>>16546232
>Static universe or not, the point is about high redshift galaxies being highly luminous.
In a static universe there isn't even redshift. The problem isn't about the real universe. Static and infinite in age.
If you impose redshift via tired light or steady state, then you cannot have the galaxies at high redshift being different.
High redshift galaxies being more luminous is one of the things that disproved the steady state cosmology. But it's not really anything to do with Olber's paradox.
>This may be correct, although I find it had to believe that the models would retcon something like this. Seems a bit ad hoc.
I don't know what you mean. Olber's paradox is a thought experiment describing a simple universe that people imagined, in the pre-cosmology era.

>What's your take on the angular distance test versus luminousity tests? Or anyone for that matter. Has the turnover point ever actually been observed?
I'm not aware of any such test. Using galaxies for such tests is dubious in standard cosmology, as galaxies evolve with redshift.
The only robust angular distance test today is using Baryon Acoustic Oscillations. BAOs were a prediction of standard cosmology and are essentially a preferred scale in galaxy clustering which corresponds to the sound waves in the early universe. But BAOs expand with the universe, they are fixed in comoving scale and not physical. In angular diameter there is no turnaround for a fixed comoving length, but it does flatten. That is detected in BAO data.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/sci/

Thread:

The size of the observable universe is approximately 92 billion light-years in diameter, based on observations and calculations of cosmic expansion.…