Olbers' Paradox.

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Olbers' Paradox.

Re: Olber's Paradox.

by crawler » Sat Dec 09, 2023 4:19 am

nick c wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2023 2:52 am
crawler wrote:I copied Thornhill's comments from the THOTH magazine of 2004.
Is that a typo? I did not see an article by Thornhill on the subject of Olbers' Paradox in any of the 2004 Thoth's. Are you referring to Scott's article which is in the 2004 Thoth?

My quote from earlier in this thread was of Don Scott from the Electric Cosmos website, which is now a dead link.
And of course we should have OLBERS & OLBERS' not OLBER & OLBER'S
You are correct. The scientist for who first proposed the famous paradox was named Olbers, so the possessive should be Olbers'. But seeing it written as Olber's seems to be common (though incorrect), and Wikipedia is even worse, where the title of the entry is written as "Olbers's". I posted a screen shot of the Wki page because they will probably correct it.olbers' paradox.JPG

but its too late to make edits.
No it's not too late. The title of this thread has been edited to Olbers' Paradox.
Ah yes it was by Don Scott not Wal Thornhill.
https://saturniancosmology.org/files/thoth/thviii02.txt

Re: Olber's Paradox.

by nick c » Sat Dec 09, 2023 2:52 am

crawler wrote:I copied Thornhill's comments from the THOTH magazine of 2004.
Is that a typo? I did not see an article by Thornhill on the subject of Olbers' Paradox in any of the 2004 Thoth's. Are you referring to Scott's article which is in the 2004 Thoth?

My quote from earlier in this thread was of Don Scott from the Electric Cosmos website, which is now a dead link.
And of course we should have OLBERS & OLBERS' not OLBER & OLBER'S
You are correct. The scientist who first proposed the famous paradox was named Olbers, so the possessive should be Olbers'. But seeing it written as Olber's seems to be common (though incorrect), and Wikipedia is even worse, where the title of the entry is written as "Olbers's". I posted a screen shot of the Wki page because they will probably correct it.
olbers' paradox.JPG


but its too late to make edits.
No it's not too late, at least for the title of this thread. The title has been corrected to Olbers' Paradox.

Re: Olbers' Paradox.

by crawler » Sat Dec 09, 2023 12:17 am

nick c wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 4:33 pm [Thought I posted this link on this thread but evidently that was on the other thread, when I have some time maybe I will move the posts from the other thread into this thread.]

Don Scott on Olber's Paradox

For stars/galaxies/clusters, dimmer than the 6th magnitude there is simply not enough light, as received by the human eye/brain mechanism, for perception. The sky therefore, looks dark.
Why would a bunch of invisible (to the human eye) things accumulate into something visible?
I copied Thornhill's comments from the THOTH magazine of 2004. The above posting from nick c is from page 1 of this present OLBERS' PARADOX thread.
Thornhill's comments & other theories have been digested on page 1 & 2 etc of this present thread. But i wanted to re-mention that Thornhill's theory seems to be incomplete, he gives zero explanation.
And of course we should have OLBERS & OLBERS' not OLBER & OLBER'S, but its too late to make edits.

OLBER'S PARADOX
By Don Scott

"Why is the sky dark at night?"

According to the following logical thought sequence (mathematical
derivation), it should be horrendously bright.

1) The apparent intensity of a light source decreases with the square of
its distance from the observer. (Assuming no interstellar dust absorption,
this is true. Lumens received from a star will vary inversely as the
square of the distance to that star.)

2) If the distribution of stars is uniform in space, then the number of
stars at a particular distance, r, from the observer will be proportional
to the surface area of a sphere whose radius is that distance. This area
is directly proportional to the distance squared. A = (pi)r^2

3) Therefore, at each and every possible radial distance, r, the amount of
light coming toward us should be both directly proportional to the radius
squared (the number of stars) and inversely proportional to the radius
squared (they get dimmer with distance).

4) These two effects cancel each other.

5) So every spherical shell of radius r should add the same additional
amount of light.

6) Ergo: In an infinite universe, if we sum (integrate) the light coming
from all the infinite number of possible values of r, the sky should be
infinitely bright.

But the sky is not infinitely bright. Why?

The resolution of this paradox can be achieved by considering how
astronomers solved the problem of defining the ABSOLUTE luminosity
(brightness) of a star. Because of (1) above, the more distant a star is,
the dimmer it appears to be. In order to set up a standard, astronomers
arbitrarily agreed that if a star was placed at a distance of 10 parsecs
(approximately 32 1*2 light-years) from us and if it looked like a
magnitude 1.0 star at that distance, they would agree to say that its
ABSOLUTE LUMINOSITY was 1.0.

There is a well-known relationship between distance and apparent magnitude
of a star. For example, if we put that same 1st magnitude star at a
distance of 517 LY (light-years), its APPARENT MAGNITUDE would be only
6.0. Humans cannot see any star whose magnitude is higher (less luminous)
than 6.4. The 200 inch Hale telescope at Mt. Palomar can see down to
about magnitude 23 or so.

There are approximately 8400 stars in our night sky that are brighter than
magnitude 6.4. We do not see the others; they are too dim. Yes, yes, Carl
Sagan used to talk about millions and millions of stars ? but we can only
see about 8400 with our naked eyes. Carl was well known for his tendency
to exaggerate. We get the impression of millions and millions when we
look up at the Milky Way, but we can see only 8400 stars ? that's it ? and
that1s under ideal conditions.

Of course, some stars are VERY much brighter than absolute magnitude 1.0
and thus would be visible farther out than 517 LY. But, many are much
dimmer too, so as a rough approximation let us consider the average star.
If it is farther away than 517 LY, we cannot see it (AT ALL). So it might
as well not be there AT ALL. The total light in our night sky (at least
the way we can see it with our naked eyes) is not affected by much of
anything that is dimmer than magnitude 6.4 (typical stars farther away
than around 517 LY). Even for the blue-white giant stars whose absolute
luminosity puts them at ?10 or ?12 (much brighter than absolute magnitude
1.0), there exists some finite distance beyond which they too become
invisible to us ? their apparent magnitude slips down beyond 6.4.

There are a very few vastly distant objects that we can see such as the
Great Andromeda Galaxy M 31. It is over 3 million LYs away. But it is
such a concentrated collection of stars and plasma that it looks to us
about as bright as a single magnitude 4 star.

The point is this ? the infinite sum implied in step (5), above, is
incorrect. The sum STOPS (is truncated) at a distance of about 500+ light
years for the typical star (and somewhere beyond that even for the
brightest ones). There is an upper limit on the absolute brightness of a
single star; there is no such thing as an infinitely brilliant star. So
there is a finite upper limit to the integration process described in step
(5) above. It doesn't go out to infinity.

It may also help to remember that the human eye is different from
photographic film or a CCD chip. It does not integrate over time. The
longer we expose a photographic plate to starlight the brighter the image
becomes. (There is a limit even to this process in film due to what is
called reciprocity failure.) But, humans can stare at the night sky all
night long and not see anything they didn't see after the first few
minutes. Things don't get brighter for us the longer we look at them. So
theoretically the longer we expose our CCD camera chip, the brighter the
image (deeper into space we can see). This is not true for the human eye.
We can see the 8400 or so stars that we can see, and all the zillions of
others might as well not be there AT ALL as far as our humble naked human
eyes are concerned.

Olber's Paradox is not a paradox at all if you look at it correctly. It
is yet another example of theoretical mathematics applied incorrectly to a
real world phenomenon. Or a mathematician might say, "They got the upper
limit on the integral wrong."

Don Scott
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/

Re: Olbers' Paradox.

by crawler » Fri Apr 30, 2021 1:15 pm

Aardwolf wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 10:57 pm
crawler wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 10:42 pm
Aardwolf wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 9:13 pm
crawler wrote: Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:09 pm
Aardwolf wrote: Sun Nov 08, 2020 1:35 am So your belief is that given enough time a single candle could heat an object 100 miles away to 1,000°C? Comical.
Yes.
Yet that answer is quite absurd and demonstrably incorrect. You could stand 1 metre away from a candle for eternity and never be heated to 1,000°C. Nor receive any increase over any shorter period of time.
The starting point for this single candle argument is that if our universe was infinite & eternal then the correct form of Olbers' Paradox should ask why isnt the sky at an infinite temperature. This cant be disputed.
It can if you understand dispersion and distance.

Olber's misunderstanding is due to believing that the light from a star is a constant flow of photons as we experience from the sun. In that scenario the sky would be constantly white, as we would would perceive light from all directions. In reality only the nearest stars emit light that we perceive in this way (visible stars). For the rest they are so distant we may only receive 1 photon a second/day/week etc. which our eyes are not able to register. That's the reason the sky isn't white and has nothing to do with it's age or infinite existence.
Yes, mightbeso, but i am talking about an eternal infinite universe, a universe with no mechanism for removing energy, whilst somehow new stars are being created all the time.
The answer being that there is indeed a mechanism for removing energy, which has eluded mainstream, but hasnt eluded me.

Re: Olbers' Paradox.

by Aardwolf » Wed Apr 28, 2021 10:57 pm

crawler wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 10:42 pm
Aardwolf wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 9:13 pm
crawler wrote: Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:09 pm
Aardwolf wrote: Sun Nov 08, 2020 1:35 am So your belief is that given enough time a single candle could heat an object 100 miles away to 1,000°C? Comical.
Yes.
Yet that answer is quite absurd and demonstrably incorrect. You could stand 1 metre away from a candle for eternity and never be heated to 1,000°C. Nor receive any increase over any shorter period of time.
The starting point for this single candle argument is that if our universe was infinite & eternal then the correct form of Olbers' Paradox should ask why isnt the sky at an infinite temperature. This cant be disputed.
It can if you understand dispersion and distance.

Olber's misunderstanding is due to believing that the light from a star is a constant flow of photons as we experience from the sun. In that scenario the sky would be constantly white, as we would would perceive light from all directions. In reality only the nearest stars emit light that we perceive in this way (visible stars). For the rest they are so distant we may only receive 1 photon a second/day/week etc. which our eyes are not able to register. That's the reason the sky isn't white and has nothing to do with it's age or infinite existence.

Re: Olbers' Paradox.

by crawler » Fri Jan 15, 2021 10:42 pm

Aardwolf wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 9:13 pm
crawler wrote: Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:09 pm
Aardwolf wrote: Sun Nov 08, 2020 1:35 am So your belief is that given enough time a single candle could heat an object 100 miles away to 1,000°C? Comical.
Yes.
Yet that answer is quite absurd and demonstrably incorrect. You could stand 1 metre away from a candle for eternity and never be heated to 1,000°C. Nor receive any increase over any shorter period of time.
The starting point for this single candle argument is that if our universe was infinite & eternal then the correct form of Olbers' Paradox should ask why isnt the sky at an infinite temperature. This cant be disputed.

If every star etc is replaced by candles, then crawler's paradox arises, & this is that....
......... if u then snuff out one candle at a time from every star then at what stage does Olbers' Paradox cease to exist.

The answer to crawler's paradox is that there is no intermediate stage at which OP ceases to exist.
(1) The first stage is reached when the most feeble star consists of only one visible candle. OP lives on.
(2) Then the next stage is when that one candle is snuffed so that that star no longer shines. OP lives on. There are plenty of stars remaining.
(3) Then the next stage is when the brightest star has only one visible candle. OP lives on.
(4) Then the last stage is when that one candle is snuffed. OP ceases to exist.

If u dont agree then u must explain where & how in between (2) & (3) OP ceases to exist.

Re (1)(2)(3)(4), what i am actually talking about are 4 steady state infinite eternal universes consisting of thems candles. U know what i mean. I dont actually mean one universe that is going throo stages, but the wordage is easier.

Re: Olbers' Paradox.

by crawler » Fri Jan 15, 2021 10:25 pm

Aardwolf wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 9:16 pm
crawler wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 3:38 am Yes the key bigbang answer as to why the sky aint at an infinite temp is that the universe is not eternal.
Or you have a fundamental misunderstanding of light dispersion and distance.
I realize that the bigbang explanation for Olbers has a number of parts (which include physics that i cant fully understand), but i consider that the key part is that the BB universe is not eternal. Actually no other part is needed.

Re: Olber's Paradox.

by Aardwolf » Fri Jan 15, 2021 9:16 pm

crawler wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 3:38 am Yes the key bigbang answer as to why the sky aint at an infinite temp is that the universe is not eternal.
Or you have a fundamental misunderstanding of light dispersion and distance.

Re: Olber's Paradox.

by Aardwolf » Fri Jan 15, 2021 9:13 pm

crawler wrote: Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:09 pm
Aardwolf wrote: Sun Nov 08, 2020 1:35 am So your belief is that given enough time a single candle could heat an object 100 miles away to 1,000°C? Comical.
Yes.
Yet that answer is quite absurd and demonstrably incorrect. You could stand 1 metre away from a candle for eternity and never be heated to 1,000°C. Nor receive any increase over any shorter period of time.

Re: Olber's Paradox.

by JP Michael » Wed Nov 11, 2020 12:43 am

crawler wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:11 am A Biblical universe raises complications. It probably requires at least say 3 universes (depending on definition).
(1) The old original Heaven (including the Creator & his Angels).
Unnecessary. This 'complication' is based on a dualistic assumption of "spiritual unseen universe" versus "material, seen universe."
Secondly, this view assumes the existence of something (other than the Creator, who, as creator of all that is material, cannot be defined by selfsame material) before existence itself existed. It is a nonsense view. There was no universe prior to the current one.
crawler wrote:Later, (1) & (2) are i think ended by the Creator, &
(3A) the Creator makes the new Heaven (which includes the Creator & most of his Angels)(a limited number of human souls ascend from Earth)
Again, this view assumes a dualism between invisible/immaterial and seen/material, with the latter being subsumed by the former at the transformation ("ascend from earth").

Now I certainly believe there will be a new heaven and a new earth (Isaiah 66:22; Revelation 21:1). But is this to be understood immaterially via 'ascension'; via complete annihilation and recreation; or is it to be understood as transformation and cleansing of the existing material creation (e.g. Romans 8:19-23 "the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption")? Further, the transformation spoken of in the Scriptures is one which descends to earth, not ascends to heaven (Revelation 21:2 and 10).
crawler wrote:(3B) the Creator makes a Hell on Earth (supervised by the Satan)(including the remaining human souls).
This is completely incorrect. No-where at all is it said that "hell will be the (material -implied) earth" while the 'blessed' all float around in some blissful, ephemeral, ethereal 'heaven'. Again, these are dualistic Gnostic assumptions at work. The final destination for the unrepentant wicked, according to Scripture, is a place called "the lake of fire" (Rev. 20:11-15; 21:8). Even "hell" (Greek: Hades; Hebrew: Gehenna) is emptied out and thrown into this place (Rev. 20:14). The location of this "lake of fire" is unspecified; but considering repeated analogies to "outer darkness" (Matthew 8:12; 22:13; 25:30; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6), I presume it will be somewhere far away from light, life or sentient habitation.

Secondly, 'Satan' does not 'supervise' hell. He gets thrown into it and punished there forever! (Rev. 20:10; cf. Matthew 8:29; 25:41; Mark 1:24).
crawler wrote:So when (2) ends, do we still have stars, or some stars, or one star (the Sun), does the Moon still exist?? (Not important).
"And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it, and its gates will never be shut by day—and there will be no night there." (Revelation 21:23-25)

"And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever." (Revelation 22:5)

"The sun shall be no more your light by day, nor for brightness shall the moon give you light; but the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your God will be your glory. Your sun shall no more go down, nor your moon withdraw itself; for the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your days of mourning shall be ended." (Isaiah 60:19-20)

Now these passages do not actually say the sun and moon will cease to exist. Rather, they will cease to be the primary light-givers on the new creation. So I see it as a possibility that the sun will become a dull, unnoticed planet and the moon a distant memory of a forgotten old-world order. They won't matter any more then.

In sum, none of the complications you suggested are complications at all, and most of them are based on dualistic assumptions of the nature of the new world order post-transformation. It will be material in every way: cities, walls, gems, rivers, trees, people. Extra universes, past or future, are not required. Only the present creation, transformed and renewed, "a new heavens and a new earth", matters.

Cheers,
JP.

Re: Olber's Paradox.

by crawler » Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:11 am

JP Michael wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 12:22 am
crawler wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 3:38 am Yes the key bigbang answer as to why the sky aint at an infinite temp is that the universe is not eternal.
But thems who believe that the universe is eternal & infinite need to find a good answer, & Ranzan has provided an answer (2 actually).
I believe in neither the big bang or expanding universe, nor an eternal, infinite universe, nor infinite stars supposedly creating an infinitely bright sky.

I agree, per Ranzan, that our universe is a steady-state cellular cosmos; I agree that the universe is not expanding; I agree that stars can both die (star -> planet) and be reborn (planet -> star) perpetually, depending on local and galactic plasma and electrical conditions.

I vehemently disagree that the number of stars is infinite (they are finite in number - Psalm 147:4 "He determines the number of the stars; he gives to all of them their names"). The universe, and the stars that populate it, is neither infinite nor of infinite age. Both had beginnings with a definite causes.

So I applaud Ranzan's attempt: it does logically (and scientifically) solve Olber's Paradox for DSST proponents but I perceive the solution as unnecessary. If one caps the age of the universe at, say, 7000 years max, then Olber's Paradox disappears into a cloud of red-shifted dusty plasma. Not everyone is going to like that solution because of its inherently 'religious' assumptions, but that's their problem, not mine. I'll take the word of the Creator over the feeble hypotheses of men who were not there any day of the week.
(EIU) Me myself i believe in an eternal infinite universe.
(CDSS-EIU) I like Ranzan's cellular dynamic steady state form of the above (EIU).
(BBEU) Then we have a bigbang expanding universe billions of years old (the conventional modern universe).

(Biblical Created Young Universe) This might be a good name for your universe.
It is not infinite.
It is not eternal.
It is not expanding.
It had a beginning (created by the Creator).
But there was no bigbang.
It began say 7000 years ago (created by the Creator).
It possibly/probably has an end (ended by the Creator).
It is steady state.
It is cellular.

A star can die. And that star can be reborn. Perpetually (until the Creator interferes)(which He will).
But no star is ever eternal. Or perhaps -- no star will be eternal (ie all stars will have an end, ended by the Creator).
All stars had a beginning (created by the Creator)(directly or indirectly).

A Biblical universe raises complications. It probably requires at least say 3 universes (depending on definition).
(1) The old original Heaven (including the Creator & his Angels).
(2) Later, (1) plus (2), (2) being our present human world/universe.
Later, (1) & (2) are i think ended by the Creator, &
(3A) the Creator makes the new Heaven (which includes the Creator & most of his Angels)(a limited number of human souls ascend from Earth), &
(3B) the Creator makes a Hell on Earth (supervised by the Satan)(including the remaining human souls).

So when (2) ends, do we still have stars, or some stars, or one star (the Sun), does the Moon still exist?? (Not important).
In any case 3 of the 4 kinds of universe all address Olbers Paradox ok (the EIU is the only one that fails).

Re: Olber's Paradox.

by JP Michael » Tue Nov 10, 2020 12:22 am

crawler wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 3:38 am Yes the key bigbang answer as to why the sky aint at an infinite temp is that the universe is not eternal.
But thems who believe that the universe is eternal & infinite need to find a good answer, & Ranzan has provided an answer (2 actually).
I believe in neither the big bang or expanding universe, nor an eternal, infinite universe, nor infinite stars supposedly creating an infinitely bright sky.

I agree, per Ranzan, that our universe is a steady-state cellular cosmos; I agree that the universe is not expanding; I agree that stars can both die (star -> planet) and be reborn (planet -> star) perpetually, depending on local and galactic plasma and electrical conditions.

I vehemently disagree that the number of stars is infinite (they are finite in number - Psalm 147:4 "He determines the number of the stars; he gives to all of them their names"). The universe, and the stars that populate it, is neither infinite nor of infinite age. Both had beginnings with a definite causes.

So I applaud Ranzan's attempt: it does logically (and scientifically) solve Olber's Paradox for DSST proponents but I perceive the solution as unnecessary. If one caps the age of the universe at, say, 7000 years max, then Olber's Paradox disappears into a cloud of red-shifted dusty plasma. Not everyone is going to like that solution because of its inherently 'religious' assumptions, but that's their problem, not mine. I'll take the word of the Creator over the feeble hypotheses of men who were not there any day of the week.

Re: Olber's Paradox.

by crawler » Mon Nov 09, 2020 3:38 am

JP Michael wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 1:51 am
crawler wrote: Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:09 pm And the correct Olbers Paradox then becomes -- why isnt the sky at an infinite temperature?? And the answer involves a
...snip...
... abandonment of the assumption that the universe is eternal. ;)
Yes the key bigbang answer as to why the sky aint at an infinite temp is that the universe is not eternal.
But thems who believe that the universe is eternal & infinite need to find a good answer, & Ranzan has provided an answer (2 actually).

Re: Olber's Paradox.

by JP Michael » Mon Nov 09, 2020 1:51 am

crawler wrote: Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:09 pm And the correct Olbers Paradox then becomes -- why isnt the sky at an infinite temperature?? And the answer involves a
...snip...
... abandonment of the assumption that the universe is eternal. ;)

Re: Olber's Paradox.

by crawler » Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:09 pm

Aardwolf wrote: Sun Nov 08, 2020 1:35 am
crawler wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 4:55 am
Aardwolf wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:59 pmGreat. So how long do you have to wait before the temp will be the same 1cm away as 100 miles away?
It will never be the same. Unless.....
(1) the universe is infinite (& eternal).
So your belief is that given enough time a single candle could heat an object 100 miles away to 1,000°C? Comical.
Yes. If somehow the candle can burn for long enough. If the photons are scattered by say dust. If the energy isnt lost. If the burnt wax doesnt form a supermassive body.

But that is a silly gedanken anyhow. A more realistic one will have lots of stars throughout an infinite universe. New stars (in some zones) replacing dead stars (in other zones)(as per what we see)(an infinite cellular dynamic steady state universe).

And the correct Olbers Paradox then becomes -- why isnt the sky at an infinite temperature?? And the answer involves a redshift of a special kind -- a redshift that robs energy from our quantum world -- ie a redshift that moves energy from our quantum world into our sub-quantum world (ie into the aether). And i think that this happens in at least 2 ways -- (1) redshifting of photons as they propagate throo the universe (as per Ranzan's idea)(giving us the CMBR) -- (2) annihilation of photons in supermassive bodies (as per Ranzan's idea)(blackholes if u like).

In which case there must be a process that creates energy -- ie that moves energy from our sub-quantum aether world into our quantum world (& we do see this)(eg new galaxies).

Top