Hello!

[stargazer1985]

Wow, this is something new for me, I have been a devoted follower of this "movement of reason" for almost two decades now! And I am so happy to join the forum. v3.0 - does that mean I missed v1.0 and v2.0?

Does anyone know who is the thunderbolts youtube channel manager? I'd like to help with some sfx or 3d models and animations if it would be welcome.

Best greetings your stargazer

[Michael Mozina]

Welcome stargazer1985. There is in fact a previous board which you can still access here:

http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/phpBB3/index.php

It contains lot of previous topics and materials that you might find interesting.

I'm not sure who is in charge of the thunderbolt's videos, I just know it's not me.

[nick c]

Does anyone know who is the thunderbolts youtube channel manager? I'd like to help with some sfx or 3d models and animations if it would be welcome.

You can contact the Thunderbolts team here:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/contact-us/

[stargazer1985]

Well for a first question: What is the Electric Universe "consensus" now on aether absorption of light (Olber's paradox problem)?

[Michael Mozina]

Well for a first question: What is the Electric Universe "consensus" now on aether absorption of light (Olber's paradox problem)?

I wouldn't refer to it as an aether for starters.

I'd solve Olber's paradox with Olber's own solution, namely distance, dust and I"d add a bit of redshift/tired light to the explanation.

You'll have to start by realizing that contrary to mainstream claims, "surface brightness" doesn't remain constant forever because sooner or later (at some distance), a sun is so small of an angular size that it acts like a point source, and light then follows the inverse square law. That's why we can only see less than 10,000 stars in the night sky, out of the hundreds of billions of stars in our own galaxy with our naked eye. If distance didn't result in less surface brightness then we'd easily see all the trillions of stars in every galaxy in our local supercluster and they'd all be as bright as our own sun. We simply don't see anything of the sort. It's therefore irrational to suggest that surface brightness always remains constant. It simply doesn't. Light follows the inverse square law. The surface brightness argument associated with Olber's paradox is several hundred billion visible stars short of a valid scientific argument. A quick glance at the night sky will easily demonstrate that fact.

Secondly that "brightness" argument is typically used in conjunction with the concept of 'shells', by suggesting that each concentric shell contains many more times the number (shell^2) of stars inside of it than the last shell. That argument falls apart instantly however since while there is one sun that is located within 1AU of our planet, there aren't four suns which are located within 2 AU's of the Earth, or 9 stars within 3AU of the Earth. In fact, in order for Proxima Centauri (the closest stellar neighbor) to be as bright as our sun, it (actually they) would have to be 268,770(AU shells)^2, or 72,237,312,900 times brighter, or more numerous, than our sun. The shell argument is therefore absolutely irrelevant and invalid even before we reach the very next stellar neighbor.

Scattering and absorption in a dusty plasma spacetime would also tend to limit the intensity of any light source at enough distance.

Lastly, even in a static universe, there is some physical mechanism(s) that is (are) responsible for redshift over distance. Light eventually loses some of it's momentum and passes some of that momentum on to the dusty plasma medium of spacetime. Whatever the tired light mechanism(s) might be, it also has the same basic effect as expansion in terms of limiting the number of stars which could exist in the visible universe. Eventually distant enough galaxies would be redshifted out of the visible spectrum entirely. This is why the JWST will be able to see much further into space than Hubble.

In short, light follows the inverse square law which is why we see such a small percentage of stars in our own galaxy, the shell argument of Olber's paradox is blown out of the water at 2AU, and light eventually transfers some of it's momentum to the plasma medium over distance, also restricting the number of possible number of galaxies which could exist in the visible universe.

Olber solved his own paradox by the way based on the first two arguments alone. Throw in a tired light mechanism and Olber's paradox is easily resolved and fully explained.

[nick c]

Don Scott on "Olber's Paradox":
https://electric-cosmos.org/Olber.pdf

[stargazer1985]

Does anyone know who is the thunderbolts youtube channel manager? I'd like to help with some sfx or 3d models and animations if it would be welcome.

You can contact the Thunderbolts team here:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/contact-us/

That didn't work unfortunately. They do write on the website that they are getting a lot of mail, but I just asked a simple question on who is responsible for the youtube channel to offer help to. No reply and yet the youtube channel is one of the weakest spots of the whole thing. It is aimed at MENSA members with high iq only, almost no animation or colours

what good is a movement if only the top 1% of iq brackets can enjoy it even that texas guy isaac with the speech impediment makes more interesting videos, and he is just an amateur guy with no clue about the electric nature of what he is studying. surely we could do better together here

[crawler]

Well for a first question: What is the Electric Universe "consensus" now on aether absorption of light (Olber's paradox problem)?

I wouldn't refer to it as an aether for starters.
I'd solve Olber's paradox with Olber's own solution, namely distance, dust and I"d add a bit of redshift/tired light to the explanation.

You'll have to start by realizing that contrary to mainstream claims, "surface brightness" doesn't remain constant forever because sooner or later (at some distance), a sun is so small of an angular size that it acts like a point source, and light then follows the inverse square law. That's why we can only see less than 10,000 stars in the night sky, out of the hundreds of billions of stars in our own galaxy with our naked eye. If distance didn't result in less surface brightness then we'd easily see all the trillions of stars in every galaxy in our local supercluster and they'd all be as bright as our own sun. We simply don't see anything of the sort. It's therefore irrational to suggest that surface brightness always remains constant. It simply doesn't. Light follows the inverse square law. The surface brightness argument associated with Olber's paradox is several hundred billion visible stars short of a valid scientific argument. A quick glance at the night sky will easily demonstrate that fact.

Secondly that "brightness" argument is typically used in conjunction with the concept of 'shells', by suggesting that each concentric shell contains many more times the number (shell^2) of stars inside of it than the last shell. That argument falls apart instantly however since while there is one sun that is located within 1AU of our planet, there aren't four suns which are located within 2 AU's of the Earth, or 9 stars within 3AU of the Earth. In fact, in order for Proxima Centauri (the closest stellar neighbor) to be as bright as our sun, it (actually they) would have to be 268,770(AU shells)^2, or 72,237,312,900 times brighter, or more numerous, than our sun. The shell argument is therefore absolutely irrelevant and invalid even before we reach the very next stellar neighbor.

Scattering and absorption in a dusty plasma spacetime would also tend to limit the intensity of any light source at enough distance.

Lastly, even in a static universe, there is some physical mechanism(s) that is (are) responsible for redshift over distance. Light eventually loses some of it's momentum and passes some of that momentum on to the dusty plasma medium of spacetime. Whatever the tired light mechanism(s) might be, it also has the same basic effect as expansion in terms of limiting the number of stars which could exist in the visible universe. Eventually distant enough galaxies would be redshifted out of the visible spectrum entirely. This is why the JWST will be able to see much further into space than Hubble.

In short, light follows the inverse square law which is why we see such a small percentage of stars in our own galaxy, the shell argument of Olber's paradox is blown out of the water at 2AU, and light eventually transfers some of it's momentum to the plasma medium over distance, also restricting the number of possible number of galaxies which could exist in the visible universe.

Olber solved his own paradox by the way based on the first two arguments alone. Throw in a tired light mechanism and Olber's paradox is easily resolved and fully explained.

I don't agree. Changing visible light to invisible light answers Olber's Paradox, but Olber's Paradox is naïve, it should ask why isn't our cosmos at an infinite temperature.
So, how does tired light or dust or plasma or distance cause the extinction of radiation? Where does the energy go?
And i thought that EU was happy with the existence of some kind of aether. But Scott & Co don't mention any kind, at least re Olber's Paradox.

[crawler]

Well for a first question: What is the Electric Universe "consensus" now on aether absorption of light (Olber's paradox problem)?

I aint a scientist & i am not expert re EU, but i am happy to have a try. I think that the EU consensus might be that the aether consists of neutrinos. And if neutrinos could somehow absorb photons, ie convert photons to neutrinos, then that would in effect rob energy from the infinite universe, ie most of the energy would be in neutrino form, ie not visible, & not raising our temperature.

But of course that kind of theory doesn't work. No matter what the density of star numbers, & no matter what fraction of energy is converted to neutrino form, the temperature everywhere must be infinite.

Does EU believe in a finite universe? A finite universe could solve the problem. Otherwise nope.

But what does stargazer think about aether & aether absorption of light? I think that u have your own theory or have seen some.
If aether somehow absorbed light then that would take the energy out of our quantum universe & hide it in the subquantum universe.

[EtherQuestions]

That didn't work unfortunately. They do write on the website that they are getting a lot of mail, but I just asked a simple question on who is responsible for the youtube channel to offer help to. No reply and yet the youtube channel is one of the weakest spots of the whole thing. It is aimed at MENSA members with high iq only, almost no animation or colours

what good is a movement if only the top 1% of iq brackets can enjoy it even that texas guy isaac with the speech impediment makes more interesting videos, and he is just an amateur guy with no clue about the electric nature of what he is studying. surely we could do better together here

I agree, please do keep trying the ThunderboltsProject YT could use some contributions in productions. Slideshows with ambient electric trumpet soundtracks (unfortunately) don't capture the attention span of many (even though the interviews/commentary is amazing/insightful ) it just needs some more content aimed at the average person - the (impossible ) Dark Matter/Big Bang/Black Hole cosmologists are doing this 100x better at the moment than us and have more content producers repeating their nonsense to huge uninformed audiences. Just look at PureBS Spacetime or all these fancy animation FX youtubers, they get their theory across visually and clearly in many many ways to average people who priorly don't know any cosmology/physics at all.

[Michael Mozina]

I don't agree.

Which part(s) do you disagree with exactly?

Changing visible light to invisible light answers Olber's Paradox,

Well, all tired light models eventually redshift all light over distance, and light follows an inverse square law, which is why we only see a tiny fraction of the stars inside of our own galaxy. It has nothing to do with expansion.

but Olber's Paradox is naïve,

It's a pretty pathetic argument actually. If it had any merit, we'd see every star in our galaxy. Instead we observe less than 10,000 stars at night.

it should ask why isn't our cosmos at an infinite temperature.

It couldn't be an infinite temperature for the reasons that Scott cites in his paper. You can't just integrate to infinity like that and expect to get any meaningful answers.

So, how does tired light or dust or plasma or distance cause the extinction of radiation?

It doesn't extinguish it, it simply redirects is, and absorbs some of the energy and re-emits some of that energy at lower energy photons.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/astro ... smic-dust/

Where does the energy go?

It goes into moving other particles and it simply ends up as photons of all wavelengths.

And i thought that EU was happy with the existence of some kind of aether. But Scott & Co don't mention any kind, at least re Olber's Paradox.

Well the photons that ultimately makeup and produce the EM field may act as an aether of sorts, but I'm not attached to that concept. I don't think you need an aeither to explain redshift over distance however.

[crawler]

I don't agree.

Which part(s) do you disagree with exactly?
Crawler: I am happy with the explanation that visible light is not infinite. But conservation of energy says that the temp should be infinite everywhere.

Changing visible light to invisible light answers Olber's Paradox,

Well, all tired light models eventually redshift all light over distance, and light follows an inverse square law, which is why we only see a tiny fraction of the stars inside of our own galaxy. It has nothing to do with expansion.
Crawler: Yes, but (that kind of) redshifting transfers energy to dust & plasma. Hencely infinite temp everywhere.

but Olber's Paradox is naïve,

It's a pretty pathetic argument actually. If it had any merit, we'd see every star in our galaxy. Instead we observe less than 10,000 stars at night.
Crawler: No i don't agree. If the observer moves away from any star eventually she will not see the star, based on 1/rr. But Olber's Paradox is naïve because the question should be re why isnt temperature infinite everywhere, which was the question asked by some guy 2000 yrs ago.

it should ask why isn't our cosmos at an infinite temperature.

It couldn't be an infinite temperature for the reasons that Scott cites in his paper. You can't just integrate to infinity like that and expect to get any meaningful answers.
Crawler: No. Scott might be correct when he says that each shell yields the same lumens of visible light, but this means that if u have an infinite number of shells then u have an infinite lumens of visible light, unless there is an extinction factor (which Scott quite correctly invokes), but Scott does not address temperature at all in his paper(s).

So, how does tired light or dust or plasma or distance cause the extinction of radiation?

It doesn't extinguish it, it simply redirects is, and absorbs some of the energy and re-emits some of that energy at lower energy photons.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/astro ... smic-dust/
Crawler: Then we agree. The temp everywhere should be infinite.

Where does the energy go?

It goes into moving other particles and it simply ends up as photons of all wavelengths.
Crawler: Then we agree. The temp everywhere should be infinite. Unless the energy loss goes into the kinetic energy of particles, in which case the kinetic energy would need to be infinite.

And i thought that EU was happy with the existence of some kind of aether. But Scott & Co don't mention any kind, at least re Olber's Paradox.

Well the photons that ultimately makeup and produce the EM field may act as an aether of sorts, but I'm not attached to that concept. I don't think you need an aether to explain redshift over distance however.
Crawler: There are only two explanations in existence that explains redshift 100%, & one (Ranzan) involves aether, as explained in my thread in new ideas (the other being Krafft, which might involve aether too)(not sure).

[Michael Mozina]

I don't agree.

Which part(s) do you disagree with exactly?
Crawler: I am happy with the explanation that visible light is not infinite. But conservation of energy says that the temp should be infinite everywhere.[

No, actually it doesn't predict an 'infinite" temperature.. Eddington did a quick calculation based on the intensity of starlight that put the number around 3.18 degrees, within 1/2 of a degree of the correct number. No star is infinite temperature and space is vast, so why would you think it would necessarily be "infinite"?

Changing visible light to invisible light answers Olber's Paradox,

Well, all tired light models eventually redshift all light over distance, and light follows an inverse square law, which is why we only see a tiny fraction of the stars inside of our own galaxy. It has nothing to do with expansion.
Crawler: Yes, but (that kind of) redshifting transfers energy to dust & plasma. Hencely infinite temp everywhere.

No. I suggest you go back and read Scott's explanation. After a certain distance, there simply isn't enough light coming from background stars to even register in a human eye, let alone help heat the Earth. The universe will ultimately end up with an overall average temperature, but it's going to a be a very small number.

but Olber's Paradox is naïve,

It's a pretty pathetic argument actually. If it had any merit, we'd see every star in our galaxy. Instead we observe less than 10,000 stars at night.
Crawler: No i don't agree. If the observer moves away from any star eventually she will not see the star, based on 1/rr. But Olber's Paradox is naïve because the question should be re why isnt temperature infinite everywhere, which was the question asked by some guy 2000 yrs ago.

2000 year ago they had no idea light followed an inverse square law.

it should ask why isn't our cosmos at an infinite temperature.

It couldn't be an infinite temperature for the reasons that Scott cites in his paper. You can't just integrate to infinity like that and expect to get any meaningful answers.
Crawler: No. Scott might be correct when he says that each shell yields the same lumens of visible light, but this means that if u have an infinite number of shells then u have an infinite lumens of visible light, unless there is an extinction factor (which Scott quite correctly invokes), but Scott does not address temperature at all in his paper(s).

Ultimately the total "lumens" which are reaching Earth are going to affect the temperature. If lumens are limited by distance, then so must the temperature be limited. Read my answer about the "shells" nonsense. There simply aren't enough stars in various shells for it to work the way you envision. The next closest star is 268,770 AU shells away. In order for that shell to be as bright as our sun, you'd need 268,770^2, or 72,237,312,900 more stars in that shell. There's exactly 2, Alpha Centauri A & B. The shell argument is therefore absolutely irrelevant and invalid even before we reach the very next stellar neighbor. The concentric shell argument is totally bogus. It doesn't even work within the context of our own solar system, let alone our own galaxy!

So, how does tired light or dust or plasma or distance cause the extinction of radiation?

It doesn't extinguish it, it simply redirects is, and absorbs some of the energy and re-emits some of that energy at lower energy photons.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/astro ... smic-dust/
Crawler: Then we agree. The temp everywhere should be infinite.

No, we completely disagree. I have no idea why you think it should be infinite when bodies radiate energy away in "heat", the distances between stars is huge, the distance that light can travel is limited, and no star has an "infinite" temperature to start with, so it's physically impossible for anything in space to reach an infinite temperature. Due to scattering you end up with a finite distance that light can travel, and a finite (fairly low) temperature. An average star is only 6000K so how on Earth did you get an infinite *average* temperate of infinity?

Where does the energy go?

It goes into moving other particles and it simply ends up as photons of all wavelengths.
Crawler: Then we agree. The temp everywhere should be infinite. Unless the energy loss goes into the kinetic energy of particles, in which case the kinetic energy would need to be infinite.

The *total* kinetic energy of an infinite universe is infinite perhaps, but the *average* temperature in any given area of space doesn't have to be infinite. In fact it *cannot* be infinite.

And i thought that EU was happy with the existence of some kind of aether. But Scott & Co don't mention any kind, at least re Olber's Paradox.

Well the photons that ultimately makeup and produce the EM field may act as an aether of sorts, but I'm not attached to that concept. I don't think you need an aether to explain redshift over distance however.
Crawler: There are only two explanations in existence that explains redshift 100%, & one (Ranzan) involves aether, as explained in my thread in new ideas (the other being Krafft, which might involve aether too)(not sure).

Well, again, I think you could talk about a "quantum aeither" of sorts where aether itself is moving.

[crawler]

If the universe is infinite then the numbers of stars is infinite in every direction. Stars would of course block starlight from other stars, but if energy is conserved then the temperature everywhere would be infinite, flux etc would be infinite in every direction, no matter what the average temperature of stars. This is based on the universe being in existence for eternity, ie light has come from infinity.

The visibility of individual stars by the eye doesn't change this.

But we don't find an infinite temperature, hencely we have to choose tween a bigbang finite universe, or some kind of extinction of photons, or both, & i go for extinction. But aetheric-less science is extinction-less. Ranzan explains two kinds of extinction, both involving aether.

Actually i am wrong. Einsteinians believe in extinction in blackholes (which trap photons). On the other hand Hawking i think said that given enough time blackholes will radiate out that there energy, hencely it aint actually extinction. But they have their bigbang expanding universe to explain their version of Olber's Paradox.

I remember reading that the Sun radiates the same amount of heat as a wormfarm the same size as the Sun. An infinite number of wormfarms would give infinite temperature. Hawking i think did say something about wormholes.

[nick c]

If you take a camera (and a telescope can be a camera lens) and leave the shutter open, it will accumulate light showing fainter and fainter stars and galaxies. That is because light can accumulate on the film or ccd chip.

The human eye does not accumulate light. It sees what it can see and what it cannot see is perceived as black. The light from stars fainter than about magnitude 6 are not perceived by the human eye. You can stare and stare some more, but there is not going to be any accumulation of light on your retina. Olber's Paradox is solved, as simple as that.

An example: The Andromeda galaxy (M31) has an apparent angular diameter (size as seen from Earth) on its long axis of about 3 degrees. The full Moon, by comparison, has an apparent angular diameter of 1/2 of a degree. So M31 is about 6x larger as seen from Earth than is the full Moon!
But with the human eye, even a clear night, it looks like a fuzzy star much smaller than the full Moon. That is because the human eye does not accumulate light and the naked eye can only reveal M31's core. The area of sky occupied by M31's spiral arms is composed of billions of stars. yet to the naked eye, it appears black.