If infinite, would the Universe be too hot?

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"> The argument of dust obscuring start doesn't work to solve Olver's Paradox since energy absorbed by dust eventually re-radiates. </font><br /><br />yes, that is the cursory "common-sense" and official premise for olber's. and it is not true. inasmuch as there is (in an infinite universe premise) eternal and perpetual change-of-state from non-radiative-to-radiative-material --radiation of previously non-radiating matter-- there can be conversely eternal and perpetual change-of-state from radiating-matter-to-non-radiating-matter. and it is the confluence of both processess that render what is observed. yet this is never discussed nor scrutinized. <br /><br />olber's paradox is an erroneous thought experiment whose basis is in the mysticism that you allegedly deplore and have disdain for. most of legitimate cosmology today is couched deeply in fantasy and nonsense.

 

[oscar1]

We have basic assumptions, and base other assumptions on them, but if one of the basic assumptions has a flaw, the other assumptions become as weak as the weakest link. Of course our 'brainwaves' have nothing to do with it, but I don't hear of anybody even trying to look into what happens to light when it passes a hefty gravity source. When the path of light is bend due to its struggle to get by the gravity source, doesn't that perhaps cause the redshift, and doesn't perhaps some of the light get captured? And when captured by say a Black Hole, does light remain energy, or does it become part of the highly compressed matter or singularity?

 

[tdamskov]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>but if one of the basic assumptions has a flaw, the other assumptions become as weak as the weakest link.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />True. When exploring something like Olber's Paradox you must weigh the possibility that basic assumptions can be flawed. Indeed that is how many discoveries come about. But eventually you have to move on when all evidence points toward those basic assumptions being solid.<br /><br />I'll stress that I don't believe in Olber's Paradox as a kind of proof. It's a useful tool for exploring the logic behind our observations of the universe.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>but I don't hear of anybody even trying to look into what happens to light when it passes a hefty gravity source<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Searching a bit through astronomy news quickly reveals that the effect is observed regularly. Gravity lensing by galaxies is often used by astronomers to amplify light coming from objects deeper in the starfield. It doesn't seem likely that gravity is the cause of cosmological redshift.

 

[tdamskov]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Yes, how is it possible to see every star in the universe? Even galaxies similar in size and brightness to Andromeda do not appear to our naked eye if they are somewhat further away. This is right there in front of us. Olber’s notions are not valid.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The reason galaxies further away don't show to the naked eye is because even if they contain trillions of stars the empty space between them still contributes a higher angular area to the overal visible area than the stars themselves. This logic also goes into proving that galaxies aren't solid! If the Andromeda galaxy was a solid object radiating at ~6000 c, even at 2 million light years it would put out more energy than the Sun.<br />

 

[alkalin]

Whatever happened to the contention that every star should contribute enough light so that the universe should be bright? If we cannot see those nearby ones, then this is impossible. There are other photons coming from more distant galaxies in the same direction, but so few that I am not much exited by them. I do not intend to engage in this any longer unless you can come up with something more worthwhile.<br />.<br />

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />See how removing all basic assumptions and trust in empirical science opens up the road to mystical non-science? </font><br /><br />the mystical non-science is largely backed up by the scientific establishment. the big bang is mysical non-science. the universe accelerating upon expansion is mystical non-science. dark matter is mystical non-science. hawking radiation is mystical non-science.

 

[vandivx]

"Whatever happened to the contention that every star should contribute enough light so that the universe should be bright? If we cannot see those nearby ones, then this is impossible."<br />------<br />but that's precisely why it is called Paradox- that the evidence of the senses does not bear out apparently solid theoretical reasoning and hence the paradox<br /><br />point is not to shrugg off the theory simply because of the plain evidence that is there for everybody to see - that the sky is dark at night - but to either find a flaw in the theory or come up with a different theory by which the sky should be dark at night and thus do away with the paradox - which later was done chiefly by introducing cosmological redshift <br /><br />a good example is when Planck was investigating the theoretical ultraviolet catastrophe phenomenon which didn't happen in experiments but theory predicted it and so he was looking for better theory and discovered the quantization of energy<br /><br />personally I like such 'distant views' or 'large perspective views' on physics of cosmos because they connect involved or specialized theories with global commonsense view and so provide additional verification of those theories<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

the theoretcal reasoning of the olber's thought experiment is erroneous.