Olber's Paradox

[crawler]

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.

I think that the Olbers' model that if the universe is infinite (add eternal) then every point must have a far off star is ok.

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.

A paradox is a naturally occurring feature, that loses its paradox when properly explained. If it cant be explained then it is a contradiction. Contradictions are not allowed.
It doesnt matter what the spacing etc of stars, if the universe is infinite then there must be a far off star everywhere u look.

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*.

The inverse square law simply asserts that the contribution from each shell is the same. Thusly if an infinite number of shells then an infinite temperature & brightness. But if the contribution per shell is less than RR/1 then we can arrive at an infinite temp etc anyway.

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.

Yes, but 1 visible candle at distance R must look the same (be as visible) as 16 candles held close together at 4R.

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.

Yes but all of the different directions soon add up.

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.

Yes, but all of that bumping around for eternity adds to an infinity of momentum overall (which soon manifests as temp & brightness).

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.

Measurements show that energy must be extinguished (from our world)(ie from the world that we see & feel), ie our universe is not at an infinite temp & brightness.

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

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

It was ok, but should have been raised to the more sensible why isnt the night sky at an infinite temp & brightness.

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.

Ok, lets say that the universe consists of one candle, burning for eternity. That one candle on its own gives an infinite temp & brightness. Actually it doesnt, it needs some matter scattered all throo the universe to scatter the photons.

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.

I think that the Einsteinian bigbang explanation for Olbers' is ok within its own theory (ie the bigbang non-infinite non-eternal universe)(ie i think that their Olbers' explanation is self consistent). But it is the underlying bigbang & GTR & STR & gravity waves & expanding universe etc etc that are stupid. Their shells are not infinite in number. So i dont even understand why they worry about Olbers' at all. They worry about redshifts. Do they worry about Olbers'?? Perhaps they dont.

[Michael Mozina]

I think that the Olbers' model that if the universe is infinite (add eternal) then every point must have a far off star is ok.

Actually it's not ok for the simple reasons that light follows the inverse square laws and stars tend to be very far apart. We can't even see all the surfaces of all the stars in our *own* galaxy, let alone distant ones.

A paradox is a naturally occurring feature, that loses its paradox when properly explained. If it cant be explained then it is a contradiction. Contradictions are not allowed.

The only actual contradiction is the fact that Olber's paradox conflicts with the inverse square laws. Even if the line of sight in every direction include a star at great distances, we wouldn't necessarily even be able to see it, and it certainly wouldn't be as bright as our own sun.

It doesnt matter what the spacing etc of stars, if the universe is infinite then there must be a far off star everywhere u look.

Maybe, but even in that scenario we wouldn't necessarily be able to even see it with our eyes do to the distances involved.

The inverse square law simply asserts that the contribution from each shell is the same.

But they aren't the same. The next 2 AU shell contains *zero* stars, as does the next 3AU shell, and the next one, and every shell for the next 268,770 shells! The whole shell game concept is flawed from the start because the distances to the next closest star isn't measured in astronomical
units, it's measured in *light years*. That's a problem, a *huge* problem in fact.

Thusly if an infinite number of shells then an infinite temperature & brightness. But if the contribution per shell is less than RR/1 then we can arrive at an infinite temp etc anyway.

Olber's paradox doesn't even make such a claim to begin with, so you're essentially arguing your own "paradox" without any mathematical model to even look at. No sun has an infinite temperature so your infinite temperature argument is dead in the water.

Yes, but 1 visible candle at distance R must look the same (be as visible) as 16 candles held close together at 4R.

Be that as it may, there isn't another star in 268,770 R's, so it's impossible for them to look the same.

Yes but all of the different directions soon add up.

Not really. It doesn't matter which direction you look, there simply isn't another star in another 268,770 "shells".

Yes, but all of that bumping around for eternity adds to an infinity of momentum overall (which soon manifests as temp & brightness).

No, and no. First of all, the "bumping around" would be happening in different directions so the net result would be a particle that doesn't really gain much overall momentum in any particular direction or gain "temperature", and since none of the photons reaching it would contain infinite energy, there's no physical possibility for the particles to be heated to infinite temperature.

The problem here is that even a static universe would predict "redshift" over distance regardless of the "cause" proposed, so the concept of adding up an "infinite" number of shells is flawed as well. There would still only be a finite number of shells to sum up. There's really nothing mathematically or scientifically justifiable about Olber's paradox. It's based on a series of false assertions.

[crawler]

Yes, but all of that bumping around for eternity adds to an infinity of momentum overall (which soon manifests as temp & brightness).

No, and no. First of all, the "bumping around" would be happening in different directions so the net result would be a particle that doesn't really gain much overall momentum in any particular direction or gain "temperature", and since none of the photons reaching it would contain infinite energy, there's no physical possibility for the particles to be heated to infinite temperature.

The problem here is that even a static universe would predict "redshift" over distance regardless of the "cause" proposed, so the concept of adding up an "infinite" number of shells is flawed as well. There would still only be a finite number of shells to sum up. There's really nothing mathematically or scientifically justifiable about Olber's paradox. It's based on a series of false assertions.

A particle say either.........
(1) absorbs a photon, or
(2) reflects it (somehow)(its a mystery), or
(3) diffracts it (ie bending), or
(4) slows it down (which is similar to (3)), & (4) includes refraction, or
(5) stretches it (which arises from (4)).

All 5 must affect the macro velocity/momentum of the particle (potential temperature), & the internal micro velocity/momentum of the atomic constituents (actual temperature).
Eventually a particle emits a photon (possibly immediately in the case of (2)), or after lots of (1)(3)(4)(5).

I suppose that we cant have a photon with an infinite energy. And we cant have an infinite number of photons hitting a particle at one instant.
These are impossible. What must happen is that particles continually emit photons, sooner or later, lowering their micro temperature.

Hence one cant talk of particles absorbing lots/all of the photons/energy radiating all round.

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.

Your rationale is contradictory. The only way that your explanation can work is if a particle can have an infinite momentum. But u say it cant. Hence u agree with me. Particles can only modify (photonic) energy for a while.

[Michael Mozina]

Yes, but all of that bumping around for eternity adds to an infinity of momentum overall (which soon manifests as temp & brightness).

No, and no. First of all, the "bumping around" would be happening in different directions so the net result would be a particle that doesn't really gain much overall momentum in any particular direction or gain "temperature", and since none of the photons reaching it would contain infinite energy, there's no physical possibility for the particles to be heated to infinite temperature.

The problem here is that even a static universe would predict "redshift" over distance regardless of the "cause" proposed, so the concept of adding up an "infinite" number of shells is flawed as well. There would still only be a finite number of shells to sum up. There's really nothing mathematically or scientifically justifiable about Olber's paradox. It's based on a series of false assertions.

A particle say either.........
(1) absorbs a photon, or
(2) reflects it (somehow)(its a mystery), or
(3) diffracts it (ie bending), or
(4) slows it down (which is similar to (3)), & (4) includes refraction, or
(5) stretches it (which arises from (4)).

All 5 must affect the macro velocity/momentum of the particle (potential temperature), & the internal micro velocity/momentum of the atomic constituents (actual temperature).
Eventually a particle emits a photon (possibly immediately in the case of (2)), or after lots of (1)(3)(4)(5).

I suppose that we cant have a photon with an infinite energy. And we cant have an infinite number of photons hitting a particle at one instant.
These are impossible. What must happen is that particles continually emit photons, sooner or later, lowering their micro temperature.

Hence one cant talk of particles absorbing lots/all of the photons/energy radiating all round.

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.

Your rationale is contradictory. The only way that your explanation can work is if a particle can have an infinite momentum. But u say it cant. Hence u agree with me. Particles can only modify (photonic) energy for a while.

No, I do not agree with you because a particle cannot have infinite momentum. No particle of mass can move faster than C. Even every photon also has a specific amount of momentum depending on it's wavelength. Light can *lose momentum* to the dusty plasma medium, or gain momentum, but it has to travel at C, hence the concept of redshift and blueshift.

FYI, the term "brightness" isn't even well scientifically defined in the sense that the term "brightness" is typically used in two different contexts, both in terms of the *emission* brightness (surface brightness) and *detector* brightness (flux over time) through a detector at a distance r. This is a good video that tends to explain the difference in the way the term "brightness" is used (intrinsic vs. measured) in astronomy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y_xuiXRqoU

In terms of what our human eyes (and telescopes) can *see*, and *measure*, we really only "see" flux (apparent brightness), so the inverse square law *always* applies to the "brightness" that we see with our eyes. That's why we cannot see every "bright surface" of every sun in our galaxy, nor do we observe every galaxy in our supercluster with our human eyes.

As the distance increases, the total number of photons reaching our eyes, or even our CCD becomes less and less. Take for instance a Hubble Deep field image of space:

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/30946

The image required 800 exposures taken over the course of 400 Hubble orbits around Earth. The total amount of exposure time was 11.3 days, taken between Sept. 24, 2003 and Jan. 16, 2004.

The "brightness" of the objects in this CCD image relates to the number of photons reaching the CCD over a period of *days*, not seconds or milliseconds. While they're relatively "bright" in the image compared to the darkness of the surrounding "space", they aren't even remotely visible to our human eye due to their distance, and the very few number of photons that actually reach a detector near Earth over a given hour or two or a given day or two.

The term "surface brightness" is therefore a scientifically meaningless term in the final analysis. Olber was simply wrong. The fact that a solar surface exists "eventually" in every direction in space doesn't automatically mean that every sun at every distance would emit enough photons to register in human perception through a human eye. An infinite universe would simply leave an infinitely diverse background of relative "brightness" that went from "relatively dark" to "relatively light", with our own sun far outshining the entire rest of the background in terms of it's "brightness" to our human eyes.

Modern astronomers are telling wild tall tales, with even wilder mathematical models that have no physical meaning in our *actual* physical universe. Suns aren't nicely spaced together relative to our eyes on Earth.

Your concept of an "infinitely" bright universe is even more physically impossible still because light would strike particles in space from all sides, and it wouldn't necessarily cause any specific movement in any single direction every single time a collision occurs, and dust emits heat over time as well. Deep space is actually quite "cold", even though billions of suns might be shining in our galaxy.

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-75238873

Over at EU central the self professed polymath genius....

My dear sjastro,

You're essentially flat out lying when you claim that I'm a "self professed polymath genius". You have no ethics at all. You're also intentionally putting false words in my mouth in every post, and bearing false witness against me, all while having the shear *audacity* to call yourself a "Christian". Shame on you dude. That's just sad.

continues to perpetrate the lie about correcting my maths mistakes and anyone who thinks surface brightness doesn’t follow the inverse square law is basically an imbecile.
It’s not even my maths the origins of which predate Olbers.

You however *are* trying to defend those meaningless maths so it's now *your* fault as well for doing so, regardless of who made the original error. The term "surface brightness" as you're using that term only relates to the *emission* side of the equation and it has no actual meaning as it relates to the number of photons reaching the human eye every second.

You're a master of attacking the *person*, but your really suck as a "scientists" because you cannot and will never explain something like a Hubble deep field image in terms of "surface brightness" or why we cannot see those "bight surfaced" galaxies in single short duration image using the very same equipment. Those "surface bright" suns in those "surface bright" galaxies aren't even visible to the human eye, or even visible in Hubble if the duration is cut to seconds rather than days.

You're just peddling utter nonsense to unsuspecting children. Shame on you.

[Michael Mozina]

I'd say the reaction to my *scientific* criticisms of Olber's paradox at CF clearly demonstrate the basic problem in astronomy today. Astronomers cannot handle *scientific* criticisms with real scientific rebuttals. Instead they resort to nothing but personal attacks anytime and every time their dogma is attacked and dismantled scientifically.

They simply *ignored* the fact that even though they're comparing the brightness of the night sky to the brightness of the sun at 1AU, they irrationally insist that the size of their "shells" is magically immune from being directly related to AU sized shells. Likewise when one points out the fact that *nothing* in the night sky is anywhere near as bright as the sun, they simply ignore it. They also ignored the fact that they're 268,770 AU shells short of a valid mathematical model for "shell" brightness. They ignore the fact that they're 250 billion stars short of a valid observational argument about "surface brightness", and they're 100 thousand galaxies short of a decent "surface brightness" argument related to galaxies. They won't even touch the Hubble deep field image problem with their argument, nor will they bother to *explain* or deal with any of the aforementioned *scientific* problems in their claim. Instead they pull the oldest and sleaziest trick in the book by blaming the *messenger* for their scientific problems, and they resort to trying to attack the *individual* rather than the deal with the actual scientific problems that have been pointed out to them.

As the Hubble deep field images *clearly* demonstrate, the concept of "surface brightness" is completely irrelevant and it only applies to the brightness at the *source*, not the "brightness" at the detector We cannot look up at the night sky and "see" those distant galaxies in Hubble deep field images no matter how long we stare at them, nor would Hubble see them either without *days* of viewing time. The concept of "surface brightness" is a completely bogus argument as all the *observational* evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates. They won't touch any of those observational or mathematical problems in their model with a 10 foot pole because they don't have any logical scientific rebuttal to any of them. Instead it's all about trashing the *person* and ignoring the overwhelming number of problems with their claim. How sad is that?

The same is true anytime anyone points out the *countless* problems with their beloved LCDM model. It's self conflicted with respect to the Hubble constant, it blatantly violates the known laws of physics, it's based on 95 percent metaphysical nonsense, and it *still* is in direct conflict with those mature and massive objects at the highest redshifts. They simply don't have a valid scientific rebuttal to any of those points either, so again, it's "trash the messenger" and "burn the witch" time anytime that anyone points out those problems to them in public.

They resort to outright lies, constant personal attacks, and virtual lynchings to try to deflect the attention away from the *scientific* problems with their claims. That's just unethical and it's highly unprofessional behavior. They do all that unethical crap while hiding like complete cowards behind anonymous handles too. Sheesh. They are not real scientists. They're sleazy cowardly con men.

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-75240525

The sad thing is that on those intellectually dark places on the Web where there is a stubborn refusal to comprehend the paradox, is that it's just a geometry problem. [Particularly for the classical form.] For ANY infinite cloud of discrete objects of finite size there will not be any directions that do not intersect an object at some distance. For Olbers' paradox, these finite objects are stars, so when we look in any direction we are always looking at the surface of some star.

Actually it's a *law of physics* problem in your *model* and a blatant mathematical *error* in your "shell" model. You're also obviously confusing the the concept of "comprehension" with "agreement". I comprehend your math and your model just fine which is why I'm able to point out the scientific and mathematical problems with it.

You're trying to insist that all surfaces are the same "brightness" at *any* distnace, when in fact a single Hubble deep field image blows that claim out of the water, as does your 250 billion star deficit, and your 100 thousand galaxy deficit. The reasons for your shell problem are obvious too because you're trying to compare the "brightness" of an object at 1AU with the brightness of surfaces that are measured in *light years* of distance. None of your claims add up. None of them jive with observation either. Your claim is a piece of scientific junk.

Your entire industry is based on *not asking questions* and not thinking "critically" because the moment that someone peaks under the scientific hood of your claims, the claims fall completely apart. You won't touch that Hubble deep field image problem with a 10 foot pole and we all know why too. Your argument is scientific trash and the observational evidence *destroys* it. That's also why you're forced to attack the *person* rather than to address the scientific and mathematical issues I've raised. You aren't fooling anyone.

[JP Michael]

Doesn't Olber's paradox assume light arrives at Earth unhindered from all quarters of the universe? I am just wondering if this assumption is at all correct, not just because of the inverse square law, but because the 'edge' of our own solar system is an unknown. Thornhill and others suppose that the Earth and the other planets are orbiting inside the Sun's extended atmosphere. At what point does that atmosphere cease, and what conditions exist at its cessation and the commencement of interstellar space? What effects does this region have on light penetrating from the outside (or light escaping from the inside)?

What I mean to say is this: if the edge of our solar system is some kind of double-layer plasma phenomenon, what kind of filtering effect could it have on EMF entering from the outside? Against this, of course, is that telescopy is able to peer outside of this region (if it exists, and I would like to suppose it does), so it may well be a dark-mode plasma double layer.

[JP Michael]

@Michael Mozina, Scott has an analysis of Olber's.

This is Don Scott from Thoth VIII(2), Mar. 2004.

OLBER'S PARADOX
By Don Scott

"Why is the sky dark at night?"

According to the following logical thought sequence (mathematical
derivation), it should be horrendously bright.

1) The apparent intensity of a light source decreases with the square of
its distance from the observer. (Assuming no interstellar dust absorption,
this is true. Lumens received from a star will vary inversely as the
square of the distance to that star.)

2) If the distribution of stars is uniform in space, then the number of
stars at a particular distance, r, from the observer will be proportional
to the surface area of a sphere whose radius is that distance. This area
is directly proportional to the distance squared. A = (pi)r^2

3) Therefore, at each and every possible radial distance, r, the amount of
light coming toward us should be both directly proportional to the radius
squared (the number of stars) and inversely proportional to the radius
squared (they get dimmer with distance).

4) These two effects cancel each other.

5) So every spherical shell of radius r should add the same additional
amount of light.

6) Ergo: In an infinite universe, if we sum (integrate) the light coming
from all the infinite number of possible values of r, the sky should be
infinitely bright.

But the sky is not infinitely bright. Why?

The resolution of this paradox can be achieved by considering how
astronomers solved the problem of defining the ABSOLUTE luminosity
(brightness) of a star. Because of (1) above, the more distant a star is,
the dimmer it appears to be. In order to set up a standard, astronomers
arbitrarily agreed that if a star was placed at a distance of 10 parsecs
(approximately 32 1*2 light-years) from us and if it looked like a
magnitude 1.0 star at that distance, they would agree to say that its
ABSOLUTE LUMINOSITY was 1.0.

There is a well-known relationship between distance and apparent magnitude
of a star. For example, if we put that same 1st magnitude star at a
distance of 517 LY (light-years), its APPARENT MAGNITUDE would be only
6.0. Humans cannot see any star whose magnitude is higher (less luminous)
than 6.4. The 200 inch Hale telescope at Mt. Palomar can see down to
about magnitude 23 or so.

There are approximately 8400 stars in our night sky that are brighter than
magnitude 6.4. We do not see the others; they are too dim. Yes, yes, Carl
Sagan used to talk about millions and millions of stars ? but we can only
see about 8400 with our naked eyes. Carl was well known for his tendency
to exaggerate. We get the impression of millions and millions when we
look up at the Milky Way, but we can see only 8400 stars ? that's it ? and
that1s under ideal conditions.

Of course, some stars are VERY much brighter than absolute magnitude 1.0
and thus would be visible farther out than 517 LY. But, many are much
dimmer too, so as a rough approximation let us consider the average star.
If it is farther away than 517 LY, we cannot see it (AT ALL). So it might
as well not be there AT ALL. The total light in our night sky (at least
the way we can see it with our naked eyes) is not affected by much of
anything that is dimmer than magnitude 6.4 (typical stars farther away
than around 517 LY). Even for the blue-white giant stars whose absolute
luminosity puts them at ?10 or ?12 (much brighter than absolute magnitude
1.0), there exists some finite distance beyond which they too become
invisible to us ? their apparent magnitude slips down beyond 6.4.

There are a very few vastly distant objects that we can see such as the
Great Andromeda Galaxy M 31. It is over 3 million LYs away. But it is
such a concentrated collection of stars and plasma that it looks to us
about as bright as a single magnitude 4 star.

The point is this ? the infinite sum implied in step (5), above, is
incorrect. The sum STOPS (is truncated) at a distance of about 500+ light
years for the typical star (and somewhere beyond that even for the
brightest ones). There is an upper limit on the absolute brightness of a
single star; there is no such thing as an infinitely brilliant star. So
there is a finite upper limit to the integration process described in step
(5) above. It doesn't go out to infinity.

It may also help to remember that the human eye is different from
photographic film or a CCD chip. It does not integrate over time. The
longer we expose a photographic plate to starlight the brighter the image
becomes. (There is a limit even to this process in film due to what is
called reciprocity failure.) But, humans can stare at the night sky all
night long and not see anything they didn't see after the first few
minutes. Things don't get brighter for us the longer we look at them. So
theoretically the longer we expose our CCD camera chip, the brighter the
image (deeper into space we can see). This is not true for the human eye.
We can see the 8400 or so stars that we can see, and all the zillions of
others might as well not be there AT ALL as far as our humble naked human
eyes are concerned.

Olber's Paradox is not a paradox at all if you look at it correctly. It
is yet another example of theoretical mathematics applied incorrectly to a
real world phenomenon. Or a mathematician might say, "They got the upper
limit on the integral wrong."

Don Scott

[antosarai]

This is Don Scott from Thoth VIII(2), Mar. 2004:

Olber's Paradox (...) is yet another example of theoretical mathematics applied incorrectly to a
real world phenomenon.
Don Scott

Are not for instance Zeno's paradoxes yet other examples?

[crawler]

This is Don Scott from Thoth VIII(2), Mar. 2004:

Olber's Paradox (...) is yet another example of theoretical mathematics applied incorrectly to a
real world phenomenon. Don Scott

Are not for instance Zeno's paradoxes yet other examples?

Zeno's P is explained when u realize that u can halve the distance for eternity, in which case the hare never catches the tortoise, no matter what the speeds. If u dont allow enough time then the hare never catches the tortoise, no matter what the speeds.

Nothing like Olbers' P.

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-75244940

I can handle it, I'm a big boy. I only read their site for my amusement. They are so silly. They had a link to that SN Ia thread a week ago or so, and looked through it then. I spent several hours deconstructing the paper that triggered the OP in the thread, but it all got buried by a stupid discussion of Olbers' paradox. Sigh.

Olbers' paradox is something that gets covered in 5-15 minutes in a lecture on the early attempts to apply rigor to cosmology. It's a *very* simple exercise.

If that's the case Hans, the problem is that it takes less time to "debunk" the whole Olber's paradox claim than is typically spent trying to support it. Worse yet you're *continuing* to try to support that "bright as the sun" nonsense in spite of it being 260,770 shells short of a valid "brightness" model (compared to sun), 250 billion or so stars short of a valid argument and 100 thousand galaxies short of a valid scientific argument and in spite of the fact that it violates the known laws of physics (again). You won't and can't touch the Hubble deep field images I mentioned with a 10 foot pole because such images *conclusively* demonstrate that "surface brightness" does not remain constant over infinite distances. It takes *days* to receive enough photons to even see those galaxies in a CCD image, and human eyes could *never* see them directly.

The bigger problem is that you're peddling false assertions to unsuspecting children and then failing them in class if they don't buy your nonsense, or attacking them personally.

You definitely *don't* want to get into scattering and absorption processes in space because they only dismantle your Olber's paradox nonsense even further.

The reason the whole night sky isn't as bright as the sun is due entirely to distance and dust and it has absolutely nothing to do with expansion. Even every static universe model would have to include a method to explain cosmological redshift, and any redshift model would lead to the inevitable scenario where light from very distance sources ends up redshifted beyond the ability for it to ever reach Earth.

Olber's paradox is a great example of how "old astronomer's wives tales" are never "let go of", even when they *clearly* have no relevancy to anything.

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-75246799

I think the last post in the Plasma Cosmology thread at CF clearly demonstrates the complete professional incompetence of mainstream astronomers. Even when I mathematically demonstrated that their beloved "Olber's paradox" is 268,770 AU shells short, 250 billion visible stars in our own galaxy short, and 100,000 galaxies in our supercluster short of a valid scientific argument, they *still* just bury their collective heads in the sand and repeat the same falsified nonsense. In fact *nothing* on sjastro's list is a valid scientific criticism of PC theory.

Meanwhile their beloved LCDM model violates the conservation of energy laws *two different ways*, it's internally self conflicted with respect to the Hubble constant, and it fails every high redshift observational test on the books, from "mature and massive" galaxies that defy the the expansion model, to massive quasars that cannot be explained in their model, to a complete lack of first generation stars seen at high redshift as their model requires. There's *nothing* about the expansion model of cosmology that even comes close to being a rational scientific model. 'Space' doesn't do any magic expansion tricks. "Dark energy" was nothing but an ad hoc "fix" to save the model from otherwise being falsified by SN1A data, and "dark matter" is nothing but another form of metaphysical "gap filler" to attempt to cover up the fact that they refuse to include any *electrical* aspects in plasma in space.

The complete lack of professionalism in astronomy today is simply staggering. There's nothing even remotely "scientific" about the LCDM model. It's nothing but a hodge-podge metaphysical kludge.

[antosarai]

interesting?

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/the-entir ... everywhere

[Michael Mozina]

interesting?

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/the-entir ... everywhere

This was my favorite part of the article:

The question now is, what is causing this hydrogen to glow? The authors posit it might be due to the cosmic ultraviolet background, a diffuse glow of UV light seen all across the sky. The sources of that are something of a mystery, too. Turtles all the way down, it seems.

That the Universe for you: Enigmas wrapped in puzzles. But we're getting really good at unwrapping them. Especially when they write their message over literally the entire sky.

Gee, we see magnetic fields and hot hydrogen all over the universe. Could it possible be related to current flowing in space? Nah! That can't be it. They'll dream up some other metaphysical kludge to "explain" it.