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: 1419
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: 1419
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: 1419
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Epilog....

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:21 pm

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.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1419
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Destroying the Olber's paradox claim

Unread postby Siggy_G » Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:06 am

The scenario of Olber's Paradox ignores the following physical facts:

* The life cycle of stars (or glow modes) including a non-radiant mode
* That some bodies aren't radiant, but occluders of light
* The spherical shape of a (distant) star, where only the central radial photons reach the observer
* The thermalization of star light through cosmic and dusty plasma
* Intergalactic space pockets, where no contribution to star light but still thermalization occurs

It's borderly ridiculous that Olber's Paradox is being used for anything in support of standard cosmology and as an argument against a quasi-static model of the Universe.
User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: Destroying the Olber's paradox claim

Unread postby webolife » Sun Mar 18, 2018 5:35 pm

Siggy,
The 3rd and 4th of your previous statements remind me of my argument against Ober's paradox.
Mine is a bit more radical than anything yet described on this thread, but I've mentioned it a few times before.
The difficulty with a spherical wavefront model for light propagation is highlighted by the so-called paradox. It goes something like this: A wavefront of light from distant stars and other luminous objects in any given direction should reach our eye as a virtually planar blended and largely homogeneous light experience. But this does not occur, Rather we see virtual points of lights which spectroscopically reveal themselves as real images, not just indistinct bright spots. The solution, form my view, is that light does not propagate as spherical wavefronts, so the paradox fades away! Light, as I see it, is strictly radiant, rays, or vectors of pressure, directed toward the stellar/galactic centers they elicit. This centropic light is thus unified in effect with electrical and gravitational pressures, which are also towards the system centroid, rather than emanating from it.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2439
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Destroying the Olber's paradox claim

Unread postby Keith Ness » Thu Mar 29, 2018 1:03 pm

Some years ago, I had laid out a resolution of Olbers' paradox which was more concise and clear than any I had seen up until that time. And yes, it involves, among other things, the inverse square law of light dissipation, but I laid out how an endless, static starscape with a dark night sky is possible through a very simple example.

I plotted out a graph of starlight dissipation over distance, and concluded that, "Finally, as those extensions suggest, the plot appears to have the same structure as a hyperbolic curve, which would mean that the amplitude would increase forever with increasing distance, and still never cross a certain fixed threshold." I admit that I have not looked around much at other resolutions since then, but here's the link to the post containing mine regardless:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=15224
Keith Ness
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 6:53 am

Re: Destroying the Olber's paradox claim

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:04 pm

Keith Ness wrote:Some years ago, I had laid out a resolution of Olbers' paradox which was more concise and clear than any I had seen up until that time. And yes, it involves, among other things, the inverse square law of light dissipation, but I laid out how an endless, static starscape with a dark night sky is possible through a very simple example.

I plotted out a graph of starlight dissipation over distance, and concluded that, "Finally, as those extensions suggest, the plot appears to have the same structure as a hyperbolic curve, which would mean that the amplitude would increase forever with increasing distance, and still never cross a certain fixed threshold." I admit that I have not looked around much at other resolutions since then, but here's the link to the post containing mine regardless:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =8&t=15224


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27 ... Points.gif

In the hypothetical case that the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and populated by an infinite number of stars, then any line of sight from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star and hence the night sky should be completely illuminated and very bright. This contradicts the observed darkness and non-uniformity of the night.[2]



Emphasis mine. That's must be silliest argument ever uttered by anyone IMO. We see less than 10,000 of the "bright surfaces" of about 200 *billion* stars in our own galaxy because the flux from the surfaces of those stars typically drops below the visual threshold level, and therefore they look like 'dark" surfaces, not 'very bright' surfaces. Any light sources which might be located behind that (dim to our eyes on Earth) surface would be blocked by that surface too.

The term "surface brightness" may have some relevance with CCD images and long exposure images, but it's a meaningless argument with respect to human eyesight and distant light sources as those missing 200 billion stars in our own galaxy *clearly* demonstrates.

Even Olber solved his own "paradox' using absorption/scattering, and do do indeed see regions of space that absorb/scatter all the light. That's another obvious flaw in the argument.

http://annesastronomynews.com/photo-gal ... arnard-68/

The other obvious problem that nobody seems to wish to touch with a ten foot pole is the fact that redshift over distance is predicted in *many* cosmology models, including static models, so that same redshift expectation would apply to more than just expansion models. It would apply to any and all 'tired light" models as well. Their so called "ace in the hole" is the same ace that is found in every tired light proposal. :)

It's hard to believe than astronomers even take that argument seriously at this point in time. It's just a silly concept. There's no logical way that every region of space could be as bright as the surface of our own sun on Earth. That's simply not possible due to the inverse square laws. Even in a "best case' scenario, assuming no tired light effects whatsoever, and no absorption/scattering at all, the night sky would *still* have varying degrees of brightness in different areas depending on the varying distance to the different light sources. Flux *always* decreases by the inverse square law. There would *always* be a "non-uniform" background in every possible scenario due to the inverse square law and the vast distances involved.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1419
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Destroying the Olber's paradox claim

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:01 pm

Image
"There is nothing wrong" with Olber's paradox.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 807
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm


Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest