Re: Olber's Paradox?
- From: "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 7 Jan 2007 15:08:12 -0800
Hi Edward nice to hear ya again,
Edward Green wrote:
mr_bumpkin wrote:
I don't see how this paradox adds up to a paradox. Anything emitted
by stars is also absorbed by other stars eventually, if it travels far
enough.
The question of finite or infinite energy density is also kind of wierd
to me. Whatever the density we observed was, we'd wonder why it
wasn't greater. Even if it was infinity, someone might wonder why it
wasn't infinity plus one.
What I mean is, things like energy density are only percieved relative
to what you compare it against.
Sort of like how if every woman on earth was a supermodel, the least
beautiful one would seem ugly to us.
"Supermodels" are mostly overrated products of media hype.
Olber's paradox in truth seems rather silly, but I suppose it is a
necessary stepping stone. If we suppose that the stars burn forever,
uniformly distributed in infinite space, we have some explaining to do.
As I understand it, it was Olber's Paradox that
originally convinced very early cosmologists
that the universe *must* be finite in space and
time.
Perhaps photons burn out eventually in flight, like flaring match
heads.
Yes, IMO there has been presented good evidence
of an infinite universe, within which the propagation
of photons are red shift by gravitational interactions
with matter in proportion to the density of the universe.
Regards
Ken
.
- References:
- Olber's Paradox?
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Olber's Paradox?
- From: mr_bumpkin
- Re: Olber's Paradox?
- From: Edward Green
- Olber's Paradox?
- Prev by Date: Re: Olber's Paradox?
- Next by Date: Re: Instantaneous radius of a rotation
- Previous by thread: Re: Olber's Paradox?
- Next by thread: Re: Olber's Paradox?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|