Anyone keen to photograph some candles, for scientific experiment?

[amolitor]

Olber's paradox also fails to include a suitable discussion of hamburgers.

Basically, you're pretty badly equipped to mount much of an attack on Olber's paradox. You don't reason particularly well, which is not an insult, most people don't reason particularly well. You also don't understand infinities at all, which is really going to be a problem since understanding the problems with Olber's idea is as much about infinities as anything else (again, not an insult, most people don't understand infinity worth a damn either). Lastly, you're fixated on a particular "solution" to the problem which isn't particularly relevant.

Olber's paradox is simply, manifestly, wrong. The night sky is black. Done.

Understanding the reasons why it's wrong in this universe, and in other hypothetical ones, is a little tricky. You really have to understand infinities better than you do.

Why don't you go attack Zeno's paradox first? It's actually more closely related than is obvious.

 

[tris_d]

This is completely wrong. You can most certainly include an infinite number of stars in a field of view, without any occlusion. Make the first star very large: 1 degree of arc, the next star half that big: 1/2 a degree of arc, the next one half of that: 1/4 of a degree of arc, and so on. With this sequence, I can actually place an infinite number of stars in a row, and take up only 2 degrees of arc. I have placed infinitely many stars, non-occluding, into the sky in a very very very very small section of the sky.

Note that I can accomplish this with an infinite number of carefully placed stars all the same size. The each star is simply twice as far away as the previous star, and they are lined up relative to the observer so that they are almost, but not quite, in a straight line.

That's where image resolution comes into equation. And what's the brightness of sun-like star with angular size of 1/x, where x goes towards infinity?

 

[amolitor]

I should note that if I am constructing a universe, I can MOST CERTAINLY place an infinite number of stars into an infinite universe so as to render the night sky as seen from some hypothetical viewing point has these properties:

- an infinite number of stars are in view, non-occluded
- the sky is uniformly bright, at any brightness you choose

It happens that the universe we live in is not so constructed.

 

[tris_d]

Olber's paradox also fails to include a suitable discussion of hamburgers.

Basically, you're pretty badly equipped to mount much of an attack on Olber's paradox. You don't reason particularly well, which is not an insult, most people don't reason particularly well. You also don't understand infinities at all, which is really going to be a problem since understanding the problems with Olber's idea is as much about infinities as anything else (again, not an insult, most people don't understand infinity worth a damn either). Lastly, you're fixated on a particular "solution" to the problem which isn't particularly relevant.

Olber's paradox is simply, manifestly, wrong. The night sky is black. Done.

Understanding the reasons why it's wrong in this universe, and in other hypothetical ones, is a little tricky. You really have to understand infinities better than you do.

You are pretty badly equipped to invalidate any of what I said. You don't reason well. You don't understand the problem and you are unable to address what said, except to say that I'm wrong. Your objections are without substance and devoid of any reasoning and logic, thus irrelevant.

You really have to understand infinities better than you do.

Why don't you go attack Zeno's paradox first? It's actually more closely related than is obvious.

Zeno's paradox is resolved by Planck scale limits. Either discrete space or discrete time resolves Zeno's paradox, that is if space or time is digital instead of analogue.

 

[christop]

That's where image resolution comes into equation. And what's the brightness of sun-like star with angular size of 1/x, where x goes towards infinity?

Image resolution does not come into play. And the actual brightness of such a star is the same as any other star at any other finite distance.


I know this has been partially covered before, but I think it needs to be brought up again.

For any given imaging system with a particular set of imaging parameters (sensor density, focal length, aperture, etc), the smallest image that can be resolved by that system will have a fixed angular size (measured in milliarcseconds). The angular size of a star varies by its size and distance from the observer. When a star becomes smaller than the smallest image that can be resolved by an imaging system, we can no longer measure the distance of the star by its size. Instead, we can measure the brightness of the sensel to determine the distance to the star. The brightness of the star itself does not dim. Only the measured sensel's brightness dims because the star occupies a smaller portion of the sensel.

Here's another ASCII art.


....star
.....|
.... V
_____o_____
\........./
.\......./
..\...../
...\.../
....\./
.....V

The "o" is the actual star. The line below the star is the image of the star that can be resolved by an imaging system. The "V" shape represents the resolving limit of the imaging system. The actual angular size of the cone will be much, much narrower than shown here (perhaps a few milliarcseconds, rather than the 20 degrees or so shown here). The star is far smaller than the system can resolve. Therefore only the star's image appears dimmer than the star actually is.

On the other hand, if "every line of sight ends at some star", then each sensel would be completely "covered" by stars, and each sensel would be as bright as a star. So space would be white. Your conclusion that the inverse square law comes into play to disprove or resolve the paradox here is incorrect.

 

[amolitor]

Why don't you go attack Zeno's paradox first? It's actually more closely related than is obvious.

Zeno's paradox is resolved by Planck scale limits. Either discrete space or discrete time resolves Zeno's paradox, that is if space or time is digital instead of analogue.

It will come as no surprise to the astute reader that this is completely wrong. In a continuous space/continuous time universe, Zeno's paradox is still flawed, and, no surprise, it has to do with infinite summations and how they actually work.

 

[christop]

Zeno's paradox is resolved by Planck scale limits. Either discrete space or discrete time resolves Zeno's paradox, that is if space or time is digital instead of analogue.

It will come as no surprise to the astute reader that this is completely wrong. In a continuous space/continuous time universe, Zeno's paradox is still flawed, and, no surprise, it has to do with infinite summations and how they actually work.

It's basic Calculus.

 

[amolitor]

I've been watching internet kooks for.. huh, 20+ years now. I have never quite gotten a handle on where the fun is in just being told that you are wrong, over and over and over.

 

[tris_d]

It will come as no surprise to the astute reader that this is completely wrong. In a continuous space/continuous time universe, Zeno's paradox is still flawed, and, no surprise, it has to do with infinite summations and how they actually work.

Don't blame me for your inability to understand.

Zeno's paradoxes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Another proposed solution is to question one of the assumptions Zeno used in his paradoxes (particularly the Dichotomy), which is that between any two different points in space (or time), there is always another point. Without this assumption there are only a finite number of distances between two points, hence there is no infinite sequence of movements, and the paradox is resolved. The ideas of Planck length and Planck time in modern physics place a limit on the measurement of time and space, if not on time and space themselves.

 

[amolitor]

It will come as no surprise to the astute reader that this is completely wrong. In a continuous space/continuous time universe, Zeno's paradox is still flawed, and, no surprise, it has to do with infinite summations and how they actually work.

Don't blame me for your inability to understand.

Zeno's paradoxes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Another proposed solution is to question one of the assumptions Zeno used in his paradoxes (particularly the Dichotomy), which is that between any two different points in space (or time), there is always another point. Without this assumption there are only a finite number of distances between two points, hence there is no infinite sequence of movements, and the paradox is resolved. The ideas of Planck length and Planck time in modern physics place a limit on the measurement of time and space, if not on time and space themselves.

Missed the part where I said "In a continuous space/continuous time universe, Zeno's paradox is still flawed" didn't you?

 

[tris_d]

Image resolution does not come into play. And the actual brightness of such a star is the same as any other star at any other finite distance.

Apparent magnitude - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The apparent magnitude (m) of a celestial body is a measure of its brightness as seen by an observer on Earth

Therefore only the star's image appears dimmer than the star actually is.

Of course, and that's what we see. No one is saying the star itself actually starts to radiate less light.

On the other hand, if "every line of sight ends at some star", then each sensel would be completely "covered" by stars, and each sensel would be as bright as a star. So space would be white. Your conclusion that the inverse square law comes into play to disprove or resolve the paradox here is incorrect.

Yes, it gets covered by stars, but not of the same apparent brightness. Some stars are bright, some less bright, and some very distant stars as bright as black.

How do you suppose those less bright stars add up to become bright stars?

 

[tris_d]

Missed the part where I said "In a continuous space/continuous time universe, Zeno's paradox is still flawed" didn't you?

I don't know, sorry if I did. I'm angry because everyone has condescending attitude, even though I might very well be older and more educated in relevant subjects than most of you. So now I'm starting to act like an arrogant bum-hole too.

 

[fjrabon]

Here's the issue, you were unwilling to believe that candles did not get dimmer as they moved farther away, until we literally had to take pictures and prove you wrong.

Now you refuse to believe that this principal also works for stars, and you won't believe it unless we can somehow create a universe that is static where Olber's paradox holds. Despite we've shown you it does happen to a limited extent when two gray dots add to one white dot (that's what binary stars do, well understood and verifiable fact). You refuse to believe that this would generalize to an infinite case.

Unfortunately, we don't have access to a static, infinite universe, therefore you will never believe us, because we can't take a picture of what happens in a finite static universe. If you didn't believe us when we tried to explain what happens with an everyday item like a candle, I don't expect you to understand or believe us about a harder to understand item like a star billions of light years away.

And yes, I understand Zeno's paradox. I took real analysis, which in some ways is a class about dealing with Zeno's paradox in a formal mathematical sense. Ie formally proving calculus.

Previously, I had some sense we could address your misunderstandings with pictures of lights. Here we are up against a theoretical bulkhead, that you can't just take pictures of, thus I am out. You have to understand physics, astronomy, math and optics. You've shown no inclination to do so and stick firmly to some half baked idea that has been refuted for thousands of years.

Good luck with your quest tris, your failure doomed quixotic quest will lead you nowhere and hopefully you find a bizarre sort of peace there.

 

[jhodges10]

Clicked in to see why this kept popping up as active. Seems to be a bit over my head, think I'll go back to watching The Big Bang Theory to get my fill of physics.

 

[Helen B]

The relationship between the inverse square law and image area (angular area) is at the heart of Olbers' (sic) Paradox. If you don't understand this you don't understand the Paradox. You can't use the inverse square law to refute the Paradox, because it is implicit in it. This is not earth-shattering news.

It is implicit based on false premise and wrong calculation. You don't understand that proving some paradox is wrong means proving its premise is wrong.

You are misunderstanding why distant stars appear dim (assuming a static universe of infinite age):

Apparent magnitude - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Note that brightness varies with distance; an extremely bright object may appear quite dim, if it is far away. Brightness varies inversely with the square of the distance.

How many time do I have to quote this for you to understand why distant stars appear dim?

Is Wikipedia wrong, what say you?

There is no contradiction between what I am saying and what Wikipedia says. Please read what I have written more carefully.

Olbers' Paradox says that the Sun is not the only star illuminating that sensel now. There is an infinite number of them, all filling the sensel at an illumination of four photons per sensel,even though their individual images do not fill the sensel or provide all four photons.

There can not be infinite number of stars. Closer stars occlude further away stars, do you understand? I already explained this several times, it's amazing how can you keep ignoring it: - If every line of sight ends at some star, well that's where that line of sight ENDS, and if every line of sight ends at some point, then there is nothing infinite about it.

Their added images fill the sensel and provide all four photons, and all the other sensels are similarly filled. They sky looks bright. Thus the inverse square law is part of Olbers' Paradox.

Wikipedia says further away stars appear dim due to inverse square law. How can something that appears dim also appear bright? How can many gray dots add up to become many white dots, can you explain?

There can be an infinite number of stars, but it doesn't matter if some are blocked. There only have to be enough to fill the sensel. This is what Olbers' Paradox is all about. We have explained why they appear to be grey dots, though they aren't really grey dots. Please give us some sign that you have begun to understand the physics of this, because so far you have shown no real understanding.

Could you state your version of Olbers' Paradox?