“What explains your redshift but expansion? A static universe would appear as white as stars if they're infinite in number.”
How? the farther the star the redder it is. That why we see the CMBR. It’s
just galaxies at a great distance redshifted to microwave. And you don’t need to explain redshift in a non expanding model. It’s a property of light. And proof that Einstein was wrong to, without evidence, say light was not a wave and that photons could not change frequency over distance.
“There is nothing to suggest any object exists that is older than 13.8 Gyrs.”
Just because it is too far away to see doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Particle physicists know better. Nucleosynthesis from stars became mainstream not long after Hoyle predicted the resonance for carbon, which was shortly proven correct by a lab. This was decades ago.
There is nothing known to argue for the redshift of light in a static universe. DeSitter's early GR model was able to show this for a static universe but to do so he had to remove all mass.
“Fritz Zwicky proposed, also long ago, that light might redshift naturally during travel in a static universe. This became known as the "Tired Light" hypothesis. It became discredited with further studies.”
It didn’t become discredited. Relativists pretended tired light couldn’t happen because it couldn’t explain where the energy went. But it didn’t go anywhere. Look at the facts. 10-20nm range = x energy. Redshift that to 20-40 nm range at z=1. Thats 1/2 the energy at the longer wavelength BUT twice the range. Which means that no energy is lost. It’s spread out over twice the range of wavelengths.
“So, any theory for a static universe isn't something new to consider, but a return to the old view that many tried very hard to hold on to, especially Einstein. With help from Eddington and DeSitter, Lemaitre's model finally made sense to Einstein, who reportedly praised Lemaitre during one of his presentations.”
Only because Einstein knew if he didn’t agree...his photon model had to be rejected.
“The entire universe filled with light at 3000K is hardly a fair argument for distant galaxies. “
Why not. It’s redshifted blackbody radiation from distant galaxies. Ones even farther are even more redshifted and fainter. We just haven’t made a map of those wavelengtys yet.
“Galaxies aren't that great BB emitters, also. The WMAP study, and others superior to COBE, show how remarkable the CMBR matches a BB profile. No star matches this as close, including our Sun. [This is one reason scientists get its color wrong, btw.]”
Whyarent galaxies great blackbody emitters.? They are the ultimate BB emitter. And you forget the cmbr is closer to perfect because it is the average of trillions of various different emitters. Of course the sun wouodnt match a perfect BB Emitter. But combine a trillion different suns into one graph and almost certainly you would get a perfect BB curve.
“Your argument that suggests progress in science is unacceptable is strange, at best. Those early estimates did not have any age and distance refinements we have today. The Wright Brothers did not start with a jet airliner.”
My argument suggests that BBT always gets its predictions wrong. And ignores the opposing non expanding model when it gets its predictions right. As a non BBT model did in 1942 when Mckellar much more accurately predicted the CMBR for a non BBT universe would be 2.8. And when the JWST confirmed a non expanding model when it observed mature galaxies in its recent deep field.
“Wrong again. There are explanations for them, though they differ. Direct observations have been accomplished immediately following a GRB thanks to SWIFT and the network set-up by observatories. A lot is known, more will be known with time.
Please show us your reference for your claim of their apparent fraud.”
Did I say Fraud, sorry if I did. I meant fiddle, faked. And they did. Look at Knop landmark paper. He admits he fiddled the HST data to make it look like it fits an expanding model.