A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae

[Michael]

You can’t take a trick.

No, you can't handle observational reality and your surface brightness claim is the 'trick'. If your Olber's paradox argument and your so called surface brightness were actually immune from the inverse square laws, then we'd see *at least* 250+ billion stars from our own galaxy with our naked eyes. We don't. We can't observe even 10,000 point sources with our naked eyes, therefore Digges was right hundreds of years ago, and you're all wet.

Your inability to comprehend this simple concept only adds weight to what has been stated by a number of individuals in this thread; the nature of the paradox is beyond your capacity for comprehension.

That's hysterically funny considering that we're only able to see 10,000 objects out of over 250 billion point sources in our own galaxy. You're a riot.

Just out of morbid curiosity, how do you explain the fact that we only see a tiny fraction of the stars in our own galaxy if your so called surface brightness nonsense is immune from the inverse square law?

 

[Michael]

Since SN1A data interpretation isn't my personal forte, I took the liberty of emailing David with respect to Hans' critique of his paper and David was kind enough to respond to me via email. I did invite him to join the thread by the way.

Apparently I wasn't quite clear enough about the fact that *I* didn't write the post in question, so the term "you" in the response is actually directed at Hans.

I have read your analysis and basically what you have said shows a good understanding of the paper.

Where you go adrift is in the interpretation of figure 1. This comes from carefully analysed supernovae light curves over all redshifts. Although the supernovae are intrinsically very bright because of distance the observed flux densities are very faint. Thus long exposures with broad filters are required. The only way we can get information at the shorter wavelengths is to observe very distant supernovae. There is another problem in that the wavelengths between the filters are poorly observed. For this purpose most of the nearby supernovae have essentially zero wavelength and the gaps have not been smoothed over by the effects or redshift.

The other cause for your confusion is that the first stage standard SALT2 method is divide all the epoch differences for each supernovae by (1+z). Thus if the universe is expanding the slope of the fitted curve in figure 1 should have an exponent of 0.199 due to the intrinsic wavelength dependence of width on the emitted wavelength. But the observed slope is 1.199 which corresponds to a redshift exponent of -1.199. The obvious solution is that -0.199 is intrinsic and -1 is due to the division of the epoch differences by (1+z). Thus the conclusion is that there is either an intrinsic variation with an wavelength exponent of 1.199 or there is very small time dilation.

I have difficulty understanding the next part of your argument about figure 2. Surely if we had supernovae without any intrinsic wavelength dependence then in an expanding universe the widths of their light curves must show the exact time dilation of (1+z). In a static universe there is not time dilation! In the real universe there is intrinsic wavelength variation which from the previous analysis and the normalisation process should contribute an exponent less than -0.199. All my figure 2 does is to show that the results are much more consistent with zero time dilation than they are with the expanding time dilation. Note that my definition of the raw data is that it does not contain the division of the epoch differences by (1+z).
Kind regards
David F Crawford

 

[Michael]

So what's the deal sjastro? How do you explain the fact that human eyes can only pick out less than 10,000 of the hundreds of billions of stars in our own galaxy if what you're calling "surface brightness" is actually immune from the inverse square law? Why don't we observe them all? How does this fact *not* destroy your whole Olber's paradox nonsense? How does it not destroy your belief that so called "surface brightness" is immune from the inverse square laws?

Why is this observation perfectly congruent with the predictions made by Thomas Digges in the 1500's?

 

[Michael]

Cosmoquest epilog:

I think David Crawford did a good job defending his work all things considered. He also did a much better job than I ever did at Bad Astronomy (now CQ) in terms of keeping the conversation *on topic*. I enjoyed the conversation and I learned quite a bit about SN1A data processing.

IMO it's a real pity, not to mention highly unscientific, that CQ limits debate on controversial topics. I was enjoying that conversation.

Science should not be afraid of open discussion of various topics, it should embrace such debate with open arms and open minds. This particular debate wasn't even started by an amateur. As John Hunter pointed out, David Crawford is a serious scientist who's been studying these topics for 25 years.

David Crawford (0000-0003-0710-1683) - ORCID | Connecting Research and Researchers

If astronomers cannot handle an open debate between professionals, and even professional scientists are silenced within 30 days, then there's a serious problem with astronomy today.

The whole Spanish Inquisition format of the CQ ATM forum is not conducive to honest debate, or friendly debate or *any* real debate at all. Debates in science are *never* settled within 30 days, so setting such a short and arbitrary debate window reeks of pure fear and desperation. In terms of actual science, what does CQ have to lose by allowing such conversations to continue indefinitely?

It's certainly not religion that oppresses science or impedes the progress of science in the 21st century. *Scientists* now oppress each other, along with anyone else that happens to be skeptical of currently popular belief. CQ operates more like a frightened little cult than it operates like a scientific establishment. What a pity, and what a draconian fear based rule system.

 

[sjastro]

So what's the deal sjastro? How do you explain the fact that human eyes can only pick out less than 10,000 of the hundreds of billions of stars in our own galaxy if what you're calling "surface brightness" is actually immune from the inverse square law? Why don't we observe them all? How does this fact *not* destroy your whole Olber's paradox nonsense? How does it not destroy your belief that so called "surface brightness" is immune from the inverse square laws?

Why is this observation perfectly congruent with the predictions made by Thomas Digges in the 1500's?

Firstly Mr Aggro I’ll answer in my own good time not yours.

Of the 10,000 objects that constitute individual stars visible to the naked eye the median distance is around 400 light years.
Being point sources they conform to the inverse square law which along with their absolute magnitudes constrains the distance limit.
By comparison the Milky Way we see under dark skies is composed of the integrated light of hundreds of millions of unresolved stars spread out over a large angular dimension of the sky.
What we see is the surface brightness of the Milky Way rather than individual stars.
In the densest regions looking toward Sagittarius the distance is around 6,000 light years.
So that immediately blows your “surface brightness must conform to the inverse square law” nonsense out of the water.
If it wasn’t for obscuring gas and dust that hides a large percentage of the 250 billion stars we would be able to see much further out.
If the distance was doubled the surface brightness of the Milky Way would not change as both the integrated brightness and angular dimension diminish by a quarter.
Simple isn’t it.

Time is also a factor that kills off the static Universe model.
Since the static Universe is infinitely old, photons from any point in the Universe have time to reach the observer including from objects that may no longer exist.
This is another reason why Olbers’ paradox is a problem in a static Universe.
In the BB model this is not an issue as the Universe has a finite age and photons from objects beyond the particle horizon will never reach the observer.

 

[SelfSim]

.. And that's one tremendous answer there, sjastro!

I considered attempting one, but seeing as its already been answered several times over (in other ways), putting one together would only be exclusively for Michael's benefit to aid him in overcoming his mind-block (so I found other more interesting things to do).

Thanks for putting in the effort.
(I doubt Michael will appreciate that effort .. as usual).

Cheers

 

[Michael]

Firstly Mr Aggro I’ll answer in my own good time not yours.

Of the 10,000 objects that constitute individual stars visible to the naked eye the median distance is around 400 light years.

Wait a minute. Why would there be a distance limit if so called "surface brightness" isn't limited by distance? What just happened to that "surface brightness of our sun is preserved between the Earth and Mars" arguement?

Being point sources

Wait!

A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae

Point sources? All suns have a large "surface", and an angular size, etc. Remember that example that you two just cited in that post by Astrophile? You two were claiming that the "surface brightness" of our sun was preserved. You're already back-peddling and contradicting Astrophile's earlier example. You didn't complain when he posted it. Why not?

they conform to the inverse square law which along with their absolute magnitudes constrains the distance limit.

When exactly did that happen? Astrophile just got through telling me that the surface brightness didn't change between the Earth and Mars and you didn't correct him. Now you're claiming that a sun is a "point source" that is conforming to the inverse square law? Which is it?

What happened to that 'surface brightness' not being related to distance claim? How and where exactly did that claim go flying out the window and why?

By comparison the Milky Way we see under dark skies is composed of the integrated light of hundreds of millions of unresolved stars spread out over a large angular dimension of the sky.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber's_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif

Every sun, including our own sun also has an 'angular dimension' and a large surface too sjastro. What happened to your *wall* example? Now your telling me that something as massive as the surface of a whole sun is a "point source" too? The surface of your wall is certainly smaller than the surface of a sun. We just discussed that issue in relationship to the observed size of the sun on Mars compared to the Earth. Somehow angular size and the preservation of surface brightness only applies to galaxies now? Talk about moving the goalposts!

Do you now *disagree* with Astrophile's post? Wow, the self conflicted rationalizations have already begun.

So that absurd GIF on the Olber's paradox WIKI page, which is based on suns, and the angular size of suns, and the surface brightness of suns is pure nonsense is it?

What we see is the surface brightness of the Milky Way rather than individual stars.

If this magic angular size exemption only applies to galaxies, why don't we see every galaxy with our naked eye that Hubble can observe in day long images again? For that matter, why does Hubble have to stare in the same direction for days on end to be able to see those galaxies in the first place?

In the densest regions looking toward Sagittarius the distance is around 6,000 light years.
So that immediately blows your “surface brightness must conform to the inverse square law” nonsense out of the water.

How so? What's the total brightness of those regions?

If it wasn’t for obscuring gas and dust that hides a large percentage of the 250 billion stars we would be able to see much further out.

Wait a minute. Le me get this straight. So now you're agreeing with me that dust can and *does* obscure our view of various objects and therefore we wouldn't necessarily see every galaxy or every star that is "obscured" over some distance? Why wouldn't that obscuring dust in our own galaxy reach stellar surface temperatures and shine real brightly again? Didn't you say the obscuring dust would simply heat up to the surface temperature of stars and therefore shine brightly?

If the distance was doubled the surface brightness of the Milky Way would not change as both the integrated brightness and angular dimension diminish by a quarter.

The Milky Way is actually a special case scenario since were sitting inside that galaxy. Let's talk about other galaxies. Something must change with distance because we don't see every single galaxy with our naked eye that Hubble can observe in the distant universe even though Hubble sees them in wavelengths that our eyes are capable of observing. Galaxies are also not all equal sizes regardless of distance either, so why would the brightness remain constant?

Simple isn’t it.

Simple? Pfft. Self conflicted, with the story changing from post to post is more like it. It's simply amazing how much tap dancing, back-peddling and rationalizing that you're already forced to do, and that Hubble question is going to eat you alive.

Even though Astrophile just got through claiming that the surface brightness of our star *wasn't* changing between the Earth and Mars, and the WIKI example of Olber's paradox is based on suns, not galaxies, I am apparently just supposed to simply ignore the fact that suns also have an "angular size", and a 'surface', and ignore the whole claim about surface brightness of stars remaining the same now? In contrast to Astrophile's previous example, now you're claiming that "surface brightness" preservation only applies to galaxies? You must realize that this has now become a special pleading fairytale, right?

Time is also a factor that kills off the static Universe model.
Since the static Universe is infinitely old, photons from any point in the Universe have time to reach the observer including from objects that may no longer exist.

You mean if they aren't obscured by dust and somehow light from galaxies magically sidestep the inverse square law?

This is another reason why Olbers’ paradox is a problem in a static Universe.

You're obviously making this up as you go. Its only going to get worse too.

In the BB model this is not an issue as the Universe has a finite age and photons from objects beyond the particle horizon will never reach the observer.

I hate to break it to you sjastro but every static universe theory has some type of an 'explanation' for photon redshift, so a static universe would also have a visual horizon, particularly in the visual spectrum.

 

[Michael]

.. And that's one tremendous answer there, sjastro!

It's more like one gigantic special pleading claim from start to finish that conflicts with his earlier statement, conflicts with the WIKI page, and conflicts with simple logic.

By that bogus logic if I take one flashlight and put it at some distance, it will apparently follow the inverse square law because it's a single "point source", but if I take some magical number of flashlights, and I put them together at some distance, they're magically going to sidestep the inverse square law. Give me a break. This has turned into convoluted, self-conflicted nonsense now.

 

[SelfSim]

It's more like one gigantic special pleading claim from start to finish that conflicts with his earlier statement, conflicts with the WIKI page, and conflicts with simple logic.

By that bogus logic if I take one flashlight and put it at some distance, it will apparently follow the inverse square law because it's a single "point source", but if I take some magical number of flashlights, and I put them together at some distance, they're magically going to sidestep the inverse square law. Give me a break. This has turned into convoluted, self-conflicted nonsense now.

Keep trying Michael .. there's still a slim chance you might actually figure it out .. but you'll have to drop your hatred of mainstream astronomy to do that.

 

[Michael]

Keep trying Michael .. there's still a slim chance you might actually figure it out .. but you'll have to drop your hatred of mainstream astronomy to do that.

LOL! Not only did Thomas Digges figure it out 500 years ago, he understood why your lame argument is bogus as well. By your logic we should be able to observe every galaxy in the visible universe with our naked eye and there's more of them than there are stars in our own galaxy!

I figured it out alright. You're whistling Dixie.

 

[SelfSim]

Before the issue comes up .. this paper is a noteworthy read:

The Angular-Diameter-Distance-Maximum and Its Redshift as Constraints on Λ≠0 FLRW Models

The angular diameter distance given in this version of this paper, reaches a maximum at about redshift z=1.62, (with parameters given in the text), in LCDM cosmology.

The newest 2013(?) release of the paper then updated it with a new most distant type 1a observation of SN UDS10Wil, at z=1.9. (Supernovae don't necessarily provide a good test basis for the angular-diameter vs. distance relationship, however).

The Virgo cluster, I believe, is about the approximate (predicted) measurement limit for the angular size vs distance relationship at the moment(?)

 

[Michael]

List of galaxies - Wikipedia

Including our own galaxy there are less than 10 galaxies which are visible to the naked eye on Earth. Why?

You just went from around 10,000 down to less than 10! You certainly didn't help your case.

 

[Michael]

And by the way, not one of those naked eye galaxies is anywhere close to as bright as the sun. Putting your moving goalposts into overdrive with respect to "surface brightness" is only making your argument look utterly ridiculous.

 

[sjastro]

It's more like one gigantic special pleading claim from start to finish that conflicts with his earlier statement, conflicts with the WIKI page, and conflicts with simple logic.

By that bogus logic if I take one flashlight and put it at some distance, it will apparently follow the inverse square law because it's a single "point source", but if I take some magical number of flashlights, and I put them together at some distance, they're magically going to sidestep the inverse square law. Give me a break. This has turned into convoluted, self-conflicted nonsense now.

Which shows the subject is beyond your intellectual capacity for comprehension.
I suggested in an earlier post that you engage in an activity commensurate with your abilities by using the "Google is Your Friend" principle and at least provide supporting links from reputable sources that show surface brightness depends on the inverse square law.
After all you do this all the time and yet its absence for such a central issue can only lead to one conclusion.......
Similarly where are your supporting links for Olbers' paradox being refuted by dust scattering or surface brightness meeting the inverse square law, or any other reason you might throw up at the time.

 

[Michael]

Which shows the subject is beyond your intellectual capacity for comprehension.

Since you have no logical or rational explanation as to why we observe less than 10 galaxies in the night sky, none of which come anywhere close to the brightness of our own sun as Olber's paradox predicts, you fall back to your old, tired, and lame strategy: personal attack. How pitiful.

Care to demonstrate your supposed better "comprehension" of this mythical "surface brightness" that is presumably exempt from the inverse square laws of physics for us and explain to us why we only observe a very few galaxies in the night sky, none of which are anywhere near as bright as our sun?

Thomas Digges is laughing at you from the grave sjastro. Stop dodging the tough questions. Since you claim to have a better understanding of this topic demonstrate it by answering those questions and stop running from them. Start by explaining why we observe so few galaxies in the night sky if surface brightness is exempt from the inverse square laws of physics.

 

[Michael]

 

[sjastro]

Since you have no logical or rational explanation as to why we observe less than 10 galaxies in the night sky, none of which come anywhere close to the brightness of our own sun as Olber's paradox predicts, you fall back to your old, tired, and lame strategy: personal attack. How pitiful.

Care to demonstrate your supposed better "comprehension" of this mythical "surface brightness" that is presumably exempt from the inverse square laws of physics for us and explain to us why we only observe a very few galaxies in the night sky, none of which are anywhere near as bright as our sun?

Thomas Digges is laughing at you from the grave sjastro. Stop dodging the tough questions. Since you claim to have a better understanding of this topic demonstrate it by answering those questions and stop running from them. Start by explaining why we observe so few galaxies in the night sky if surface brightness is exempt from the inverse square laws of physics.

No I will not answer your "tough" questions given you have deliberately taken me out of context, changed the subject matter, dragged another member into the discussion, and repeated the same tired nonsense that has been addressed many posts ago.
Furthermore even if I was completely wrong it doesn't validate any of your nonsense as you are engaging in false dichotomies.
The onus is on you to support your claims.

Your post is a pathetic attempt to divert away from the issue that using the "Google is my friend" principle indicates there is not shred of support for your nonsense that includes.

(1) Your definition of surface brightness that doesn't involve the observer.
(2) Surface brightness depends on the inverse square law.
(3) Olbers' paradox is refuted by scattering and/or the dependence of surface brightness on the inverse square law.

You make this nonsense up and then run away when subjected to scrutiny.

 

[Michael]

No I will not answer your "tough" questions given you have deliberately taken me out of context, changed the subject matter, dragged another member into the discussion, and repeated the same tired nonsense that has been addressed many posts ago.

Translation: A simple glance at the night sky quickly verifies that Thomas Digges was right all along, and the inverse square law applies to all natural light sources. Only lasers are immune from the inverse square laws, and you haven't a clue how to deal with that reality. Got it.

Furthermore even if I was completely wrong...

You are clearly and obviously wrong as a quick glance at the night sky easily verifies. There are less than 10,000 light sources observable to the naked eye from any "surfaces" inside of our own galaxy, and less than 10 visible "surfaces" of other galaxies that are visible to the human eye. You can't answer the tough questions without admitting that you were absolutely wrong and admitting that the inverse square laws apply to all stars and galaxies in the universe. You're incapable of admitting that you're wrong, so you blame me for your inability to answer some very simple and obvious questions.

...it doesn't validate any of your nonsense as you are engaging in false dichotomies.

There is no false dichotomy as the dark night sky quickly verifies. It's not like I was the first one to figure out why the night sky is dark, and we only see a small number of relatively dim light sources at night. It's not like you have any logical explanation for it or you would just answer those questions. We all know it.

The onus is on you to support your claims.

I already did support my claim. I already pointed out your error by noting that only a tiny *fraction* of any of the hundreds of billions (trillions actually) of light sources of the universe are visible to the naked eye at night. You just can't handle reality.

Your post is a pathetic attempt to divert away from the issue that using the "Google is my friend" principle indicates there is not shred of support for your nonsense that includes.

Dude, I don't need Google. The *night sky* is my friend!

You make this nonsense up and then run away when subjected to scrutiny.

Pure projection as a quick glance at the night sky will verify. You can't and won't answer my simple questions because I'm right. Human eyes observe less than 10,000 stars out of several hundred billion "surfaces" of stars inside of our own galaxy, and they observe less then 10 "surfaces" of other galaxies out of a potentially infinite number of possible galaxies.

Your paradox claim is a complete joke that was explained by Thomas Digges before Olber was ever born and confused the hell out of himself and you too.

Get real. You can't answer the tough questions because you'd have to admit that you are wrong, and you're incapable of just admitting it. All light sources other than lasers/masers follow the inverse square law, and the stars and galaxies of stars are not made of lasers. It's that simple.

This whole "Olber's paradox" conversation illustrates and clearly demonstrates why we're still living in the dark ages of astronomy. Even when it's *blatantly obvious* that your industry is teaching it's naive and unsuspecting students utter and complete nonsense, you continue to teach them the same nonsense anyway only to save face!

It's so much easier to blame the messenger than it is to deal with reality. That's why you constantly engage in personal attacks in our conversations. That's why Cosmoquest has a childish and draconian rule system in place, and that is exactly why you won't look up at the night sky and just acknowledge your obvious mistake. Holy cow.

Your motives for dodging my simple scientific questions are totally transparent. You and your other astronomy emperors have no clothes. You can claim that you're all wearing 'dark' clothing all you like, but I'm not buying any of it. You and Olber are buck naked.

 

[sjastro]

Translation: A simple glance at the night sky quickly verifies that Thomas Digges was right all along, and the inverse square law applies to all natural light sources. Only lasers are immune from the inverse square laws, and you haven't a clue how to deal with that reality. Got it.



You are clearly and obviously wrong as a quick glance at the night sky easily verifies. There are less than 10,000 light sources observable to the naked eye from any "surfaces" inside of our own galaxy, and less than 10 visible "surfaces" of other galaxies that are visible to the human eye. You can't answer the tough questions without admitting that you were absolutely wrong and admitting that the inverse square laws apply to all stars and galaxies in the universe. You're incapable of admitting that you're wrong, so you blame me for your inability to answer some very simple and obvious questions.



There is no false dichotomy as the dark night sky quickly verifies. It's not like I was the first one to figure out why the night sky is dark, and we only see a small number of relatively dim light sources at night. It's not like you have any logical explanation for it or you would just answer those questions. We all know it.



I already did support my claim. I already pointed out your error by noting that only a tiny *fraction* of any of the hundreds of billions (trillions actually) of light sources of the universe are visible to the naked eye at night. You just can't handle reality.



Dude, I don't need Google. The *night sky* is my friend!



Pure projection as a quick glance at the night sky will verify. You can't and won't answer my simple questions because I'm right. Human eyes observe less than 10,000 stars out of several hundred billion "surfaces" of stars inside of our own galaxy, and they observe less then 10 "surfaces" of other galaxies out of a potentially infinite number of possible galaxies.

Your paradox claim is a complete joke that was explained by Thomas Digges before Olber was ever born and confused the hell out of himself and you too.

Get real. You can't answer the tough questions because you'd have to admit that you are wrong, and you're incapable of just admitting it. All light sources other than lasers/masers follow the inverse square law, and the stars and galaxies of stars are not made of lasers. It's that simple.

This whole "Olber's paradox" conversation illustrates and clearly demonstrates why we're still living in the dark ages of astronomy. Even when it's *blatantly obvious* that your industry is teaching it's naive and unsuspecting students utter and complete nonsense, you continue to teach them the same nonsense anyway only to save face!

It's so much easier to blame the messenger than it is to deal with reality. That's why you constantly engage in personal attacks in our conversations. That's why Cosmoquest has a childish and draconian rule system in place, and that is exactly why you won't look up at the night sky and just acknowledge your obvious mistake. Holy cow.

Your motives for dodging my simple scientific questions are totally transparent. You and your other astronomy emperors have no clothes. You can claim that you're all wearing 'dark' clothing all you like, but I'm not buying any of it. You and Olber are buck naked.

As usual your post is incoherent nonsense.
I suggest at the very least you learn what false dichotomy means.
Given you are not able to cite one single source that states that surface brightness is a function of the physical size of the object, or is dependent on the inverse square law puts it in the category of made up nonsense.
Conversely “the Google is my friend” approach at a casual glance produces hundreds of hits for “surface brightness is independent of distance.”

The trouble is “dude” your made up nonsense is not supported by the night sky anymore than a static infinitely old Universe is which is the point of the discussion.
Olbers’ paradox isn’t refuted by making up nonsense.

 

[Michael]

As usual your post is incoherent nonsense.

As usual, you *totally dodged the tough questions*. You refuse (or can't) answer any questions about your bogus claim.

I suggest at the very least you learn what false dichotomy means.

If you can't answer my basic questions about why we see so few galaxies and stars, it's because the inverse square laws, and the limits of human eyesight are the reason for those low numbers.

Given you are not able to cite one single source that states that surface brightness is a function of the physical size of the object, or is dependent on the inverse square law puts it in the category of made up nonsense.

Since we observe less than 10 galaxies in the night sky, surface brightness is a ruse. It's a meaningless term. The only things that matter are the total luminosity of the source, the distance from Earth, and the limits of human eyesight. Thomas Digges figured that out *hundreds of years ago*, even before Olber was born!

Conversely “the Google is my friend” approach at a casual glance produces hundreds of hits for “surface brightness is independent of distance.”

So where are all those missing galaxies in the night sky Google man?

The trouble is “dude” your made up nonsense is not supported by the night sky anymore than a static infinitely old Universe is which is the point of the discussion.

You've obviously just been making this up as you go. First you (and WIKI) claimed that suns retained 'surface brightness', but then you moved the goalposts to galaxies when I pointed out that we observe less than 10,000 out of hundreds of billions of stars in our own galaxy. You still can't and won't explain why we observe so few galaxies, yet you insist that they are somehow magically exempt from the inverse square laws anyway. Boloney.

Olbers’ paradox isn’t refuted by making up nonsense.

Olber's paradox is made up nonsense. It is *easily* refuted by those questions that you cannot and will not answer, and the fact we see so few galaxies and stars in the night sky. If you were actually right, we'd surely see every galaxy in our own cluster and supercluster as brightly as the sun according to your claim but we don't. Your claim fails the observation test in truly *epic* fashion. End of discussion.