Not quite. Let's try again. I'll go to the paper you cited. Here's what they have on p. 7.
Quote:
|
The solid line shows the expected 1/(1 + z) time-dilation factor, while the dashed line represents the "tired light" hypothesis of Zwicky (1920). According to this hypothesis, photons lose energy as they interact with matter and other photons in a static universe. .... However, this hypothesis does not predict a time-dilation effect, and so the aging rate should equal one for all redshifts.
|
There are two things to take note of here. First, Zwicky proposed a specific tired light hypothesis, which was based on a gravitational drag mechanism. Basically, light loses energy due to gravitational drag by the matter it passes in space. The second thing to note is their lumping together of all tired light hypotheses as "Zwicky's". Many tired light hypotheses have been proposed and will continue to be proposed and so the statement that "this hypothesis does not predict a time-dilation effect" is simply invalid. You would have to examine each mechanism on an individual basis to see if time dilation is predicted or not. Maybe one will come along that does. So their blanket statement in the abstract that tired light is unambiguously ruled out is simply false. Expansion is not proved.