Olbers' Paradox.

[nick c]

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]

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]

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]

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).

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.

[Aardwolf]

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).

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.

Instead of writing 300 words just complete the simple calculation. Obviously you wont reach infinity but you should be able to demonstrate an increase in light to extrapolate.

[crawler]

Instead of writing 300 words just complete the simple calculation. Obviously you wont reach infinity but you should be able to demonstrate an increase in light to extrapolate.

No, reaching infinity is easy. Here i go......

One candle (in our eternal infinite universe) burning for eternity = an infinite temp in the whole universe.

Yes, that should do the trick.
Of course one candle (star) cant burn for eternity, but we know that stars must be being created (from nothing), to match the death of stars etc (which must return to nothing), hence stars are in effect eternal.

[Aardwolf]

Instead of writing 300 words just complete the simple calculation. Obviously you wont reach infinity but you should be able to demonstrate an increase in light to extrapolate.

No, reaching infinity is easy. Here i go......

One candle (in our eternal infinite universe) burning for eternity = an infinite temp in the whole universe.

Yes, that should do the trick.
Of course one candle (star) cant burn for eternity, but we know that stars must be being created (from nothing), to match the death of stars etc (which must return to nothing), hence stars are in effect eternal.

So in your house you light a candle. Do you feel the same amount of heat holding your finger tip 1 centimeter away from it as well as 1 meter away from it? If not, why not?

[crawler]

Instead of writing 300 words just complete the simple calculation. Obviously you wont reach infinity but you should be able to demonstrate an increase in light to extrapolate.

No, reaching infinity is easy. Here i go......

One candle (in our eternal infinite universe) burning for eternity = an infinite temp in the whole universe.

Yes, that should do the trick.
Of course one candle (star) cant burn for eternity, but we know that stars must be being created (from nothing), to match the death of stars etc (which must return to nothing), hence stars are in effect eternal.

So in your house you light a candle. Do you feel the same amount of heat holding your finger tip 1 centimeter away from it as well as 1 meter away from it? If not, why not?

Yes i feel the same heat 1 cm away as 100 cm. Because what i feel is an infinite temp. Because that candle has been burning for eternity, & it has heated the room & house & nearby houses & the city & the nation & the Earth & cosmos & universe, based on there being dust (or perhaps plasma) spread throo the universe to reflect/scatter that there 1 candle power.

If there is nothing to reflect/scatter the 1 candle power then i will feel more heat etc when closer to that candle.

[GaryN]

What happens to Olbers paradox if the stars are not visible from space?

[crawler]

What happens to Olbers paradox if the stars are not visible from space?

The fact that a say infinite number stars are not visible from Earth is Olbers' Paradox.
The fact that a say infinite number of stars are not visible from space is the modern form of Olbers' Paradox.

Nothing happens to Olbers' Paradox, in fact what happens is that it makes Olbers' Paradox.
OP is based on measurement, therefore measurement cant falsify it.

The answer to Olbers' P is that energy from our eternal infinite world is somehow continuously lost, ie it is extinguished (annihilated)(extincted) in our (quantum) world (ie the world consisting of things we can easily feel or see) or moves into the subquantum world (ie the world that we cant easily feel nor see), or both.

[Aardwolf]

Instead of writing 300 words just complete the simple calculation. Obviously you wont reach infinity but you should be able to demonstrate an increase in light to extrapolate.

No, reaching infinity is easy. Here i go......

One candle (in our eternal infinite universe) burning for eternity = an infinite temp in the whole universe.

Yes, that should do the trick.
Of course one candle (star) cant burn for eternity, but we know that stars must be being created (from nothing), to match the death of stars etc (which must return to nothing), hence stars are in effect eternal.

So in your house you light a candle. Do you feel the same amount of heat holding your finger tip 1 centimeter away from it as well as 1 meter away from it? If not, why not?

Yes i feel the same heat 1 cm away as 100 cm.

In that case you would fee the same heat 100 miles away. From a single candle.

Absolute nonsense.

[crawler]

Instead of writing 300 words just complete the simple calculation. Obviously you wont reach infinity but you should be able to demonstrate an increase in light to extrapolate.

No, reaching infinity is easy. Here i go......

One candle (in our eternal infinite universe) burning for eternity = an infinite temp in the whole universe.

Yes, that should do the trick.
Of course one candle (star) cant burn for eternity, but we know that stars must be being created (from nothing), to match the death of stars etc (which must return to nothing), hence stars are in effect eternal.

So in your house you light a candle. Do you feel the same amount of heat holding your finger tip 1 centimeter away from it as well as 1 meter away from it? If not, why not?

Yes i feel the same heat 1 cm away as 100 cm.

In that case you would fee the same heat 100 miles away. From a single candle.

Absolute nonsense.

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

[crawler]

What are neutrinos. Carl W Johnson says they dont exist (i like that)(i used to think likewise). But i also like that they are pairs of photons sharing their axis such that their fields are out of phase & cancel (Ranzan), hence the slippery nature of the neutrino.

Johnson invokes Olbers' Paradox (photons) for support, creating a parallel Olbers' Paradox (Johnson's Paradox) for neutrinos, ie that neutrinos should have the same intensity for the whole sky as they do for the Sun's bit of the sky. http://mb-soft.com/public2/olbers.html

Good thinking. But Olbers' Paradox for photons has only one good explanation (all others are deficient), & that explanation is by Ranzan, who invokes an aetherial redshifting (stretching) of light (photons). Ranzan's redshifting would also apply to neutrinos (paired photons). So that answers Johnson's Paradox.

In which case neutrinos might indeed form 95% of matter, or quasi-matter (photons & neutrinos being quasi-particles)(having mass). Neutrinos would then be the mysterious dark matter (having almost zero em interaction with ordinary matter)(but having lots of gravitational interaction), by forming dark elementary particles, ie by forming dark loops etc (similar to the already mentioned loops of ordinary elementary particles). So, a neutrino can split into two photons, & two photons can form a neutrino. Or more, depending on energies etc.
But this raises new problems. Its never ending.

[JP Michael]

Its never ending.

To the contrary, it ends when one abandons the assumptions that the universe is both infinite and eternal.

Cheers,
JP.

[crawler]

Its never ending.

To the contrary, it ends when one abandons the assumptions that the universe is both infinite and eternal.

Cheers,
JP.

Yes the bigbang universe answers Olbers' Paradox. Except that the bigbang universe is preposterous.