Olber's Paradox.

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?
User avatar
nick c
Posts: 2553
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:12 am

Re: Olber's Paradox.

Unread post by nick c » Sat May 23, 2020 11:29 pm

crawler wrote: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).
No, I don't think so. It is in line with Don Scott's article, in that it shows that even though you have billions of stars concentrated in a 3 x 6 degree area of the sky you still cannot see any glow or difference in the color of the sky. So therefore the sky maybe filled with galaxies with no space in between but we cannot see them because they are not bright enough. Just like the spiral arms of M-31.

So given Olber's Paradox, should the sky have a universal glow,,.except for that 6 degree patch occupied by M-31? Even more distant galaxies in back of M-31 would be blocked (eclipsed) from our view. So maybe all the galaxies, all of which are many magnitudes dimmer than M-31, are in turn blocking galaxies which are behind them. So the sky is dark.

crawler
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Olber's Paradox.

Unread post by crawler » Sun May 24, 2020 12:33 am

nick c wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 11:29 pm
crawler wrote: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).
No, I don't think so. It is in line with Don Scott's article, in that it shows that even though you have billions of stars concentrated in a 3 x 6 degree area of the sky you still cannot see any glow or difference in the color of the sky. So therefore the sky maybe filled with galaxies with no space in between but we cannot see them because they are not bright enough. Just like the spiral arms of M-31.

So given Olber's Paradox, should the sky have a universal glow,,.except for that 6 degree patch occupied by M-31? Even more distant galaxies in back of M-31 would be blocked (eclipsed) from our view. So maybe all the galaxies, all of which are many magnitudes dimmer than M-31, are in turn blocking galaxies which are behind them. So the sky is dark.
I am thinking that the invisible arms of M-31 are simply less concentrated than the visible core (& hencely Scott & Digges are wrong).

Olbers Paradox is correct, ie our eternal infinite universe (sky) should be as bright as the Sun. Stars do block the light from other stars but if the energy is not lost then we must still have a very high temperature & high temperature creates new light hencely Olbers Paradox still applies.

In fact as i have pointed out if we add that stars are & have been shining in effect for ever then that brightness & temperature must be infinite (if energy is not lost)(i mean permanently lost from our world)(ie true extinction). In fact later today i might start a new thread talking about possible cosmic baryonic recycling of an eternal kind (ie a kind of perpetual motion). This paradox is the inevitable end result of Olbers' Paradox, actually it isnt a paradox it is a mystery, a double sided mystery, with hotspots in an eternal universe on one side, & extinction on the other side.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1368
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: Olber's Paradox.

Unread post by Aardwolf » Thu May 28, 2020 1:44 am

Do the math.

From Earth (excluding sol)
2 stars within 4.2 ly
7 stars within 8.4 ly
27 stars within 12.6 ly
0.000002% brightness reduction per 4.2 ly distance. (10,000 photons per second per square mm)

See how close you get to infinity.

crawler
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Olber's Paradox.

Unread post by crawler » Thu May 28, 2020 4:38 am

Aardwolf wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 1:44 am
Do the math.
From Earth (excluding sol)
2 stars within 4.2 ly
7 stars within 8.4 ly
27 stars within 12.6 ly
0.000002% brightness reduction per 4.2 ly distance. (10,000 photons per second per square mm)

See how close you get to infinity.
I just then posted the following wordage re your similar comments in the other sub-forum. The thing is that by arguing re an infinite brightness & temperature i am arguing about a super-Olbers' Paradox, because that is in my opinion the correct form of the conventional Paradox (the conventional form says that all of the sky should be as bright as the Sun). So, i am happy to set aside the super-Paradox & just argue about the conventional-Paradox.

I might have already agreed with that. What i mean is that my later postings admit that an infinite brightness & temperature are not possible with only 2 pillars (eternal universe)(infinite universe), it needs the third pillar (continual creation of energy)(ie new hot stars replacing old burnt out cold stars). So without the third pillar i could only argue that the whole sky should be the temperature of the Sun, ie in effect the conventional Olbers' Paradox.

In that conventional paradox the dispersion &/or tiredness & the temporary or permanent nature of any extinction are still critical to the explanation, even if we are looking for 6000 K rather than an infinite K. Even if there is no redshifting, ie if it is all due to dispersion (ie due to sniper bullets missing the target), & if only 0.000 002% of bullets from a particular nth shell hit the target, it means that 99.999 998% of bullets from that shell are still flying around, ie no matter how many bullets hit the target from all shells, all bullets that miss are still flying around, & hencely the whole sky must be at 6000 K.

So, if the sky is little more than 3 K then that means that some kind of permanent extinction must be happening, which is not explained by dispersion nor by ordinary tired light, it needs a special kind of redshifting (which i think i have explained, if not here then in new insights & mad ideas).
Aardwolf wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 1:13 am
crawler wrote:
Wed May 06, 2020 9:38 pm
The critical way is "without", which is what i did,...
No, you just increased the accuracy so you had a favourable result. Use the real accuracy of 0.000002% per 4.2ly sphere and see if it adds up to infinity.
The infinite brightness & infinite temperature argument adds an extra layer of complexity, which i have already explained in full i think, & relates to a different version of the paradox, & i suppose that we can go there (again) once we have sorted out my above comments that relate to the conventional paradox.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest