, but I'm very confident. To quote Carl Sagan: 'It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.'