Olbers' Paradox.

[Aardwolf]

If there is an infinite temperature everywhere then explain to me how 1 cm & 100 cm & 100 miles can feel different.

From the candle as a reference point. What else are you 1cm, 100 cm and 100 miles away from? Are you being deliberately obtuse?

[crawler]

If there is an infinite temperature everywhere then explain to me how 1 cm & 100 cm & 100 miles can feel different.

From the candle as a reference point. What else are you 1cm, 100 cm and 100 miles away from? Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I think that u have tricked me. I was talking about 1 candle that has been burning for eternity, but i notice that u did refer to a candle that i had set alight, which means that it hasnt burnt for eternity. U win this time. That lone small candle will of course feel hotter when closer.

[Aardwolf]

If there is an infinite temperature everywhere then explain to me how 1 cm & 100 cm & 100 miles can feel different.

From the candle as a reference point. What else are you 1cm, 100 cm and 100 miles away from? Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I think that u have tricked me. I was talking about 1 candle that has been burning for eternity, but i notice that u did refer to a candle that i had set alight, which means that it hasnt burnt for eternity. U win this time. That lone small candle will of course feel hotter when closer.

Great. So how long do you have to wait before the temp will be the same 1cm away as 100 miles away?

[crawler]

If there is an infinite temperature everywhere then explain to me how 1 cm & 100 cm & 100 miles can feel different.

From the candle as a reference point. What else are you 1cm, 100 cm and 100 miles away from? Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I think that u have tricked me. I was talking about 1 candle that has been burning for eternity, but i notice that u did refer to a candle that i had set alight, which means that it hasnt burnt for eternity. U win this time. That lone small candle will of course feel hotter when closer.

Great. 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).
(2) There is lots of say dust spread throo the entire universe (to scatter the photons).
If u have (1)&(2) then u will need to wait for an eternity. But less if u are happy to accept almost the same temp.
In any case the wax etc fumes will by then have formed a dark star, & u would be inside it.

[nick c]

It will never be the same. Unless.....
(1) the universe is infinite (& eternal).

This line of reasoning is a non starter because its logic depends upon a reification.
Infinity is a mathematical abstraction. It cannot exist in the real universe from a scientific perspective. It cannot be counted, measured, or proven to exist. Postulating the existence of an infinite/eternal universe can only then be an effort of faith, that is, an a priori assumption that can never be proven to be consistent with reality.
Any conclusions drawn from this have no scientific value and are at best an effort in Metaphysics:

Metaphysics....n. A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.

[crawler]

It will never be the same. Unless.....
(1) the universe is infinite (& eternal).

This line of reasoning is a non starter because its logic depends upon a reification.
Infinity is a mathematical abstraction. It cannot exist in the real universe from a scientific perspective. It cannot be counted, measured, or proven to exist. Postulating the existence of an infinite/eternal universe can only then be an effort of faith, that is, an a priori assumption that can never be proven to be consistent with reality.
Any conclusions drawn from this have no scientific value and are at best an effort in Metaphysics:

Metaphysics....n. A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.

Yes i agree a single candle or star in an infinite universe is silly. It needs a sensible density of live stars.
Anyhow the problem is that we see what we see, ie 2.7 K. The correct question is why dont we see an infinite K?? -- not the naive skoolkid question of why isnt the whole sky at 6000 K.
And Conrad Ranzan has provided the science that yields the answer-- photons are redshifted when approaching mass & when departing mass. One of his most beautiful ideas.

[Aardwolf]

Great. 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.

[Aardwolf]

Great. 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.

[crawler]

Great. 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).

[JP Michael]

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.

[crawler]

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).

[JP Michael]

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.

[crawler]

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).

[JP Michael]

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.

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).

(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).

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.

[Aardwolf]

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.