Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You got me there; to me, the Hubble Deep Field simply reinforces Olber's paradox. Scattering doesn't resolve the paradox, and the HDF shows there's no significant scattering anyhow, so it seems clear (pun!) that the universe can't be static and eternal - at least, if the rest of it is anything like what we observe locally (which is all we have to base our models on).Huh???
What on earth does this have to do with the Olber's paradox discussion????
Other readers: Is this just me, or is there some kind of general communications singularity going on here???
You got me there; to me, the Hubble Deep Field simply reinforces Olber's paradox. Scattering doesn't resolve the paradox,
While dark clouds could obstruct the light, these clouds would heat up, until they were as hot as the stars, and then radiate the same amount of light.
and the HDF shows there's no significant scattering anyhow,
so it seems clear (pun!) that the universe can't be static and eternal - at least,
if the rest of it is anything like what we observe locally (which is all we have to base our models on).
Huh???
What on earth does this have to do with the Olber's paradox discussion????
Other readers: Is this just me, or is there some kind of general communications singularity going on here???
And I don't think you know what you're talking about from what you just said above!?!
Yes .. Michael and Justatruthseeker tried to pull the swifty that HUDF images demonstrated the blurriness expected from scattering here. Michael abandoned that thread when it became obvious that the basis of that claim was his own pareidolia and lack of understanding about astro imaging.You got me there; to me, the Hubble Deep Field simply reinforces Olber's paradox. Scattering doesn't resolve the paradox, and the HDF shows there's no significant scattering anyhow, so it seems clear (pun!) that the universe can't be static and eternal - at least, if the rest of it is anything like what we observe locally (which is all we have to base our models on).
Yes .. Michael and Justatruthseeker tried to pull the swifty that HUDF images demonstrated the blurriness expected from scattering here. Michael abandoned that thread when it became obvious that the basis of that claim was his own pareidolia and lack of understanding about astro imaging.
In astrophysics and physical cosmology, Olbers' paradox, named after the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers (1758–1840), also known as the "dark night sky paradox", is the argument that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe. The darkness of the night sky is one of the pieces of evidence for a dynamic universe, such as the Big Bang model. In the hypothetical case that the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and populated by an infinite number of stars, then any line of sight from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star and hence the night sky should be completely illuminated and very bright.
This contradicts the observed darkness and non-uniformity of the night.[1]
Which is why most people would read on ..... Even the opening paragraph of your Obler's paradox argument is oversimplified and absurd:
If you had actually read onwards, you would see 'The Paradox' section:Michael said:What a lame and misleading claim and argument to begin with. Even if it were true that little or no scattering took place in spacetime, there would be a *noticeable* variation in brightness of various regions due to the distance of various objects. The term "very bright" is misleading due to the fact that brightness tapers off based on an inverse square law. Vast distance alone blows the "whole sky would be very bright" claim out of the water. Some areas (like the sun) would still be *much* brighter than any other area of the sky. Stars in our own galaxy would be brighter than very distant galaxies. It could not possibly be the same brightness everywhere in the night sky based on the inverse square law alone.
...
No it doesn't because of the inverse square law. We would *expect* non-uniformity based on nothing but the inverse square law related to light. Any variation of dust clouds would also produce variation. Furthermore, our eyes are not 100 percent efficient at observing every photon.
This is the *cheesiest* and most absurd argument that you two have ever tried to defend. I can't believe that you two actually believe this garbage. It's the most oversimplified and absurd argument I've seen you two try to make.
Really? Do you mean to tell me that this is your very "best" criticism of David's entire paper? Sheesh.
Wiki said:The paradox is that a static, infinitely old universe with an infinite number of stars distributed in an infinitely large space would be bright rather than dark.
A view of a square section of four concentric shells
To show this, we divide the universe into a series of concentric shells, 1 light year thick. A certain number of stars will be in the shell 1,000,000,000 to 1,000,000,001 light years away. If the universe is homogeneous at a large scale, then there would be four times as many stars in a second shell, which is between 2,000,000,000 and 2,000,000,001 light years away. However, the second shell is twice as far away, so each star in it would appear one quarter as bright as the stars in the first shell. Thus the total light received from the second shell is the same as the total light received from the first shell.
Thus each shell of a given thickness will produce the same net amount of light regardless of how far away it is. That is, the light of each shell adds to the total amount. Thus the more shells, the more light; and with infinitely many shells, there would be a bright night sky.
While dark clouds could obstruct the light, these clouds would heat up, until they were as hot as the stars, and then radiate the same amount of light.
Which is why most people would read on ..
If you had actually read onwards, you would see 'The Paradox' section:
Here we go again. (yawn)Evidently so because apparently you don't spend much time looking at your own claims. Where will I find your calculations to support that whopper of a Obler's paradox claim that clouds in deep space will reach the same temperatures as the surface of stars?
Do you guys even think about your own claims or do you just blindly believe everything that you're told?
Your math, or lack thereof to support your Obler's paradox claims about the temperature of the clouds of spacetime will tell the whole story. If you can support that claim mathematically, we'll see some math. If you can't support that absurd claim about deep space dust reaching thousands of degrees Kelvin, we'll see nothing but excuses and deflections. This is definitely going to be another Clinger/MRx scenario where the requested math formula to support the bogus claim is non existent.
SelfSim said:Huh???
What on earth does this have to do with the Olber's paradox discussion????
Michael said:There's your problem in a nutshell. Not every photon that reaches Earth must do so without being scattered or diverted in various ways.
Michael said:Yawn. Your math is all based upon "dogma". You have a "dogma" related to the density of spacetime. You had a "dogma" about the density of the areas around our own galaxy that fell apart over the last five years too
Your math is all based on a desire to 'debunk' all possible concepts other than your own preconceived ideas. You're not even trying to "make it work", you're trying to make it "not work". That's a sure sign of desperation if you ask me.
Michael said:Does your figure (10⁴⁵ photons/sec) include or exclude those two different halos they found in the last 5 years?
Yep .. ok ... Michael: Let's see what ya got!?!sjastro said:Michael can set the record straight about what halos he is referring to and how they affect the stellar photon emission rate.
OK, well that pretty much speaks for itself.Oh yes it does. Scattering absolutely does resolve the paradox.
http://www.redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V02NO3PDF/V02N3ASS.PDF
When Eddington calculated the average temperature of spacetime based on the scattering of light on the dust of spacetime, he came within 1/2 of one degree of the correct temperature of spacetime. The clouds of the universe are indeed aglow in a microwave temperature range just as Eddington predicted based on the scattering of starlight on the dust of spacetime.
However, when we look at your mythical Obler's paradox "problem", here's the kind of utter and total *nonsense* that LCDM proponents "hold faith" in, or "believe" in:
Olbers' paradox - Wikipedia
What?!?!? I know how Eddington came up with an average temperature of those clouds, but I have *no* idea where that calculation comes from. Let's see the math on that claim.
Clouds, and the dust they are composed of wouldn't have to fully absorb the light in the first place, they would simply have to deflect most of the light off course and pick up some relatively *minor* amount of kinetic energy. There aren't just a "few" clouds in space, there are *billions* (if not an infinite number) of dust particle to deflect light in spacetime.
I want to see the math from you guys to support the claim that a dust cloud is magically going to heat up to 6000K out in deep space somewhere. I know how Eddington came up with his temperature figure, but that claim sounds utterly preposterous.
Math please.
That's not true. It takes Hubble *days* to collect enough photons from those distant galaxies to be able to "see" them. Most of the photons from those galaxies never reaches Earth because they are simply knocked off course on the way way to the Earth.
This is the whole core of your problem. In order for this to work, space would have be a perfect vacuum without any scattering at all.
That's simply not true, and it wouldn't be true even if scattering wasn't involved because the universe doesn't have to be "infinite" in scope. There would still be some variation in "lighter" areas and "darker" areas simply due to the distances involved.
LCDM model are based on nonsense like that nonsense about clouds reaching thousands of degrees Kelvin, space expansion as a "cause" of photon redshift, "dark energy" that determines our fate, and exotic forms of matter that simply toss out the mainstream particle physics model.
I'm beginning to believe that mainstream astronomers are incapable of thinking for themselves. Why should I have to be the one to point out the utter absurdity of that Obler's paradox cloud temperature claim on the WIKI page? How can you guys peddle such utter nonsense or believe that nonsense?
Listing all the errors leads to cataloguing problems.Yep .. ok ... Michael: Let's see what ya got!?!
('Yawn'!)
What blows me away is that, thus far in this thread, Michael has been convincingly demonstrated as:
i) not having a clue about the implications of the paradox, even though its Wiki description and the implications in it, are quite clear;
ii) being totally incorrect in supporting Crawford's contention that: 'For curvature-cosmology, Olber’s paradox is not a problem. Curvature redshift is sufficient to move distant starlight into the visible band. Visible light from distant galaxies is shifted into the infrared where it is no longer seen' .. namely because absorbed light warms up 'invisible interstellar matter' (eg: interstellar dust), causing to it radiate in the infrared, which would result in the night sky being ablaze with infrared radiation. Whether it is 'absorbed' or 'shifted', it is still contradicted by observation.
iii) not being able to cite sources for an inter-galactic plasma with 2x10^9 K and about 2 H atoms per cubic metre;
iv) not being able to explain the absence of Crawford's missing reference light curves and the missing third scaling factor;
v) not being able to provide supporting evidence of significant scattering from any cosmologically distant light sources;
vi) being incorrect about LIGO's procedures being flawed to the extent that BH mergers would not be detectable (as the same procedures led to the NS merger discovery);
vii) being incorrect about the non-existence of a 'requested math formula to support the' not 'bogus claim about deep space dust reaching thousands of degrees Kelvin'.
Have I forgotten anything?
The funny thing he doesn't even understand Eddington's work.OK, well that pretty much speaks for itself.
You could have simply summed it up as, "I don't understand Obler's paradox or the physics behind it."
Eddington on the Expanding UniverseEddington said:I think, however, that we shall have to accept the expansion. My reason is that it now seems possible to calculate the cosmical constant λ by pure physical theory. The value is the same as that given by the recession of the nebulae, so that there is full confirmation.
Thanks for that. The Wiki model I posted before has certainly been 'dumbed down' a lot and, at least for me, the counter-intuitiveness of the underlying concept led to a weaker explanation, but your derivation makes it a lot clearer and way more robust!Another piece of nonsense that Michael is throwing up is the inverse square law.
This can be shown to be wrong by illustrating one of the concepts of Olber’s paradox that is hard to grasp intuitively, why the integrated brightness of the shells should equal the surface brightness of a star such as the Sun.
The use of mathematics clears up this issue.
...
L/a is simply the surface brightness of a star which can be the Sun.
QED.
Maybe Eddington turned to the 'dark' side of the force...The funny thing he doesn't even understand Eddington's work.
Eddington made it perfectly clear the 3.2K temperature is in our galaxy's frame of reference and therefore it cannot explain the dipole temperature of the CMB.
To make things more embarrassing for Michael, Eddington accepted an expanding Universe.
Eddington on the Expanding Universe
PS Very quaint language from the 1930s with the use of the term "cosmical".
Funny(!) you should state this given that poor Albert was forced to introduce a "cosmical" constant to prevent the static Universe from crashing and burning where as Eddington's use of the term has a far more modern connotation.Maybe Eddington turned to the 'dark' side of the force...
Dogma?? Really??Mozina said:.. Selfsim and sjastro aren't able to offer up any specific and direct criticism of David's paper at CF either, just handwaves based on their own (Obler's Paradox) dogma ..
I didn't realise it was compulsory in this thread to critique David Crawford's paper.Somewhat more trivially also, I notice Michael has run away from the issues raised in this thread and gone back to his treatment ward (his Friday Jan 12 post) and accused myself and sjastroogma?? Really??
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?