A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae

[SelfSim]

I think what we're seeing here, is either a denial of homogeneity at the large scales or a denial of the concept of an infinite (eternal) universe (or both)?
Olber's might just be the indicator of some other deeper misconception?

As it stands, Michael's 'argument' is completely illogical.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How in the world can you tell me that the inverse square law is "irrelevant" to what we observe with our naked eyes?

I didn't. I told you that "cameras" or long exposure CCD images are irrelevant to Olber's paradox. Try to respond to what is actually said, not some fiction.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think what we're seeing here, is either a denial of homogeneity at the large scales or a denial of the concept of an infinite (eternal) universe (or both)?
Olber's might just be the indicator of some other deeper misconception?

As it stands, Michael's 'argument' is completely illogical.

Looks to me like a denial of the science. It seems unlikely that it's a real lack of understanding - I suspect that accepting the implications of Olber's paradox is not just a matter of losing face, but is an implicit threat to certain beliefs.

 

[Michael]

I started reading Chapter 24 between calls. It turns out that Digges got the right answer a long time ago. He said they'd be too "feeble" to be picked up at such distances which is exactly right.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I started reading Chapter 24 between calls. It turns out that Digges got the right answer a long time ago. He said they'd be too "feeble" to be picked up at such distances which is exactly right.

Read on to discover why he was wrong.

 

[Michael]

I didn't. I told you that "cameras" or long exposure CCD images are irrelevant to Olber's paradox. Try to respond to what is actually said, not some fiction.

The limits of the human eye and brain however are *not* irrelevant, nor is the distance or the inverse square law irrelevant. The only reason we can see more stars now is because of the invention of the camera and long duration imagery.

Based on Obler's lame argument, those distant galaxies in a Hubble Deep Field image should be visible to his naked eye. Baloney.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Based on Obler's lame argument, those distant galaxies in a Hubble Deep Field image should be visible to his naked eye. Baloney.

That's the whole point!

I advise - The Law of Holes - "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!"

 

[Michael]

Looks to me like a denial of the science.

Irony overload since your the one who's in denial of the inverse square law and the distances involved in astronomy.

It seems unlikely that it's a real lack of understanding - I suspect that accepting the implications of Olber's paradox is not just a matter of losing face, but is an implicit threat to certain beliefs.

Not at all. Redshift is predicted in almost every modern static universe theory and expansion models aren't the only models to predict redshift. Redshift is the only reason that LCMD is supposedly exempt from Obler's paradox because even LCDM allows for an infinite universe.

It's not an infinite universe that is under debate it's really the *cause* of redshift that under debate and inelastic scattering is a *known cause* of photon redshift.

My point however is that even in a "perfectly transparent" universe, the inverse square law and the distances involved preclude the night sky from being exactly the same brightness everywhere. It wouldn't work even in a *perfect* universe.

 

[Michael]

That's the whole point!

I advise - The Law of Holes - "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!"

LOL! You're the one that's still digging. Those galaxies were not visible to Obler.

Your own LCDM model fails that test. Those galaxies aren't as bright as the sun, but they are visible to Hubble which sees the same wavelengths as our own eyes. Hubble doesn't "see" them without looking at them for *days* at a time, and even they they aren't as bright as our own sun.! They aren't as bright as closer stars and other objects either.

You guys don't even think about the implications of your own claims!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Irony overload since your the one who's in denial of the inverse square law and the distances involved in astronomy.

I already told you that is wrong. That you feel the need to deliberately misrepresent my position speaks volumes.

 

[Astrophile]

Based on Obler's lame argument, those distant galaxies in a Hubble Deep Field image should be visible to his naked eye. Baloney.

Your arguments might be more convincing if you knew that the proposer of the paradox was named Heinrich Wilhelm Matthäus Olbers (1758-1840) https://www.brittanica.com/biography/Wilhelm-Olbers, not Obler or anything like it.

 

[Michael]

Your arguments might be more convincing if you knew that the proposer of the paradox was named Heinrich Wilhelm Matthäus Olbers (1758-1840) https://www.brittanica.com/biography/Wilhelm-Olbers, not Obler or anything like it.

The inverse square law doesn't care about spelling mistakes.

 

[Michael]

I already told you that is wrong. That you feel the need to deliberately misrepresent my position speaks volumes.

What speaks volumes is this (ridiculously false) claim from the book you suggested:

In a universe of infinite extent, populated everywhere with bright stars, the entire sky should be covered by stars with no separating dark gaps. Hence, when all stars are bright like the Sun, the entire sky at every point should blaze with a brilliance equal to the Sun’s disk. The sky is 180000 times larger than the Sun’s disk, and starlight falling on Earth should be 180000 times more intense than sunlight.

This claim is absurdly false from inception due to the inverse square law and the *vast distances* involved. The only *possible* way that statement could ever be true is if every single star in the universe and night sky were exactly as close as our own sun and they all shined at exactly the same brightness of our own sun.

The entire premise of the "Gospel of Saint Olber" is absurdly false! That could *never* happen to begin with. Give it rest. Do you guys even think about your own ridiculous claims or do you just buy this ancient nonsense without a skeptical thought?

It turns out that Thomas Digges solved this "riddle" (stupid one at that) in the 1500's:

In 1576, only 33 years after the death of Copernicus, Thomas Digges took the first step. He dismantled the Aristotelian sphere of fixedstars and dispersed the stars – infinite in number – throughout infinite space (Chapter 8): ‘‘This orb of starres fixed infinitely up,’’ wrote Digges in the Perfit Description of the Cælestiall Orbes, ‘‘extendeth hit self in altitude sphericallye.’’ Digges main contribution was to point out that although the stars are infinitely numerous, yet only a finite number can be seen because ‘‘the greatest part rest by reason of their wonderfull distance invisible unto us.’’

That's *exactly* correct. The inverse square law of light, combined with the limits of our eyes and brains would make it utterly impossible for us to see every star in an infinite universe to begin with. All the arguments against his position are completely *irrational* and in pure denial of the inverse square law of light.

 

[Michael]

From your link (page 494):

The number of stars at any assumed distance, however, increases as the square of the distance, thus compensating for the loss of light and gravitational pull of each star.

Bzzt. Here's the key error in a nutshell. The number of stars found at 1AU from the Earth is 1 star. The number of stars found at 2AU from Earth is still *one star*. The number of stars at 3AU is still *one* star. The number of stars found at 10AU is still *one star*. The number of stars within 100 AU is still *one lonely solitary star*! While the light from a star drops at a rate of the square of the distance, the number of stars does not "increase" by the same factor. That's the key flaw right there.

 

[Astrophile]

What speaks volumes is this (ridiculously false) claim from the book you suggested:



This claim is absurdly false from inception due to the inverse square law and the *vast distances* involved. The only *possible* way that statement could ever be true is if every single star in the universe and night sky were exactly as close as our own sun and they all shined at exactly the same brightness of our own sun.

This is probably incorrect. Provided that the luminosity function of stars does not decrease with increasing distance, the paradox still exists even if there is a range of stellar luminosities.

The entire premise of the "Gospel of Saint Olber" is absurdly false! That could *never* happen to begin with. Give it rest. Do you guys even think about your own ridiculous claims or do you just buy this ancient nonsense without a skeptical thought?

It turns out that Thomas Digges solved this "riddle" (stupid one at that) in the 1500's:



That's *exactly* correct. The inverse square law of light, combined with the limits of our eyes and brains would make it utterly impossible for us to see every star in an infinite universe to begin with. All the arguments against his position are completely *irrational* and in pure denial of the inverse square law of light.

You are forgetting that the number of stars in a shell of thickness dr at a distance r increases as r². This exactly counteracts the effect of the inverse-square law on the apparent brightness of the stars, so the amount of light received from each shell is exactly the same. If the universe is infinite, the total light received from the night sky should also be infinite. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox .

The paradox is probably resolved by the reduction in the light received from increasingly distant shells due to the redshift of objects at cosmological distances, although the Wikipedia article does offer other possible resolutions.

 

[sjastro]

No, apparently the *physics* of light is *way* beyond your personal capacity of comprehension so you just don't "get it". FYI, the human eye is *not* at all the same as a long exposure CCD image or a long exposure photograph where the photons can be "added together" over long periods of time. The human eye doesn't allow you to "add together" photons over say a 10 day time frame to "see" objects the way a long exposure deep field Hubble image can do. There were no cameras or long exposure images when Obler proposed his nonsensical and irrational "paradox". The camera wasn't even invented for another 50+ years!

I'd try to explain it to you, but why bother? You don't even grasp the most basic aspects of light, namely the inverse square law and why it would preclude the whole sky from being the same brightness to the human eye under *any* real universe circumstance, even if absolutely no scattering at all took place in space.



And such a probability has absolutely *nothing* to do with the 'beginning of time' in a static universe experiencing scattering and experiencing the inverse square law. The scattering process and the inverse square law would dictate the maximums, not the age of a potentially eternal universe. You're so lost it's beyond my capacity to save you from your own ignorance apparently.



Nah, it simply demonstrates that you know absolutely nothing about the *physics* related to the inverse square law or the the physics of scattering in a static and potentially eternal universe. The age of the universe is *utterly irrelevant* in such a scenario.



This only demonstrates that you have no idea what your talking about because there's a distinct difference between a long exposure image and what the human eye can see and what the human brain can process.



Oy vey. You're so confused its not even funny and now you're irrationally mixing and matching various ideas that you clearly don't even begin to understand in terms of the *physics* involved. There were no "cameras" or long exposure CCD images when Obler talked about his "paradox" nonsense.

I'm not even going to bother going down the Tolman test rabbit hole with you if you can't even comprehend the importance of the inverse square law and the impact of long exposure images on various unrelated (to Obler's paradox) tests. It would be like trying to discuss the finer points of quantum mechanics with my cat.

I note you have capitulated on showing why the maths is wrong or incomplete and have gone back to the naked eye versus Hubble/CCD analogy which was debunked posts ago.
Your lack of critical thinking skills is so pronounced you are oblivious to the fact you have provided a strong counterargument against your Olbers' paradox is debunked by scattering nonsense.
Given that CCDs have extended sensitivity into the IR and combining with long exposures, the obvious question is where are all these scattered IR photons particularly in the Hubble deep field where combined exposures totalled into the months.

 

[Michael]

This is probably incorrect. Provided that the luminosity function of stars does not decrease with increasing distance, the paradox still exists even if there is a range of stellar luminosities.

Even the fact that different stars shine at different intensities would preclude the whole sky from being exactly the same, but......

You are forgetting that the number of stars in a shell of thickness dr at a distance r increases as r².

Ah, but that's absolutely not true. If I increase my "shell" from 1AU to 2AU, I don't find four more stars in the next shell. Even if I extend the shells out to 100AU, there are no more additional stars in those various shells. That's the core problem in the Gospel of St. Olber in a nutshell.

The paradox is probably resolved by the reduction in the light received from increasingly distant shells due to the redshift of objects at cosmological distances, although the Wikipedia article does offer other possible resolutions.

Keep in mind that virtually all modern static universe models also predict photon redshift/distance, albeit not as a function of "space expansion".

Redshift would also resolve the problem of course, but even the distances involved, combined with the inverse square law, and the limits of human brains and eyes solves the problem, even if there were no redshift at all.

 

[Michael]

I note you have capitulated on showing why the maths is wrong or incomplete

False. I explained why your math is wrong and incomplete. The age of the universe is irrelevant in terms of the light that reaches Earth in a scattering environment, and you made absolutely no provision for the inverse square laws.

and have gone back to the naked eye versus Hubble/CCD analogy which was debunked posts ago.

False again. You haven't "debunked" anything and even when we extend the shells to 100AU, there aren't any additional stars found in any of those additional shells.

Your lack of critical thinking skills is so pronounced

Irony overload Mr. "the inverse square law doesn't matter".

you are oblivious to the fact you have provided a strong counterargument against your Olbers' paradox is debunked by scattering nonsense.

Strike three. I did not.

Given that CCDs have extended sensitivity into the IR and combining with long exposures, the obvious question is where are all these scattered IR photons particularly in the Hubble deep field where combined exposures totalled into the months.

They got scattered and directed *away from the Earth*! Wow. Do you even have critical thinking skills? If so, I've never seen you use them.

 

[Michael]

FYI, even if I extend my number of shells out to 250,000 AU, there's still no additional stars to be found in any of those additional 249,999 shells!

Don't tell me that the inverse square law doesn't matter. The whole Gospel of St. Obler argument is pure nonsense.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Here's the key error in a nutshell. The number of stars found at 1AU from the Earth is 1 star. The number of stars found at 2AU from Earth is still *one star*. The number of stars at 3AU is still *one* star. The number of stars found at 10AU is still *one star*. The number of stars within 100 AU is still *one lonely solitary star*! While the light from a star drops at a rate of the square of the distance, the number of stars does not "increase" by the same factor. That's the key flaw right there.

Try to bear in mind that this applies to an infinite static universe. Local irregularities are irrelevant.