About

This project developed after I read a NASA Question and Answer page where the responding expert states that big bang cosmology "solves" Oblers' paradox, which claims that in an infinite universe, which has existed forever, our night sky would be as bright as daylight.

However, the wildly outdated paradox omits one observation: redshift. There is infinite redshift over an infinite distance unbounded in time, regardless of mechanism. Non-visible radiation would blanket the cosmos in such an infinite universe.

Redshift is the observation. What is it? Besides what it is? I would like to point you to one paper that actually measures a universal expansion. There isn't one. To the contrary, I can reference countless papers and statements that say there is no measurable expansion of spacetime within gravitationally bound systems. Interestingly, not one of those papers will tell you at precisely what scale gravity ceases to 'bind' things.

Add in the facts that we are now observing entire galaxies obscured by dust, that many luminous objects must have a finite lifespan, that all objects at depth must eventually be obscured by nearer objects, and that, after the last forty years no obvious systematic morphological type progression has ever been actually observed across any large distance ... I found this expert explanation (however well intentioned for a child) an alarming indication that scientists, even expert scientists, are routinely substituting, and doing so without notice, theoretical calculations and interpretations in place of actual observations.

The point is I don't want a cosmology that solves my human bias. I want objective information. We need solid observations for a justified foundation of knowledge.

During my search I did find some useful information that I have decided to share. So, if for some reason you have found these pages through all of the noise and link sharing, I hope this saves you some time and frustration on your journey.

As an aside, you may have run across a few rather dogmatic pages stating CMB couldn't possibly be starlight. First off, I'm rather struck by the irony of such statements because the big bang theory they investigate is based upon a time singularity that is undefined in physics (literally, physically impossible). Secondly, further discussion is entirely pointless without discussing each point source — at those distances you will see entire galaxies and clusters as single points of energy and such groups have similar average surface temperatures.

That's it.
Enjoy.