> That’s just redshift. No, it isn't. I explicitly described two other direct observations that are not redshift. > when people say redshift evidence they mea

> That’s just redshift. No, it isn't. I explicitly described two other direct observations that are not redshift. > when people say redshift evidence they mean the relationship between redshift and brightness of a standard candle. No, they don't. Redshifts of distant objects are directly observed. We don't need a "standard candle" to measure them. Observations of apparent brightness are used to estimate distances to objects by comparing apparent brightness to the absolute brightness of a "standard candle" that is the same kind of object. However, such distance estimates are model-dependent; before they can even be made, the model parameters first have to be estimated using the observed relationship between redshift, apparent brightness, and apparent angular size. > And regardless of whether you call it redshift or the relationship between redshift and something else, it would be impacted by a change to redshift. I have no idea what you mean here.