Olbers' Paradox.

[crawler]

Conrad Ranzan gives a Dynamic Steady State Universe explanation for redshift & Olber's Paradox. No need for a bigbang or expanding universe.

Ranzan – Olber's paradox resolved for the infinite nonexpanding universe – 2015.
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j ... 0160401.11
Ranzan – Cosmic redshift in the nonexpanding cellular universe – 2014.
http://www.cellularuniverse.org/CosmicR ... Ranzan.pdf

I agree with Ranzan that (a) an infinite & (b) eternal universe (c) with hotspots must result in an infinite temperature, unless there is permanent extinction of energy. The critical thing here is that the existence of hotspots means that energy is being created eternally, hencely the infinite temperature, hencely the need for true extinction to balance that creation. Most Thunderbolts members don't understand this, & their explanations for Olber's Paradox can only be valid in a finite (bigbang) universe. Ranzan mentions two kinds of permanent extinction.

(1) Capture by dark stars. Matter & photons (& energy) are extinguished/annihilated in the cores of dark stars (Ranzan has a paper on this). Photons from outer shells decrease by 5 in 1000 when passing throo each 300,000,000 LY cosmic cell, ie the extinction factor grows by 0.995 per shell, by the 400th shell 1 in 6 photons get throo.

(2) Velocity Differential Redshift. Photons are stretched when approaching matter & then stretched again when departing, due to the aether near the matter stretching as it flows inwards to where aether is annihilated. This is i think a gradual permanent extinction of energy, otherwize it would be no better than standard tired light redshift theories where the energy is not lost (these therefore don't explain Olber's Paradox). Ranzan says that by the 400th shell the energy of a photon is reduced to 1/2850 (ie 2849/2850 has disappeared from our quantum world).

Ranzan mentions that (2) is due to galaxies etc, but it would be doubled if taking into consideration the hydrogen etc sitting out in deep space (if such hydrogen & plasma etc had a mass equal to galactic mass).

Ranzan does not invoke any redshift due to dark matter, because the DSSU model does not need nor include dark matter. However anything gravitational can affect (2), & that could include dark matter.

If dark matter particles were not clumped but had a spacing of say 1 mm then when passing throo a field of dark matter a photon would suffer (2) only if it had a wavelength shorter than 1 mm, because the speed of the head & tail of the photon would be affected equally while approaching & then while departing, ie zero stretching, ie zero redshift.
If inter galactic hydrogen had a spacing of say 1000 mm then ditto 1000 mm.

[D_Archer]

I would say there is no paradox, as per Miles Mathis, we are dealing mostly with spherically emitted light, which means the brightness dims with distance travelled as less photons will reach the ever more distant observer.

Miles Mathis > Olbers' Paradox> http://milesmathis.com/olbers.pdf

Brightness must fall off by distance, and that is true even without any ether, any blocking, any
redshifting, or any expansion. Brightness falls off only due to spherical emission, which decreases
photon density with distance.
This is not a difficult concept, and it occurred to me within seconds of first reading Olbers' Paradox, so
why is it not the default explanation? I assume it is because mainstream physicists have spent a lot of
time and effort suppressing it. They prefer to use Olbers' Paradox to support redshifts and their own
Big Bang theory, and my simple explanation takes that away from them. In this way, the manufactured
paradox is like hundreds of others: nothing more than misdirection.

---

Regards,
Daniel

[crawler]

I would say there is no paradox, as per Miles Mathis, we are dealing mostly with spherically emitted light, which means the brightness dims with distance travelled as less photons will reach the ever more distant observer.

Miles Mathis > Olbers' Paradox> http://milesmathis.com/olbers.pdf

Brightness must fall off by distance, and that is true even without any ether, any blocking, any
redshifting, or any expansion. Brightness falls off only due to spherical emission, which decreases
photon density with distance.
This is not a difficult concept, and it occurred to me within seconds of first reading Olbers' Paradox, so
why is it not the default explanation? I assume it is because mainstream physicists have spent a lot of
time and effort suppressing it. They prefer to use Olbers' Paradox to support redshifts and their own
Big Bang theory, and my simple explanation takes that away from them. In this way, the manufactured
paradox is like hundreds of others: nothing more than misdirection.

Regards,Daniel

Yes i had seen that. I was surprised. That might be the most disappointing Miles article that i have read. Miles usually has a lot of math, but this time he had almost zero math, it looks to me that he completely overlooked the rr/1 times 1/rr equation, only recognising the 1/rr relating to spherical emission. He is definitely wrong on this occasion. Any simple math analysis says that the number of photons per shell is a constant, ignoring other factors.

The misdirection is the invoking of a bigbang finite non-eternal universe. In which case there is no need for any redshift or blocking of photons at all, here i mean to explain the non-existence of infinite brightness or infinite temperature.

However after that as we all know the standard science mafia have to invoke all kinds of cosmic expansion & redshift to explain the 3 K. They even invoke dark matter to explain hotspots in their COBE map.

[D_Archer]

Any simple math analysis says that the number of photons per shell is a constant, ignoring other factors.

Really? what shells are you talking about, emitted photons from a spherical surface travels in one direction, because the emission is spherical, the further from that surface the photons travel, the more they diverge.. to the point where at larger distances there are less and less photons to observe.

You do not need math, it is just simple logic, which means to me it is an outstanding article by Miles, the simple normal explanation anyone can understand.

Regards,
Daniel

[crawler]

Any simple math analysis says that the number of photons per shell is a constant, ignoring other factors.

Really? what shells are you talking about, emitted photons from a spherical surface travels in one direction, because the emission is spherical, the further from that surface the photons travel, the more they diverge.. to the point where at larger distances there are less and less photons to observe.

You do not need math, it is just simple logic, which means to me it is an outstanding article by Miles, the simple normal explanation anyone can understand.Regards,Daniel

Yes for sure the emission diverges in 2 dimensions hencely the usual 1/rr weakening of light with distance hencely photons per square metre goes down by a factor of 4 when the distance doubles.

The word shell is used in all such math analyses that i have ever seen. A shell can be any thickness u like, eg 1 lightyear. In Ranzan's case a shell is 300,000,000 LY because the DSSU model says that the infinite universe is made up of cosmic cells of that size. Anyhow the surface area of a spherical shell grows by rr/1 hencely the numbers of stars (& photons emitted) in a shell goes up by a factor of 4 when the distance/radius to the shell doubles. The halving & the doubling cancel exactly, hencely every shell contributes an equal number of photons reaching an observer at the center point. Hencely an infinite number of shells in an eternal universe must result in an infinite flux at the central observer, & likewise for all observers everywhere.

All such shell models fail, because stars are not eternal. It also fails if the universe is not infinite or eternal. However we know that stars are in effect eternal, because we see hotspots in our universe, & hotspots should be impossible in an eternal universe because enthaltropy (my term) should have resulted in an even temperature. So, new hot stars are somehow continually replacing old cold burnt out stars (we don't know how), ie stars are in effect eternal. Ranzan's DSSU cosmic cells have creation of aether & photons near center, & extinction near edge, with a continuous flow of aether from center to edge.

The first key point not understood by many thunderbolts posters (& by Miles Mathis) is that energy is continually being created in our eternal universe. Secondly that that means that the universe must be infinitely bright & infinitely hot unless we have a true permanent extinction of energy (photons etc)(Ranzan posits two mechanisms that do the trick). Thirdly that ordinary tired light models do not give a permanent extinction & hencely cant explain Olber's Paradox (altho there is a possibility that any one model might in fact give extinction for a nonknown reason).

Don Scott says that a star gets fainter with distance & eventually cant be seen. Yes, but if lots of faint stars are in near alignment then an eye will see what looks like one star. And an infinite number of stars in alignment will give an infinite brightness because whilst blocking each other's light the energy of every blocked photon must eventually be re-emitted (unless we have some kind of permanent extinction).

[D_Archer]

The first key point not understood by many thunderbolts posters (& by Miles Mathis) is that energy is continually being created in our eternal universe. Secondly that that means that the universe must be infinitely bright & infinitely hot unless we have a true permanent extinction of energy (photons etc)(Ranzan posits two mechanisms that do the trick). Thirdly that ordinary tired light models do not give a permanent extinction & hencely cant explain Olber's Paradox (altho there is a possibility that any one model might in fact give extinction for a nonknown reason).

Energy can not be created nor destroyed, your first key points fails, energy is not a physical thing, it is a physical term for the ability to do work. Your secondly is a non-sequitur.

Miles Mathis does have extinction, photons can be spun down, what is the lowest energy state? These are questions we can not yet answer, but we can not assume things just disappear.

new hot stars are somehow continually replacing old cold burnt out stars (we don't know how)

We do know how, stars cool and stop shining as they age and become the planets, it is called Stellar Metamorphosis.

So we can say there are lifecycles. Does light have a life cycle? Does the universe have a lifecycle? From small to large.

---
In all i think you are overthinking this, the simple explanation really suffices (for the non-paradox of Olber), i do not see the need for anything more exotic.

Regards,
Daniel

[nick c]

[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?

[crawler]

[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?

If we had a galaxy that was too far away to be seen by the eye & if we had similar galaxies behind it (but much farther away) then surely we would see a spot or patch of light. Each galaxy need only contribute just one photon.

In addition all of the missing photons are not really missing, they are all contributing to temperature etc. Here we are talking about a hypothetical infinite eternal universe, including a continuous creation of energy, ie to serve as a starting point for Olber's Paradox.

[crawler]

The first key point not understood by many thunderbolts posters (& by Miles Mathis) is that energy is continually being created in our eternal universe. Secondly that that means that the universe must be infinitely bright & infinitely hot unless we have a true permanent extinction of energy (photons etc)(Ranzan posits two mechanisms that do the trick). Thirdly that ordinary tired light models do not give a permanent extinction & hencely cant explain Olber's Paradox (altho there is a possibility that any one model might in fact give extinction for a nonknown reason).

Energy can not be created nor destroyed, your first key points fails, energy is not a physical thing, it is a physical term for the ability to do work. Your secondly is a non-sequitur.

Yes i agree, if energy is not being created then that would on its own explain Olber's Paradox. Olber's Paradox is only a serious paradox if all three pillars exist, (1) infinite universe, (2) eternal universe, (3) energy is being created continually (somewhere). Take any one of these away & the paradox becomes a simple skoolkid paradox.

But the hotspots in our infinite eternal universe can only exist if energy is being created. How could hotspots be created by a simple recycling of energy? Thermo-enthaltropy says that the universe should have a uniform temperature. So, we have a choice, recycling, or creation. Creation looks more likely. How can recycling give hotspots (eternally)?

Yes energy is not a physical thing. However i notice that the wiki page for the bigbang says that in the i think first second of time all we had was pure energy (yes pure energy). What is continually being created (in a creation zone in each cosmic cell) is firstly aether, & then free photons (free photons then form confined photons)(ie elementary particles). Its simpler for me to just say energy.

Miles Mathis does have extinction, photons can be spun down, what is the lowest energy state? These are questions we can not yet answer, but we can not assume things just disappear.

Spinning down could provide permanent extinction if two spinning photons collided such that each lost the same amount of spin, perhaps 100% of the spins. In our macro world if two balls did that then the lost energy would of course show up as an increase in temperature, but in the micro world anything is possible.

The lowest energy state. I suppose that mass can be converted to free photons, & free photons are then the lowest state. But if talking about the lowest energy state of a confined photon (eg electron or quark etc) aether theory 101 says that this would be when it was stationary in the aether (ie if the aetherwind blowing throo the electron was zero km/s).

new hot stars are somehow continually replacing old cold burnt out stars (we don't know how)

We do know how, stars cool and stop shining as they age and become the planets, it is called Stellar Metamorphosis.
So we can say there are lifecycles. Does light have a life cycle? Does the universe have a lifecycle? From small to large.
In all i think you are overthinking this, the simple explanation really suffices (for the non-paradox of Olber), i do not see the need for anything more exotic.Regards,Daniel

Yes stars stop shining, but stars are being formed today, how, is perpetual recycling possible, how.

A photon is perpetual, it cannot die. But a photon can be injured or killed. In a sense light has two kinds of life cycle.
(1) One is the standard model kind of (temporary) recycling of energy (eg tired light)(absorption), where energy is recycled in our quantum world.
(2) The other is Ranzan's extinction recycling (velocity differential redshift)(& annihilation in dark stars). Here energy leaves our quantum world.
The standard model (1) has no obvious permanent extinction. Hencely Olber's Paradox. That's where this whole argument started.

Ranzan's eternal universe consists of an infinity of self contained cosmic cells, with aether & photons being created & annihilated in each cell.

[crawler]

Glimpses of the Unseen World – Carl Fredrick Krafft – 1956.
I had a re-read of this book. Some bits of Krafft's theories are interesting. He wrote approx 10 books, i think that they are available on google if u pay about $10, or u can buy a book (expensive). Krafft was a patent clerk, in Washington DC, died in 1969.

Krafft doesn't mention Olber's Paradox, but he has a new explanation for redshift, ie a tired light theory, which would apply. He mentions in page 8-9 that redshift might be due to the energy of light being robbed to help to transform electrons into other subatomic particles, ie a kind of transmutation. Actually this is similar to Miles Mathis's theories. And i see similarities to Lyndon's theory. Anyhow, like most other tired light theories, Krafft's too doesn't have any obvious permanent extinction of energy. Krafft says........

............... If electrons are not subject to the force of gravity, then they would accumulate in interstellar space, and this may be the reason for the finite velocity of light. What we call "empty space" may actually be an electron atmosphere. Occasionally there may be collisions between these electrons, resulting in the formation of positrons, which may then mature into mesons and eventually into protons. Since mesons and protons are subject to gravitational forces, they will be drawn into large celestial bodies in the form of cosmic rays. This would also account for the redshift of the light from distant nebulae because the energy that would be required for the transformation of these electrons into positrons would have to come from the light radiation.

Aside from redshift stuff, Krafft reckons that gravity is due to aether pressure (not velocity), & there exists a helical ether flow which gives electric fields (due to the axial component of flow) & magnetic fields (due to the circular component).

Krafft has an atomic theory similar to Miles Mathis, ie atoms are not nuclear, atoms are a molecular kind of grouping of alpha particles.

The intro says that Krafft posited cold fusion (but doesnt use that name)(in one of his other books i think).

Krafft predicted the double helix structure of DNA in 1927.

[crawler]

Olbers' Paradox is not a paradox in the modern era because we now know that stars are not eternal, ie they go cold (dropping to 3 K i guess). An eternal universe should be at a uniform temperature of a little higher than 3 K.

Therefore in say 1880 Olbers' Paradox should have been replaced by a new paradox -- why do we see stars? In other words in an eternal universe (& in a very old universe) all stars should be cold. Surely someone asked the question, in which case the new paradox would have their name.

The question then arises – if the universe is eternal then how did we get hot stars in the first place (u know what i mean).

This new paradox (why do we see stars) (as well as Olbers' Paradox) was of course answered in about 1930 by the silly (temporary) bigbang theory. But we will in a very short time realise that the universe is eternal & infinite, & this will then raise at least two new major questions (but that is another story).

Anyhow, dozens of youtube articles ignore the new paradox, & so does wiki, wiki is happy to say that dying stars are continually being replaced by new stars. How? They ignore thermodynamics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
..........Stars have a finite age and a finite power, thereby implying that each star has a finite impact on a sky's light field density. Edgar Allan Poe suggested that this idea could provide a resolution to Olbers' paradox; a related theory was also proposed by Jean-Philippe de Chéseaux. However, stars are continually being born as well as dying. As long as the density of stars throughout the universe remains constant, regardless of whether the universe itself has a finite or infinite age, there would be infinitely many other stars in the same angular direction, with an infinite total impact. So the finite age of the stars does not explain the paradox.[15]


No, the finite age of the stars does explain Olbers' Paradox, but, it leaves us with a new paradox, why do we see stars.

[crawler]

Louis Marmet has a number of papers where he lists & discusses many redshift theories. Here is what he says about Ranzan's DSSU redshift theory.

On the Interpretation of Spectral Red-Shift in Astrophysics: A Survey of Red-Shift Mechanisms - II
Louis Marmet∗ 24th January 2018 https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.07582
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.07582.pdf
7.3 Dynamic Steady State Universe
Ranzan explains that while space does expand, and in doing so gives rise to the cosmic red-shift, the universe itself does not expand. The mechanism uses a cellular structure where space expands inside the cells, but the cells themselves do not expand. The red-shift is produced while light travels within cells but galaxies do not recede from each other. Thus, the cellular structure interpreted by DSSU cosmology is the manifestation of dual dynamic space involving space expansion and contraction at the edge of the cells. A relevant cosmic-red-shift expression, applicable to this type of universe, is developed; then transformed into a cosmic redshift-distance relation[60].
Conditions, limits of applicability and restrictions:
The red-shift produced inside one cell is zUU = 0.01823.
Functional relationships:
dA = DHzUU ln(1+z)/ln(1+zUU), dL =?√1+zdA, m−M = 5log10[dL/DH]+C, SB∝ (dA/dL)2.
Discussion and comments:
This model introduces an ad hoc hypothesis: “the cellular structure of the universe”.
It is claimed that while aether-space within the cosmic cells expands, the boundaries between cells reverse the expansion by contracting the aether-space that constitutes the flow. It is not clear why the wavelength of light would not be contracted when it crosses the boundaries between cells.

Marmet doesn't like the idea of the universe having a cellular structure. Marmet understands Ranzan's theory that photons are stretched with the aether during approach to mass, but doesn't understand how photons can get a second dose of such stretching during departure, Marmet reckons that during departure there should be a contraction that negates the earlier stretching. Nope, even i (a non-scientist) can see that there will be a second dose of stretching. Here is what Ranzan says of Marmet's analysis.......

........Thank you for the kind words and your interest in my work relating to the Dynamic Steady State Universe.

The articles, the Cosmic Redshift in the Nonexpanding Cellular Universe (subtitled, Velocity-Differential Theory of Cosmic Redshift) as well as DSSU Validated by Redshift Theory and Structural Evidence, are what I call my “checkmate” papers. I see no reasonable way they can be refuted. This simple redshift mechanism makes any big-bang hypothesis irrelevant.

I was aware of Louis Marmet’s earlier (2013) version of redshift mechanisms; but I was not aware of his 2016 updated version. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I am baffled by his claim that cosmic cellular structure is an ad hoc concept, when in reality it is surely the most commonly observed characteristic of the large-scale Universe! Incidentally, the same misunderstanding appears on Wikipedia, the last time I checked.

It always amuses me how seemingly rational and intelligent people fail to see what should be rather obvious (and not just with respect to physics and cosmology). No doubt, Marmet’s oversights will, sooner or later, be brought to his attention. I am rather reluctant to spend my time contending and correcting other people’s misconceptions of DSSU theory. My energy is strictly focused on presenting DSSU concepts in absolutely uncompromising clarity. The strategy is to circumvent the big-bang esoterica of the academics and to make Cosmology “so easy to understand” for the average person.

All the best. –Conrad (2016-12-4)

[crawler]

[Crawler: The following is my summary & my comments re David Newton's paper].

http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/nicole/teachi ... olbers.pdf
Olbers’ Paradox -- A Review of Resolutions to this Paradox -- David Newton
Abstract.
In a homogeneous Universe, infinite in space and time, every line of sight will end on the surface of a star. So why is the sky dark at night? This is the question posed by Heinrich Olbers in 1826, although the problem had been around since 1577. This essay examines the various solutions proposed over the last five hundred years and reveals the cosmological significance of a dark night sky. The story of Olbers Paradox is the story of our evolving view of the Universe.

Lucretius in 55 bc. – The universe is infinite.

Digges in 1576 – Suggested an infinite universe. He asked why did the infinite number of stars not make the night sky bright? His answer was that most of them are too far away to be seen. Newton correctly points out that Digges was wrong -- even if the stars were too far away to be seen individually the collective flux of light from all the stars would cause the night sky to glow.

Kepler in 1610 – Showed that in an infinite Universe the whole celestial vault would be as luminous as the sun.

Isaac Newton – Required an infinite universe to prevent the universe collapsing in on itself.

de Chesaux in 1744 -- Drawing on the work of Edmund Halley (who performed a similar analysis but unaccountably reached the same conclusion as Digges) said that in every shell the number of stars is proportional to the square of its radius & the light received from any star is inversely proportional to the square of its radius, hencely each shell contributes equally, & for stars out to a distance of 3 thousand trillion light years the total starlight falling on the Earth should be 180,000 times more intense than sunlight, & suggested that there is some interstellar absorbing medium which attenuates the starlight

Olbers in 1826 (or 1823?) -- Performed a similar (although less mathematically rigorous) treatment to de Chesaux and came to a similar solution. Despite merely re-hashing de Chesaux the modern form of the paradox is named after Olbers.

Herschel in 1831 – Pointed out that any absorbing medium in interstellar space would soon heat up and cease to absorb.

d'Albe in 18?? – Suggested that most stars are non-luminous. [Crawler: this doesn't solve the paradox if the universe is infinite].

As Edward Harrison points out in his book ‘Darkness at Night’, before Herschel’s work the paradox had been seen as a question of missing starlight. After Herschel, due to the lack of any realistic answers as to where the starlight had gone, the question changed to where have all the stars gone? [Crawler: As i pointed out a few days ago, the paradox more properly actually ultimately reduces to WHY DO WE SEE STARS?

Despite assuming an infinite, homogeneous Universe, a popular model of the Universe in the late nineteenth century was of an immense but finite collection of stars, the Milky Way, beyond which stretched an endless void.

Lord Kelvin in 1901 -- Showed that the Milky Way galaxy contained insufficient stars to cover the night sky. And that even if stars filled an infinite Universe, the visible stars would still fail to cover the sky, because a stars lifetime is limited. [Crawler: Kelvin makes the same mistake as d'Albe, limited star lives don't solve the paradox].

Mark Twain & Edgar Allan Poe had previously written that one resolution to Olbers’ Paradox was that the Universe was finite (being mere writers they were ignored).

[Crawler: Here i stop because the remainder relates to impossible bigbang universes].

[nick c]

My opinions:

In a homogeneous Universe, infinite in space and time,..

There is no basis for use of the word "infinite" in a scientific context or to describe anything, including the size of the universe.
Science involves measurements, observation, and experimentation. And none of these activities can be applied to an analysis of infinity.
Infinity is a mathematical concept, and even in that context it is not a real number.

That reduces any such analysis to having no means of falsification.

So assuming anything is infinite and then drawing conclusions pertaining to reality, cannot yield anything of scientific value including a solution to "Olber's Paradox."

There can be no application to reality as we know it, that has its logic (or non logic) rooted in an assumption of infinity

Lucretius in 55 bc. – The universe is infinite

Prove it!

Digges in 1576 – Suggested an infinite universe. He asked why did the infinite number of stars not make the night sky bright? His answer was that most of them are too far away to be seen.

He was correct about the darkness of the night sky.

Newton correctly points out that Digges was wrong --

Newton was wrong. The human eye can only detect stars that are 6th magnitude or brighter. Look at the Andromeda nebula (M-31) under a clear sky. It looks like a fuzzy 4th magnitude star. That is the galaxy's core. The spiral arms are much larger, about 6X the size of a full moon, But the area of sky next to the visible core is dark and looks like the rest of the background night sky! even though you are looking at the concentrated light of millions of stars. The millions of stars in the spiral arms of M-31 are just not bright enough to see with the naked eye.
https://slate.com/technology/2014/01/mo ... e-sky.html

Kepler in 1610 – Showed that in an infinite Universe the whole celestial vault would be as luminous as the sun.

He was wrong.

Isaac Newton – Required an infinite universe to prevent the universe collapsing in on itself.

He was wrong. Newton assumed electrical neutrality and that gravity was the preeminent force in the universe. We now know that 99% of the observed universe is plasma. Plasmas are governed by electricity and magnetism. The force of gravity is insignificant by comparison.

Edmund Halley (who performed a similar analysis but unaccountably reached the same conclusion as Digges)

Unaccountably or not, Halley was correct.

Just as a note: It is not my intent to advocate for a finite universe. I think neither position is tenable. A finite universe implies that it is surrounded by an infinite nothingness. So therefore, ironically, the same argument against an infinite universe applies to a finite universe. I don't think there is anything wrong with just saying "I don't know."

[crawler]

My opinions:

In a homogeneous Universe, infinite in space and time,..

There is no basis for use of the word "infinite" in a scientific context or to describe anything, including the size of the universe. Science involves measurements, observation, and experimentation. And none of these activities can be applied to an analysis of infinity. Infinity is a mathematical concept, and even in that context it is not a real number.
That reduces any such analysis to having no means of falsification. So assuming anything is infinite and then drawing conclusions pertaining to reality, cannot yield anything of scientific value including a solution to "Olber's Paradox." There can be no application to reality as we know it, that has its logic (or non logic) rooted in an assumption of infinity

Lucretius in 55 bc. – The universe is infinite

Prove it!

Digges in 1576 – Suggested an infinite universe. He asked why did the infinite number of stars not make the night sky bright? His answer was that most of them are too far away to be seen.

He was correct about the darkness of the night sky.

Newton correctly points out that Digges was wrong --

Newton was wrong. The human eye can only detect stars that are 6th magnitude or brighter. Look at the Andromeda nebula (M-31) under a clear sky. It looks like a fuzzy 4th magnitude star. That is the galaxy's core. The spiral arms are much larger, about 6X the size of a full moon, But the area of sky next to the visible core is dark and looks like the rest of the background night sky! even though you are looking at the concentrated light of millions of stars. The millions of stars in the spiral arms of M-31 are just not bright enough to see with the naked eye.
https://slate.com/technology/2014/01/mo ... e-sky.html

Kepler in 1610 – Showed that in an infinite Universe the whole celestial vault would be as luminous as the sun.

He was wrong.

Isaac Newton – Required an infinite universe to prevent the universe collapsing in on itself.

He was wrong. Newton assumed electrical neutrality and that gravity was the preeminent force in the universe. We now know that 99% of the observed universe is plasma. Plasmas are governed by electricity and magnetism. The force of gravity is insignificant by comparison.

Edmund Halley (who performed a similar analysis but unaccountably reached the same conclusion as Digges)

Unaccountably or not, Halley was correct.

Just as a note: It is not my intent to advocate for a finite universe. I think neither position is tenable. A finite universe implies that it is surrounded by an infinite nothingness. So therefore, ironically, the same argument against an infinite universe applies to a finite universe. I don't think there is anything wrong with just saying "I don't know."

I should have typed that Halley did not reach the same conclusion as Digges -- sorry -- but it looks like u knew that.

Proving an infinite universe is of course impossible. Likewise proving a finite universe is impossible. I suppose that it cant be both, & it cant be neither. I don't agree that the concept of infinity is not scientific. I don't agree that infinity cant yield anything of scientific value or solutions & has no application to reality. Same for an eternal universe or eternity itself.
Same for the bigbang universe. How can we prove that it had a beginning? How can we prove that the bigbang didn't happen somewhere inside an infinite universe. How can we prove that there are no other bigbang "universes" far away? Clearly Popper was wrong when he insisted on falsifiability, at least re the infinite. I think that we can all agree that "i don't know", & will never know, but that need not end the science.

I agree that electric effects can contradict Newton's need for an infinite universe, ie that they can stop the collapse of a finite universe. On the other hand electric effects don't prove that an infinite universe is impossible. Electric effects & plasmas are or can be perfectly ok in an infinite eternal universe.

If M-31 consists of billions of magnitude say 7 stars only, & if the core looks like a magnitude 4 star, then that proves my point that a concentration of weak stars (or near alignments on a cosmic scale) can give a bright sky (ie it proves that Don Scott & Digges are wrong).
The concentration part could be proven by peter holding 10 candles close together & then walking away until they were just visible & then gradually spreading the candles apart a little until they were all invisible.
The alignment part would be a bit more difficult.

Anyhow, our own milky way proves my point. I see a long fuzzy patch where individual stars are not obvious. We can only make out 3000 to 8000 individual stars they say, but we can all see that long fuzzy patch.