Destroying the Olber's paradox claim

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Destroying the Olber's paradox claim

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:29 pm

If you're interested in learning how to destroy the Olber's paradox argument, you might want to peruse this recent thread at ChistianForums:

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... e.8043450/

You don't really need to read the whole thread, just the last couple of pages. I tried a number of different approaches in that thread before I finally just asked some very basic questions about the night sky, and that's when the wheels finally fell off for the Olber's paradox proponents.

Olber's paradox proponents cannot logically explain why we see less than 10,000 stars of the hundreds of billions of stars in our own galaxy based on their "surface brightness" claims, nor can they explain why we can only observe less than 10 other galaxies if galaxy "surface brightness" is immune from the inverse square law.

If I were going to start the whole debate all over again, I'd just start by asking them why we only see such a tiny fraction of the stars and galaxies in the night sky. Sooner or later they'll have to cop to the fact that light follows the inverse square law, or they'll be forced to bail out of the conversation. Suffice to say, they're in full retreat. :)

The rest of the thread relates more to a conversation that took place last month at Cosmoquest about a static universe paper that analyzed SN1A events. David Crawford did a very nice job defending his paper at Cosmoquest by the way. If you have any questions for David, you can find his email address in his paper on Arxiv. David was very gracious to me and he did promptly answer my email related to some questions that were raised in the thread at CF.

You can find David's paper on Arxiv:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.11237
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Destroying the Olber's paradox claim

Unread postby tb2 » Fri Feb 02, 2018 9:26 am

I wrote a short explanation of Olber's "Paradox" a few years ago:

http://electric-cosmos.org/Olber.pdf

Don Scott
tb2
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 12:34 am

Re: Destroying the Olber's paradox claim

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Feb 02, 2018 9:56 am

tb2 wrote:I wrote a short explanation of Olber's "Paradox" a few years ago:

http://electric-cosmos.org/Olber.pdf

Don Scott


It would have been helpful to have read your paper *before* that conversation at CF. :D

I had to muddle through it to some degree, but we ultimately seem to have arrived at the same conclusions. Thanks for the link. I appreciate it.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

What a lame argument.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:16 pm

Evidently the thread at CF has run it's course now. What a childish and easily debunked belief system that astronomers continue to stuff down the throats of their unsuspecting students.

It turns out that Olber's paradox was actually "solved" by Thomas Digges a couple of centuries before Olber was even born.

From a number's perspective, Olber's paradox is at least 268,770 AU shells short, 250 billion stars short, and 100,000 galaxies short of a valid scientific argument. The claim is actually easily debunked by noting that we observe less than 10,000 out of the 250 billion stars from our own galaxy in the night sky, and less than 10 galaxies out of around 100,000 in our local supercluster.

It's absolutely pitiful that such a ridiculous and easily debunked argument against a static universe continues to be taught in astronomy classes and books today.

The real reason that we see so few stars and galaxies in the night sky, and the night sky is 'dark', is due to the inverse square law of light, scattering, and the limits of human eyesight. Period. Expansion has absolutely nothing to do with it. Admittedly any type of redshift (tired light or expansion) also helps move visible light down the energy spectrum, but the fact we observe so few stars and galaxies in the night sky has nothing to with expansion, and everything to do with the inverse square laws and the limits of human eyesight.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA


Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest