🚀 go-pugleaf

sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes...
>>Actually it was the explanation of Olber's paradox in your FAQ that
>>prompted my question.  You account for the paradox in terms of
>>redshifting starlight downwards (4) and the age of the universe (5).
>>So it occurred to me that if indeed the bulk of the 6000K starlight
>>that *has* reached us so far has been redshifted down so far as to
>>appear to have vanished "into obscurity," maybe it hadn't completely
>>vanished but had become the 3K background radiation.
> 
>I see.  I just don't know to what extent the distant starlight is red-shifted.
>But it is not nearly enough to get from 6000K to 3K.  The most distant
>objects we can see have redshifts in the range 3-5.  The red-shift of the CMBR
>is much more than that.  Ben's statement also seems plausible to me, but
>I'm no expert.  Remember, however, that it is really the finite age of the
>Universe which eliminates Olber's paradox.  The redshift contributes less.

Surely we could not resolve individual stars so far away, so lets see what
would happen if stars were around since recombination. Then they would be
like 6000K dots on the 3000K 'fog'. The Olbers Paradox could not be resolved
by the age of the universe, because now _all_ lines of sight end at the fog
'boundary'. Thus in this model it is the redshift only which is responsible
for resolving the paradox.

Similarly, in a realistic model, it is less the finite age of the _universe_,
than the limited oldness of _stars_, which resolves the paradox.

Which reminds me, does anyone know when stars first formed? Was it before or
after galaxies? before or after globular clusters?

Dave Ring
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu