I’m sorry to disappoint you Mr Destroyer of Arguments but this is yet another example of your total lack of comprehension.
You don’t understand the shells also have a thickness and therefore a volume.
Ya, and your AU shells still lack even a single additional star for over 250,000 AU thickness sized shells! You're still 268,770 AU shells in the hole.
It is the integrated brightness of stars occupying the shell volume that is important not the specific distances of the stars to the observer.
Those next 268,770 AU sized shells all have volume, they just contain no stars in any of that massive empty volume.
In a static Universe we can make the thickness of the shell any value we want.
No you can't. You can't arbitrarily pick any volume you want because the next star over is 72+ billion times too dim to just pick any random sized shell if you're trying to compare it to the brightness of our own sun. Olber claimed they'd be as bright as the sun, so the distance between the sun and the Earth is the size of the shell.
This is getting rather comical as every time the grandiose claim of destroying an argument or blowing it out of the water is made, it always end up as your lack of comprehension being the case.
Considering that howler of error you made on the previous page I cited, you're the last person in the universe who should be complaining about other people's lack of comprehension. That was comical.
Your incompetence extends to history as well.
Thomas Digges did not refute Olbers’ paradox using the inverse square law since the law was first postulated in the following century after his death.
He knew that light go dimmer with distance and that was the whole basis of his argument. Your St. Olber totally blew that issue entirely because as you even noted, stars act like *point objects* and distance does matter which is why we only see less than 10,000 stars out of the hundreds of billions of stars in our own galaxy and less than ten measly galaxies including our own.
The reason why people far smarter than you never refuted Olbers’ paradox using the inverse square law in the past 300 years.....
You have no evidence to support such a ridiculous claim in the first place.
is that they didn’t make things up such as claiming surface brightness is a function of an object’s physical dimensions and depends on the inverse square law.
The object size *decreases* with distance, which means that your "surface brightness" argument is irrelevant because the overall light from the object still follows the inverse square law anyway. You're incapable of explaining why we see so few galaxies because their size also changes with distance, and therefore the total brightness also changes with distance.
It's *blatantly* obvious why we see so few galaxies with our naked eyes, and blatantly obvious why Hubble has to look at a 'dark area' for days on end to observe enough photons to actually "see" a galaxy in those darker regions of a shorter duration image. The number of photons from the source *decreases* with distance. With enough distance, only a very few photons from that objects (galaxy or star) arrive on Earth.
This is basic physics. You're literally in denial of very basic physics related to photons. Only lasers would not experience the inverse square law.
You're definitely whistling Dixie which is why you keep avoiding that question about why we see just a very few galaxies when there are way more than 10 galaxies in our local supercluster. Even galaxies that experience some redshift would still be visible with our naked eye if you were correct, but you're not correct. Galaxies are not immune from the inverse square laws either, so we only see a very few of them.
You're also moving the goalposts in nearly every single post. First you (and WIKI and others in this thread) talked about "stars" and the surface brightness of "shells of stars". Then you back-peddled, and now you're talking about galaxies and shells of galaxies, yet we only see a very few of them too.
You're getting more desperate by the post and you still won't explain why we see less than ten galaxies at night, including our own.