Hacker News Reader

I think you missed the actual point of my comment? Refraction was kind of irrelevant to it, I was trying to say something about the consistency of different observations and the strength of the evidence behind them. You could replace "refraction" with "squirrels" and it wouldn't really change what I was trying to explain.

View on HN

Well you misunderstood that I was referring to refraction as being the reason for dark matter predictions. I was trying to imply that it can explain why the universe is expanding. Instead of the theory of dark matter.

I already gave you my reasoning for dark matter calculation, baryonic waves. Which you so happened to ignore?

> Refraction was kind of irrelevant to it

That is incorrect. It's directly relevant. Redshift is measured and there is a willful disregard for the refraction that is inherent and a statistically overwhelming effect, given the distances and known matter in space. Redshift exists after a megaparsec in any direction, so it's not surprising that it's the farthest thing we see given we're seeing some amount of mass in the far distance from any given angle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com