Olber's Paradox

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-75210852

It's both sad and rather telling that sjastro and crew are still harping on Olber's paradox even *after* I showed them how utterly pathetic of an argument that is.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-72272106

The inverse square law, dust and distance are the reason Olber's claims are absurd, and you can check it with your own eyes at night. It turns out that Thomas Digges solved Olber's paradox before Olber was even born. The human eye can see around 10,000 stars in the night sky out of a over 250 *billion* stars in our own galaxy. Likewise we can observe less than 10 (including our own) galaxy in the night sky out of approximately 100,000 galaxies in our own local supercluster. That is due to the inverse square law, and 'surface brightness" is a meaningless argument. The night sky isn't "dark" because the universe is expanding, it's dark because of the inverse square laws, dust and distant. Period.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-72289520

I also pointed out to them that they are still 268,770 AU shells in the hole with respect to their ridiculous "shell" claim.

There's absolutely nothing left standing about Olber's paradox in relationship to *any* cosmology model, expanding or not, infinite or not.

[nick c]

The human eye can see around 10,000 stars in the night sky out of a over 250 *billion* stars in our own galaxy.

That is the high end estimate for the entire sky as seen from Earth. Other, conservative estimates are lower at around 5000 stars. So since the night sky is only half of the sky visible from Earth the amount of visible stars as seen from Earth at night is half that number, which puts it at between 2500 and 5000 stars on the clearest of nights with an excellent set of human eyes.

[Michael Mozina]

The human eye can see around 10,000 stars in the night sky out of a over 250 *billion* stars in our own galaxy.

That is the high end estimate for the entire sky as seen from Earth. Other, conservative estimates are lower at around 5000 stars. So since the night sky is only half of the sky visible from Earth the amount of visible stars as seen from Earth at night is half that number, which puts it at between 2500 and 5000 stars on the clearest of nights with an excellent set of human eyes.

Indeed, I was being "very optimistic" in their favor in terms of the numbers.

I think the most damning part of their argument is related to suns and the "surface brightness" of suns, where we would expect to see hundreds of *billions* of "bright surfaces" inside of our own galaxy. Instead we see at best something that resembles a dim cloudy "haze" without any point sources, and nowhere near the brightness of our own sun.

We even went through the math together related to their "shell brightness" claims, and they came up many orders of magnitude short of a valid mathematical or scientific argument as it relates to suns based on astronomical unit distances.

Then their claim about "surface brightness" turned to "galaxies" which were supposed to retain some sort of "surface brightness", yet again we at the night sky and we see but a few handfuls of the galaxies in our own galaxy supercluster which is composed of over 100,000 galaxies. Again their "as bright as the surface of the sun" claim bit the observational test by orders of magnitude with respect to galaxies and for exactly the same reasons.

You'd think they'd have the ability to think a bit about their own claims related to a brightly lit night sky were it not for the expansion process they talk about. The reality is that Olber's paradox was solved *before* Olber was ever born. We knew before Olber that lights became less bright over distance, even if we hadn't learned to mathematically quantify it for a bit.

The utterly absurd part of their argument comes back to distance and the vast distances of space, and the belief that it's a homogeneous "vacuum" of some sort where light particles *never* transfer their kinetic energy into the plasma medium, and nothing obeys the inverse square laws of light.

Spacetime is actually quite "messy" when it comes to density since currents act to "pinch" the universe into filamentary shapes where the density is quite high, surrounded by far less dense regions of relatively empty space.

Even that so called 'empty" space is filled with cosmic rays galore, and flying particles galore, so the concept of "empty vacuum" really doesn't apply to "real" spacetime, with real plasma.

Light sources obey the inverse sqaure laws in our *real* universe so their entire argument is complete nonsense. If they cannot embrace basic math related to the inverse square laws of light, then they really aren't "experts" on even the most rudimentary aspects of of physics and photons and plasma.

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... 695/page-5

I prefer to use the LMC (Large Magellanic Cloud) which is a satellite galaxy of the Milky Way as an example to refute Scott’s nonsense.
It is easily visible to the naked eye to southern hemisphere observers under rural skies and is 158,000 light years distance.
According to Scott it should be invisible as each individual star in the LMC cannot be observed beyond 600+ light years!!
The galaxy is visible as the naked eye cannot resolve the LMC into individual stars; we observe the integrated brightness of “overlapping photons” spread out over the angular dimension of the galaxy which is simply the surface brightness

This is the type of childish argument that simply *astounds* me in terms of the obviousness of problem with the argument. Indeed Scott *is* correct that we cannot pick out *individual* stars in the LMC even though it's one of the closest galaxies to our own, like the second or third *closest* one to us. Instead we see only a slight "haze" from the output of over 10 billion solar masses in the LMC, and even then the apparent magnitude of those 10 billion solar masses is less than one (.9) compared to apparent magnitude of the the sun at -26.74. So the *obvious* error of suggesting that the whole sky should be the same brightness of the sun is absolutely obvious, and that claim is simply blown out of the water by his own argument! Here we have a *perfect* example of why it's utterly irrational to expect the whole night sky to be as bright as the sun.

No object in the night sky even comes anywhere close to the apparent brightness of the sun.

The fact that sjastro cannot see the *obvious* problem in his own argument is simply absurd. Even the *very closest* galaxies to us come nowhere near to being as bright as the surface of the sun. It's physically impossible for that to happen regardless of whether the universe is expanding or not. The distances between objects is simply too large to ever allow for something like that to happen.

Honestly, the fact that sjastro and others even try to defend this kind of nonsense simply demonstrates that they are incapable of thinking for themselves, and they are utterly incapable of putting forth a valid scientific argument. An apparent brightness of .9 is nowhere in the same ballpark as an apparent brightness of -26.74. It's not even close!

It's also quite obvious that our human eyes are only capable of picking out less than 10 galaxies total out of the 100,000 or so galaxies in our own local supercluster, so his entire argument is scientifically bankrupt. By the time we get to M31, the apparent magnitude drops to 3.44, *far* dimmer than than the LMC. The whole Olber's paradox argument simply demonstrates that astronomers suffer from "groupthink" and they will believe just about anything, even the most absurd claims.

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-75218342

Suppose the number of stars with luminosity L is N and their average number density in a sphere of radius r is n = N/V where V is the volume.

I've already pointed out sjastro's blatantly obvious physical and mathematical error for him in the past, and I've had to explain to him how the inverse square law actually works, but since he's having trouble understanding the problem (or remembering it), and he's apparently reading this forum and this thread, I'll point it out for him once again.

Since we're supposedly comparing the brightness of objects in the night sky to the brightness of our own sun, the only mathematically acceptable choice of r (and dr) is 1 AU in sjastro's "shell game". If sjastro's "supposed" scenario was accurate, then since we have 1 sun at 1AU from the Earth, and the "average" solar density in his equation is supposed to be consistent with volume, and also consistent with the inverse square law, then we should have four suns inside of 2 AU of Earth, and 9 of them within 3AU. It turns out however in the *real* universe that we actually live in, rather than the "supposed" (mythical) universe that sjastro is describing, there isn't a single additional sun within 268,770 AU's of Earth. That's the huge mathematical (and physical) hole that ultimately sunk their Olber's paradox ship. There absolutely are not 4 suns to be found in the next 2 AU shell, or 9 suns within the following 3AU shell, or 16 suns within 4 AU of Earth, or anything of the sort. The blatantly obvious error of sjastro's logic is simply impossible to miss unless one *insists* on missing it, particularly when that *huge* problem has already been pointed out. Instead of dealing with his *blatantly obvious* mathematical and physical error, sjastro simply buried his head in the sand entirely, and went right back to spouting the same falsified nonsense about a mythical universe that nobody actually inhabits.

That massive distance problem with their math is exactly why there isn't a single solitary object in the night sky that is anywhere *near* as bright as our own sun. Period. Their entire argument is essentially based on utter and total BS. It's a mythical scenario which has no application whatsoever in *this* physical universe!

Of course Olber's original (and bogus) "paradox" was based upon the brightness of *suns*, and it was put forth *long* before we even knew that other galaxies even existed in space, nor did we have any clue about how far away they were, but astronomers still try to pull the old "bait and switch" routine they're infamous for these days, and they try to apply this nonsense to *galaxies* instead. Alas however, there isn't a single galaxy in the entire universe that is anywhere near as bright as the surface of our sun at 1AU, so that argument is also *ridiculous* and it's falsified by *direct observation* of the night sky. Any "preschooler" can tell that there's no object in the night sky as bright as our sun. Not only is this "galaxy" argument a blatant bait and switch routine, it's also *falsified* by direct observation. The Olber's paradox argument is *utterly absurd*. There's nothing even remotely meaningful about it. It's full of physical and mathematical holes, and everyone can see how flawed it is for themselves simply by stepping outside at night and looking up at the night sky. sjastro is 250 billion stars and 100,000 galaxies short of a valid scientific argument.

Now this scenario wouldn't be so sad and so ridiculous if I had not *already* pointed out sjastro's blatantly obvious error for him, but I have. Instead of actually dealing with his problem, he went right back to peddling the same ridiculous argument. This is what I mean by professional incompetence. These are supposed "professionals" that should be able to think for themselves and see the obvious errors for themselves. Instead they simply parrot whatever nonsense that they were taught in *college* (no less), without apparently ever bothering to think about the claim for themselves in the first place! Anyone and everyone who's not emotionally attached to the concept can see how ridiculous it is to be comparing the brightness of a star that's 4 light years away to the brightness of our own sun that is only 1 AU away! It's not even a logical argument to begin with, and even a *simple glance at the night sky* reveals the error! It's not a valid argument, and it's never been a valid argument. It's total BS.

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-75216415

It's also *highly unethical and extremely unprofessional* that all the EU/PC haters constantly build strawman arguments out of other people's comments rather than dealing with what was actually stated.

Scott's paper specifically discusses *stars* and distance limitations related to the human eye, and the limitations related to seeing *stars*, not galaxies or clumps of stars. I think this is another great example of their professional incompetence. Either they can't read, they can't comprehend, or they are seriously ethically challenged. Whatever the problem might be, it's not good.

It's also simply unbelievable that they'll mention such objects, yet utterly ignore the fact that none of those objects have the same apparent brightness of our own sun, or the fact that we see only a tiny *fraction* of the galaxies in our own supercluster which effectively blows their claims out of the water. Evidently not a single one of them has a clue how the inverse square law actually works as sjastro so elegantly demonstrated during our last discussion.

[Michael Mozina]

And there they go at CF burying their heads in the sand, completely ignoring the physical, mathematical and observational problems that I cited for them (twice now), and prattling on again about "surface brightness". So typical. Sheesh. It's no wonder why they're stuck in the dark ages of physics.

They're still 250 billion stars, 100,000 galaxies, and 268,770 empty AU shells short of a valid scientific argument, and yet they prattle on about surface brightness. Wow. Surface brightness isn't constant indefinitely either. At some distance the angular size becomes too small to resolve by the human eye and the item in question simply acts like a point source which is exactly why we see such a tiny fraction of the suns in our galaxy and we see only a tiny fraction of the galaxies in our supercluster. Surface brightness applying indefinitely over any distance is another lie that they tell to unsuspecting children.

There's simply nothing in the night sky that has the same apparent brightness as the sun, so their argument is utterly obliterated by *direct observation*! They have no valid explanation as to why they came up 250 billion stars short of a valid scientific argument.

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-75220900

What is so absurdly ridiculous is how this individual thinks the radius of the first shell in Olbers’ paradox has to be set at 1AU; why because the Sun is 1AU from Earth!!!
He doesn’t seem to comprehend Olbers’ paradox is about the night sky and an object in the shell is also a nighttime object.

LOL! I've seen pitiful rationalizations in my time, but that one should win an award for being the most off the wall comment that I've heard in a long time. Since Olber (and his cult followers) are specifically and intentionally comparing the brightness of "shells" in the night sky to the brightness of the sun, 1AU is the only logical choice! sjastro is 268,770 AU shells short of a valid mathematical argument. Worse yet I had to specifically and methodically explain the meaning of the inverse square law of light to him even *after* He completely botched the whole meaning of the explanation on that website. You can see that for yourself simply by reading the first link I cited. I posted a website link to a perfectly good explanation of the inverse square law for him, and he completely missed the point! Sheesh.sjastro is completely scientifically incompetent! Simply amazing.

You'd *think* that his first clue that he has a serious problem with his claim would be the obvious lack of 250 billion visible point-like objects in the night sky as "bright as the sun". When a sun reaches some specific distance, it acts like a simple point source and it's "surface brightness" becomes utterly irrelevant. The whole Olber's paradox argument is 250 billion stars in our own galaxy short, and an additional 100,000 galaxies short, and 268,770 AU shells short of a valid scientific claim! Anyone with a quick view of the night sky can see that no object, no "surface", and no galaxy in space is anywhere near as bright as our sun. Anyone who understands *anything* at all about the inverse square law knows why that's the case too.

Astronomers today are simply incompetent. They are stuck in the dark ages of physics and they refuse to see the light, even when it's staring them in the face in the night sky. They refuse to deal with their mathematical and physical errors even when they are pointed out to them!

Wow. Talk about lame rationalizations. It's physically impossible for the night sky to be as bright as the sun due to the inverse square law, dust and distance. Period. It has *absolutely nothing* to do with whether the universe is infinite or not, static or expanding, or what the cause of cosmological redshift might be. It's the obvious scientific result of the inverse square law and the distances involved.

The ridiculous part of his argument is suggesting that only expansion can "save us" from a bright night sky. The darkness of the night sky has nothing to do with the *cause* of cosmological redshift, or expansion. It's related to the inverse square law, dust and distance.

[Michael Mozina]

He continues to double down on this nonsense.
I hope he apologies to Scott for throwing him under the bus after trying to defend him.
Maybe the the crowd at EU central will learn not to trust this character.

Huh? I think sjastro has simply lost it now. Both Scott and I pointed out that there are less than 10,000 objects in the night sky that are visible to the human eye, not 250+ billion. We both pointed out that the apparent brightness of a sun drops off with distance and eventually we can't see them at all.

The only think I pointed out in addition to what Scott's paper suggests is that it's absolutely stupid to be trying to compare the brightness of very distant stars to the brightness of the sun at 1 AU, which in in fact the entire basis of Olber's meaningless paradox.

We both pointed out the same problem in a slightly different way, namely that the inverse square law, and the distance involved simply make Olber's paradox anything *but* a paradox, it's just bad logic which is made obvious by a quick glance at the night sky.

[Michael Mozina]

I would have to say that this silly Olber's "paradox" debate is a perfect example of everything that is wrong in astronomy today and it typifies the "groupthink" problems that result in the "dark ages" of astronomy. Some guy came along and said to astronomers, "hey in an infinite static universe the whole sky should be as bright as the sun", and furthermore, here is the math to 'prove' it, therefore the universe *must* be expanding.

So did astronomers actually "test" this mathematical claim in the real universe that we live in? Nope. They simply cranked on the math formula and out popped a number that described a uniformly distributed pattern of bright light with every region of the sky as bright as every other region. Does it actually "apply" to our physical universe, and how did they "check" their mathematical model "physically" to see if it had any physical significance to *our* actual physical universe? Are the stars in our own galaxy evenly distributed enough to allow the night sky to be as bright as our own sun?

When we put this mathematical model to the physical "test" in terms of actual distances, it fails the physical test rather miserably. We know from inverse square laws of light that in order for the next "shell" to be as bright as the previous one, it will need to contain four suns or be four times as bright, the next shell 9 stars, and so on. This is the most rudimentary physical "test" of their "uniform brightness" claim since the "brightness" of the light reaching Earth from various directions in the night sky will be determined the by to the source, and it's energy output. Simple stuff.

So what do we find when we attempt to physically apply this mathematical model to our actual physical solar system and galaxy?

We find that in terms of actual physics, the math is off by at least 268,770 AU shells short of being a valid scientific model of our physical universe. Our galaxy and our universe is not "homogeneous" to begin with. The specific distance of the sun to the Earth determines the brightness from that direction in the sky, and every other object in space will obey the same inverse square law in terms of the apparent brightness of that physical object as observed from Earth.

Every other object in space has an apparent brightness from Earth that is significantly less than the sun. That is a physical fact. There is a physical *reason* for it too, the inverse square law.

This Olber's paradox claim simply fails the inverse square law by *epic* proportions, and *orders* (several) of magnitude. It's not even remotely describing *our* physical universe, even if it did actually described some "hypothetical" universe.

It also fails the observational test, rather blatantly in fact. Not a single other object in the night sky has an apparent brightness on Earth that is even *remotely* close to the brightness of the sun from Earth. Not one. It's obviously impossible for this to happen too because our sun, and every other object in the universe obeys the inverse square laws, the distance between objects is *enormous*, and every object in the night sky has a different and highly unique apparent brightness.

It also fails the observational test by 250 stars in our own galaxy, and 100,000 galaxies in our local supercluster which are not expanding at all, which are all *missing* from registering to our eyes, which are all closer than any objects which might be further away from us.

Instead of putting them model to a real physical and observational "tests" which results and pass or fail of the mathematical model, they simply bury their collective heads in the sand and continue to repeat their silly "paradox" scenario which has no physical relationship to *our real* physical universe.

Dark energy? They can't even name so much as a single source of the stuff, let alone explain how it could retain constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume and grossly violate the conservation of energy laws in the process.

Dark matter? To date it's failed tens of billions of dollars worth of empirical 'tests' but astronomers refuse to accept the results of those tests.

Inflation? It was never anything other than a whim of Alan Guth, and voila, suddenly Guthianity became a "cult". Numerous new brands of inflation now exist, but they all owe their existence to the imagination of Pope Guth.

Astronomy today is an absolute *mess*. It's detached itself *completely* from the physical universe that we actually live in. Nothing about the LCDM model has any useful 'predictive" value since the whole thing has been 'postdicted" all along, using a healthy dose of "make-believe" forms of matter and energy, and obviously false beliefs which simply defy the inverse square laws of physics as well as the conservation of energy laws of physics.

They even butchered MHD theory by inventing "magnetic reconnection" in spite of the Nobel prize winning author of MHD theory calling it "pseudoscience" until the day he died, and replacing it with circuit theory in every single instance.

Astronomers today are simply detached entirely from physical reality.

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-75228120

Olbers’ paradox is not refuted by the nonsensical claim surface brightness follows the inverse square law.
This is shown by observation.

False. Olber's paradox is falsified by "observation" of the night sky.

Light in general *absolutely* follows the inverse square law. The term "surface brightness" in this context means absolutely nothing other than perhaps how bright the surface itself might be at the moment of emission. The lack of nearly 250 billion visible stars in our own galaxy and the lack of about 100 thousand visible galaxies in our local supercluster however *clearly* demonstrates that the term "surface brightness" has no logical or physical meaning as it relates to what we observe on Earth with our eyes.

When we look up at objects in the night sky, we don't see *any* objects in space which are as bright as our own sun, so the whole concept of Olber's paradox is utterly falsified by the observational evidence, not to mention the laws of physics and specifically the inverse square law of light.

It's probably mathematically acceptable to suggest that the "surface brightness" remains constant on *relatively large* surfaces over some reasonably short distance and claiming that the surface is shrinking in "apparent size" while the "surface brightness" remains the same, but at some distance the object will be so small that it will simply look like and act like a point source and the term "surface brightness" has little if any meaning, and it has no meaning as it relates to galaxies or to Olber's paradox. No object in the night sky *could* be as bright as our sun because all light emitting objects (except lasers) follow the inverse square laws and the distances to various objects are enormous. That's exactly why we see only a tiny fraction of the closest suns in our galaxy, and a tiny fraction of the galaxies in our local supercluster.

sjastro's insistence that Olber's paradox has some relevancy in the 21st century is exactly what I mean when I say that astronomers are simply professionally and scientifically incompetent. There's no logical basis for such a claim. It's falsified by the observational evidence that we observe in the night sky with our own eyes, and the so called "paradox" was "solved" before it was even proposed to begin with!

The reason the night sky isn't as bright as the sun is because all objects in space follow the inverse square law, and light is absorbed and scattered by plasma and dust in space. It's not even physically possible for *any other sun* to be as bright as our own sun, which is why no other object has the same apparent brightness as our own sun. Olber was simply wrong from the start.

The whole concept is 250 billion stars in our own galaxy short, 100 thousand galaxies in our supercluster short, and 268,770 AU shells short of a valid scientific argument! The whole concept is absurd as a quick glance at the night sky quickly demonstrates. We don't even see every sun in our own galaxy for crying out loud, and the lack of enough light from those suns to register in our eyes has *nothing* to do with expansion.

And by the way, I completely agree with Donald Scott as it relates to the visible range of stars, and I tend to embrace a static universe like Lerner, so the only folks I'm "throwing under the bus" as sjastro insists, are mainstream astronomers. They're scientifically incompetent which is why they continue to make ridiculously false claims about Olber's paradox, and it's why they continue to violate all the known laws of physics on a whim, from the inverse square laws of light, to the conservation of energy laws.

And for the record:

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-75220900

The self professed polymath genius/spokeperson is in fine form referring to my post#85 as “boneheaded maths”.

Never once in my entire life have I *ever* referred to myself as a "polymath genius", so sjastro is obviously ethically challenged. That's another great example of their complete lack of professionalism and their gross incompetence. It's oh so easy to sling the unethical arrows when you're hiding like a coward behind anonymous handles.

[crawler]

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-75228120

Olbers’ paradox is not refuted by the nonsensical claim surface brightness follows the inverse square law.
This is shown by observation.

False. Olber's paradox is falsified by "observation" of the night sky.

Olbers' Paradox cant be falsified by observation, because Olbers' Paradox is based on observation.

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-75228120

Olbers’ paradox is not refuted by the nonsensical claim surface brightness follows the inverse square law.
This is shown by observation.

False. Olber's paradox is falsified by "observation" of the night sky.

Olbers' Paradox cant be falsified by observation, because Olbers' Paradox is based on observation.

How do you figure? Human eyes can only observe less than 10,000 stars of the 250 *billion* or so stars in our own galaxy, and less than 10 galaxies total out of over 100,000 galaxies in our local supercluster. Worse still, not a single visible object in the night sky is anywhere near as bright as the sun. The concept is not based on observation, it's based on an inapplicable mathematical model.

[crawler]

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... ote]Olbers’ paradox is not refuted by the nonsensical claim surface brightness follows the inverse square law.
This is shown by observation.

False. Olber's paradox is falsified by "observation" of the night sky.
Olbers' Paradox cant be falsified by observation, because Olbers' Paradox is based on observation.

How do you figure? Human eyes can only observe less than 10,000 stars of the 250 *billion* or so stars in our own galaxy, and less than 10 galaxies total out of over 100,000 galaxies in our local supercluster. Worse still, not a single visible object in the night sky is anywhere near as bright as the sun. The concept is not based on observation, it's based on an inapplicable mathematical model.

Olbers' is based on measurement, ie it is based on what we see, ie we see that the night sky is mostly dark. Hence the Paradox.

I can word the Paradox as follows. Olbers' math model says that if the universe is infinite (& i would add eternal) then every point in the night sky should contain a far away star, & therefore the whole of the night sky should be as bright as the Sun.

As u say the light from a star reduces as per 1/RR, but the number of stars in a shell increases as per RR/1, hence they cancel exactly.

Human eyes are not relevant. If dust etc absorbs light then the energy is not lost, it is (eventually) re-emitted.
If light is redshifted then the energy is not lost (depending on the exact theory), it remains in our world, unless u invoke a theory where the energy is extinguished (& i think that such theories are possible).

In fact i think that such extinguishing of energy theories are essential. Because Olbers' Paradox as it stands is a naive skoolkid paradox. The real paradox is how come the night sky hasnt got an infinite brightness & temperature.

The stupid standard classical mainstream Einsteinian mafia gatekeeper answer to Olbers' is based on the universe being a bigbang universe, with limited age & size etc. I am happy to address naive theories, but i have zero tolerance for stupid.

[Michael Mozina]

Olbers' is based on measurement,

No. It cannot be based on "measurement" because it's based on a mathematical model that is simply inapplicable to begin with since the next closest star is *light years* away, rather than being anything like 2 AU.

ie it is based on what we see, ie we see that the night sky is mostly dark. Hence the Paradox.

That isn't a "paradox", it's a naturally occurring feature of light considering the distances to various objects. There's no "paradox" in the first place, save perhaps the "paradox" of why astronomers are *still* stuck on an ancient bogus claim that was never accurate to begin with in terms of the mathematical modeling it's based on. Stars aren't arranged nicely and neatly in evenly spaced "shells". The whole concept was bogus from the start.

I can word the Paradox as follows. Olbers' math model says that if the universe is infinite (& i would add eternal) then every point in the night sky should contain a far away star, & therefore the whole of the night sky should be as bright as the Sun.

But that concept defies the inverse square law, and the mathematical model is flawed because the next nearest star isn't found at 2AU, it's over 260,000 AU "shells" away. In fact *nothing* in the night sky is as bright as the sun for those very reasons.

As u say the light from a star reduces as per 1/RR, but the number of stars in a shell increases as per RR/1, hence they cancel exactly.

But that isn't even a valid mathematical model because the next "shell" at 2AU doesn't contain *any* stars, let alone *more* stars than the 1AU shell. The whole mathematical concept is pitifully useless because your trying to compare the brightness of objects to the sun at 1AU. The spacing between objects in space doesn't follow that concept *at all*.

Human eyes are not relevant.

Of course they are. Human eyes are not like CCD instruments. They don't "add" up photon hits over time, and even if they did it wouldn't matter unless the instrument was being saturated. It would *always* be less bright than the sun because the inverse square law always applies to everything except lasers.

If dust etc absorbs light then the energy is not lost, it is (eventually) re-emitted.

Not necessarily at the same wavelength or energy state however, and not necessarily in the same direction.

If light is redshifted then the energy is not lost (depending on the exact theory), it remains in our world, unless u invoke a theory where the energy is extinguished (& i think that such theories are possible).

It doesn't have to be "lost", it simply has to transfer momentum to the particles in space. Since light comes from all directions, the net result might simply be a particle that gets "bumped around" in different directions over time.

In fact i think that such extinguishing of energy theories are essential.

They aren't. Energy cannot be 'extinguished' to start with. Light however can change wavelengths over time, just like gamma rays inside the sun are eventually turned into lower energy emissions at the surface.

Because Olbers' Paradox as it stands is a naive skoolkid paradox.

It was a "old astronomer's tale" to be sure, not unlike an old wives tale.

The real paradox is how come the night sky hasnt got an infinite brightness & temperature.

That's not even a physical possibility due to the distances involved.

The stupid standard classical mainstream Einsteinian mafia gatekeeper answer to Olbers' is based on the universe being a bigbang universe, with limited age & size etc. I am happy to address naive theories, but i have zero tolerance for stupid.

I don't even mind "stupid", but I can't handle "stubborn stupid". Even when the flaws in the mathematical models is pointed out to them, they ignore the obvious problems in their model. The next closest star to Earth isn't anywhere close enough to Earth to come anywhere close in terms of brightness to our own sun. The whole idea is utterly preposterous.