Comment by xt00

I liked a few videos from some of these folks: https://youtu.be/HUzYXW9LXl8 And like Adam Riess talking about Hubble constant. I think many people can agree with your general feeling that once a scientific idea becomes generally accepted but is not super clear how people get there it can lead to a feeling of mistrust or doubt. Like if you were born 1000 years after people had decided that the moon was held aloft by some magic hand or something. And when you ask people how they figured that out, they said well a bunch of smart people figured it out 1000 years ago. You might say hmm that sounds wrong to me, but nobody can explain it. The reason I mention that video and similar ones is that those folks generally come across to me as not easily convinced of the generally held ideas around the expansion of the universe.. they are saying hmm it might all fit into a model but still something isn’t quite right.. there is a discrepancy between the two ways to measure the expansion of the universe. One uses the supernovae standard candles but the other uses parallax and a distance ladder. Parallax does not rely upon redshift but over very huge distances you need a huge baseline — presently they use the earth in the two opposite ends of its orbit looking at distant stars. But I would imagine there are other methods available as well. Totally reasonable to be skeptical, a good number of “mainstream” scientists that I’ve observed in talks are also super skeptical. They really do want to figure out why things are the way they are—but I think you have to come that conclusion yourself. As you watch stuff, write down the things you agree with or disagree with and try to get those questions answered.