It's worth noting that the Obler's paradox claim is pathetically wrong, and it clearly demonstrates the very serious problem with mainstream "group think", and their lack of a skeptical review of their own beliefs.
https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... e.8043450/
Not a single promoter of Olber's paradox at Christianforums had/has a logical or valid explanation as to why we do not observe every one of the 200 billion plus stars in our own galaxy, nor every single one of the 100 thousand or so galaxies in our own supercluster. These objects aren't expanding away from us, so if their "surface brightness" claims were actually true, we'd see every single one of them. Instead, our human eyes observe less than 10,000 stars total in the night sky, and we see less than 10 galaxies total, including our own. The obvious reason that we see so few of these objects is due to the inverse square law of light, the distances involved, and the limitations of human eyesight. Period. It has nothing to do with 'expansion' or redshift.
Thomas Digges figured that out that distant stars were too dim to be observed on Earth before Olber was even born, although I don't believe that the inverse square law was yet formalized at that time. Even still, Digges 'solved' that so called "paradox" before it was ever even proposed by Olber.
Selfsim, sjastro and the ever verbally abusive Reality Check all tried and failed to defend that lame concept. All of them failed miserably to provide any logical explanation as to why we see so few object in the nighty sky if Olber was correct.
At first they claimed that "surface brightness" didn't obey the inverse square law, but that claim fell completely apart when I pointed out the missing 200 billion stars of our own galaxy and the 100 thousand missing galaxies in our supercluster in the night sky.
They also tried to use that lame 'shell' argument too, but that claim fell apart when I pointed out that the next closest star was 268,770 AU shells away from the planet, not 2AU. In order for that ridiculous shell argument to have any merit at all, we'd need to find additional stars within 2AU shells from Earth, and many more stars within 3AU. That's simply not the case, so the whole shell argument is also irrational and easy to destroy.
There's really nothing left standing in that argument at CF. All three of the Olber's proponents failed miserably to address those points and they simply stopped responding.
If you want to take the Olber's paradox argument apart, just start with a simple question. Start by asking them why we see less than 10,000 of the 200+ billion stars in our own galaxy, and less than 10 of the 100,000 galaxies in our local supercluster. The *only* logical (and correct) answer is the inverse square law of light, the distances involved, and the limitations of human eyesight.
The dark night sky has *nothing* to do with redshift, expansion, or a lack of expansion. The lack of a 'bright' night sky favors *no* specific cosmology model. It's simply a function of the large distances involved, the inverse square law of light, and the limitations of human eyesight. *PERIOD*.
The Hubble telescope can do things that our eyes cannot do. It can stare at a patch of normally "dark" sky for days on end and add up all of the very few photons that it receives over a period of many days to generate a composite images of far more distant galaxies than our human eyes could ever hope to see, but even it too has limits. With enough distance, too few photons would reach it's CCD and that region appears "dark" even to Hubble.
Keep in mind that *all* cosmology models have *some* type of explanation for redshift, even static models, so even if redshift does limit the number of galaxies that Hubble can observe, James Webb will see more of them since it observes lower energy photons than Hubble can currently observe. Since all cosmology models have *an* explanation for redshift, that redshift argument cannot be used to *exclusively* support an expansion model, even *if* the inverse square law wasn't the most important factor.
In short, the Olber's paradox claim is a complete joke. It's very easy to destroy that claim with a single logical question, one apparently the mainstream can't answer, and a question that the mainstream doesn't ask themselves when that nonsense is presented to them in a classroom or a formal setting. It just demonstrates the massive 'group think" problem in astronomy today better than most arguments. LCDM proponents simply don't think for themselves, and they don't skeptically review any of their own claims. They just believe what their told, right or wrong, or else they fail the class, So they just shut up and they drink the poison Cool-aid, and they serve it up to the next generation of gullible victims. That utter BS of a so called "paradox" has been swallowed and passed down to at least a *dozen* gullible generations now.
