Why the sky is dark in the night

[danshawen]

If this was a religion forum, this would leave you open to charges of blasphemy for purporting to put logical limits on God's power. As this is not a religion forum, I would like to point out that this is a physics argument of exceptionally low weight.

You seem to be saying, time is unnecessary to the propagation of light. "Let there be time", and "Let there be energy" would have needed to come first. This is basic science, not religion. Count how many times the distance vs time of light appears in Special Relativity and Maxwell's equations. And it is a given in order to consider Olber's paradox as well because we still see light in the known universe that began propagating close to the assigned epoch of the BB. Hubble's deep field photo is an example.

I would agree, religious forums would need moderators that behaved in a manner to moderate blasphemous responses. Are you suggesting that a science forum should have similar limits?

I would tentatively agree that a discussion of perpetual motion machines, relativity (both versions) deniers, creationist substitutions for science, and perhaps global warming deniers need to be moderated or outright banned. We even have global warming deniers here that have achieved moderator status on other forums. This does not make them pariahs; quite the opposite. Their points of view more often than not are the fresh ones that adds a depth of understanding to a subject many of us do not possess.

If your intention is to do the same for cosmology du jour, the BB and non-conservation of energy deniers, I don't see how this can be a science forum at all. A mutual admiration society for the likes of paddoboy and brucep, perhaps.

Setting limits usually is a good thing, and also something an educator or a parent (not just a moderator) must be able to do. It is also something that mainstream cosmology, for whatever reason, appears to be unable or unwilling to do at all.

I can set limits and I can also stay within them. We have good moderators here, and you are doing just fine. You may have noticed, I have not engaged in any discussion of what you consider to be my "flakier" ideas in this thread. Just the science is enough.

 

[The God]

I don't think you know what that term means. It appears to me that you are getting frustrated that your wild goose chase has ended. Everything you said you wanted to know is there in what you read....which for some odd reason seems to annoy you. Shame.


...that and you appear upset that your wild guess was called out.

Enjoy.......You attempted to troll the thread from very beginning.....you almost succeeded.....I am sorry it is amply clear that you know nothing about this subject, and you mostly pretend..people like you can only survive on such forums with blind support to what mainstream says, wiki/google is a very good source for such guys.....you proved it....I am not upset, I pity your ignorance and pretentions. Do better next time with some content, just because Rpenner lent some indirect support to you, does not make you a worthy contributor to this thread.....

 

[The God]

We have good moderators here, and you are doing just fine.

No he is not doing fine...he has made few early on mistakes as Mod...

1. Taking sides....
2. calling names...(not outright abuses, but nonetheless unwarranted)
3. Preempting others and answering for others.
4. He is extremely knowldegeable, So he is attempting to become kind of 'one man army' to defend mainstream...in the process he will kill all the voice of dissent, and then mostly we will have News articles (they are welcome) which cool 'Plazma Inferno' is posting with great zeal..

I am afraid he will burn out, he has to slow down...

 

[krash661]

I'm sure I can give you more references should you wish. Meanwhile see gravity gravitates.

i should wish..

 

[krash661]

Enjoy.......You attempted to troll the thread from very beginning.....you almost succeeded.....I am sorry it is amply clear that you know nothing about this subject, and you mostly pretend..people like you can only survive on such forums with blind support to what mainstream says, wiki/google is a very good source for such guys.....you proved it....I am not upset, I pity your ignorance and pretentions. Do better next time with some content, just because Rpenner lent some indirect support to you, does not make you a worthy contributor to this thread.....

i can understand how you would perceive yourself of being corrected as you being trolled.. simply because this is massively common with the pathetic ones.

 

[paddoboy]

You have not offered anything.........I asked you two questions, you have not answered..

Q1. at what CMBR temperature, the sky will not appear to be dark in night (absence of Sun light) ?

Q2 And when possibly this temperature would have occured after BB ?

Q3. If 10^31 stars cannot make the night sky bright, then how many stars could do that ?

The infinite universe is debunked as it leads to infinite brightness based on obvious caluclation (that caluclation may be faulty)....but we do not need infinite photons to make our night sky bright...as I said roughly around 10^31 (few zeroes here and there) photons per second would be sufficient to give us full moon type brightness....How many stars would be required for that ?

You have yet to acknowledge the many basic errors you made in earlier post and which I corrected this.......

Only to someone like yourself that accepts the answer put tic at post 8.

The usual ways of cranks: That has already been explained.....let me say again.......
For the first 380,000 years before temperatures had dropped sufficiently for electrons to couple with atomic nuclei, the Universe was opaque with just plasma and photons unable to travel.
After the recombination the light [brightness] was released for want of a better word] and we still see that today as the CMBR at a temperature of 2.7K

Yep they all fit together like a hand in a glove.....although we have no certainty about the finite nature of the universe. Not that it makes any difference to olber's paradox which is not a paradox.

Nonsense and unsupported claims. Some redshifts are quite large, as is the Universe.

The usual maybe's, perhaps's
You need to realise that galaxies at such large distances, near the edge of the observable universe, are in time, going to be beyond the observable universe.
In fact a few hundreds or so billion years hence, no galaxy external to our local region will be visible. We call it the DE factor.

More rubbish: Ever heard of WMAP?
Ever heard of the accelerating expansion rate that WMAP discovered?
So, no, in the long distant future, our observable universe will be just our own merged local group and all distant galaxies shifted beyond the observable horizon.

See previous correction of your nonsense.

It's not surprising you consider it incomplete when you have misunderstood the most basic assumptions and data from recent times.

While we are at it, let's correct some more errors and erroneous assumptions on your part.
You said........
"The infinite universe is debunked as it leads to infinite brightness"

Not true.....Again, ever heard of WMAP?
It showed the Universe/spacetime to be nearly flat to within small tolerances.
A flat universe would denote an infinite universe.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

But even with some small doubt as to infinite or finite, infinity does not lead to infinite brightness as you so fanatically want to believe.
Any infinite numbers of stars within an infinite extent of spacetime, leads to the same reasons as we have today as to why the night sky is dark:
Although again, as was mentioned by someone earlier, even that is not essentially correct. The Universe/spacetime is awash with the CMBR at 2.7K


As has been revealed, and as has been evidenced many times in the past with your attempts to invalidate standard accepted mainstream cosmology, your totally wild unsupported guesses have been proven to be just that...wild, unsupported and guesses.

PS: While WMAP helped change our view of the Universe/spacetime, it was decommissioned in 2010 and its figures since then have been updated in certain areas of precision and accuracy by even more recent state of the art probes.

 

[paddoboy]

No he is not doing fine...he has made few early on mistakes as Mod...

1. Taking sides....

You mean because like most he has criticised your nonsensical unsupported claims?

2. calling names...(not outright abuses, but nonetheless unwarranted)

You mean as you yourself do in near every post to anyone that dare question your unsupported, unevidenced claims?

3. Preempting others and answering for others.

You mean as those reputable posters would normally react against pseudoscience and unsupported claims that you are expert at doing/claiming?

4. He is extremely knowldegeable, So he is attempting to become kind of 'one man army' to defend mainstream...in the process he will kill all the voice of dissent, and then mostly we will have News articles (they are welcome) which cool 'Plazma Inferno' is posting with great zeal..

While I don't dispute the fact of his knowledge, I do dispute the fact that such knowledge is needed to refute the general unsupported claims you make, and that is certainly backed by the fact that even I as an amateur and lay person have no problems in invalidating and refuting your nonsensical take on cosmology.

My take on your total erroneous claims, untruths and inuendo, is as noted by others: You have been called out and shown to indulge in out right fantasy and unsupported claims: This the forum knows with utmost certainty, and also shows the lengths you will go to, to pretend that you have truth in anything that you are claim, with your usual religious type convictions.
Your "self confessed" games and as a consequence trolling, are no more than an attempted cover up of all your errors and invalidated claims.

It will be in order to thank me too as I started this thread so that we all understand something, despite my/PB games......such an innocuous point, evidenced daily and has a wonderful history....

So my dear friend, I suggest you stop your silly pretenses, cover ups, and trolling: It fools no one and could get you banned: And if that happens, I can nearly guarentee that you would not last more than a week on other forums, that apply more strictly their rules of debate, hypothetical nonsense, and content.

 

[paddoboy]

Your "self confessed" games and as a consequence trolling, are no more than an attempted cover up of all your errors and invalidated claims.

It will be in order to thank me too as I started this thread so that we all understand something, despite my/PB games......such an innocuous point, evidenced daily and has a wonderful history....

Again, So my dear friend, I suggest you stop your silly pretenses, cover ups, and trolling: It fools no one and could get you banned: And if that happens, I can nearly guarentee that you would not last more than a week on other forums, that apply more strictly their rules of debate, hypothetical nonsense, and content.

 

[Daecon]

No he is not doing fine...he has made few early on mistakes as Mod...

1. Taking sides....
2. calling names...(not outright abuses, but nonetheless unwarranted)
3. Preempting others and answering for others.
4. He is extremely knowldegeable, So he is attempting to become kind of 'one man army' to defend mainstream...in the process he will kill all the voice of dissent, and then mostly we will have News articles (they are welcome) which cool 'Plazma Inferno' is posting with great zeal..

I am afraid he will burn out, he has to slow down...

You are aware he's been a member here long before he became a mod, right?

 

[DaveC426913]

Your take, that those scientists cannot be wrong..is the same line mostly taken up by Paddoboy when he is cornered, is bereft of any content.

How is then that you could be right?

You've just dismissed the idea that essentially, someone with a career of knowledge under their belt is qualified to know about these things. So, you, without access to that, also cannot know.
You have just dismissed yourself.

So we turn back to those who have studied it.

 

[paddoboy]

Some food for thought ......
Everyone hear of the Hubble deep field photograph? and later the Hubble ultra deep field photograph?

 

[paddoboy]

 

[The God]

How is then that you could be right?

You've just dismissed the idea that essentially, someone with a career of knowledge under their belt is qualified to know about these things. So, you, without access to that, also cannot know.
You have just dismissed yourself.

So we turn back to those who have studied it.

You are generalising my stand......

Your argument that since it has come from the career guys, so it cannot be wrong, is no argument at all.....

Secondly in the context I did not hint or suggest conspiracy, you jumped the gun, I just stated that even mainstream guys raised the question about 2012 higgs findings, that means mistakes in data interpretation can be made by your referred community....

 

[The God]

Again, So my dear friend, I suggest you stop your silly pretenses, cover ups, and trolling: It fools no one and could get you banned: And if that happens, I can nearly guarentee that you would not last more than a week on other forums, that apply more strictly their rules of debate, hypothetical nonsense, and content.

Your experience seems to be not so good with other forums........

 

[krash661]

Your argument that since it has come from the career guys, so it cannot be wrong, is no argument at all.....

in a sense, you are initiating the same thing. you are simply saying they are wrong because they are scientist.
(shakes head)--what a massive pathetic joke that is.

 

[paddoboy]

Your experience seems to be not so good with other forums........

Not at all.....Never yet been permanently banned anywhere and am still a member of two of them. But you are avoiding the issue again, which is about you.....That if you were banned here, you would most certainly not last in either of the forums, or any other for that matter, that all have hard and fast rules, that are more stringently applied than here,
And predictably you keep avoiding the pertinent questions and errors you are making.

 

[paddoboy]

You are generalising my stand......

You don't have a stand: You have an agenda.

 

[paddoboy]

Secondly in the context I did not hint or suggest conspiracy, you jumped the gun,

You have hinted at mainstream conspiracy many times in fact: Particularly with regards to the GP-B findings and the more recent gravitational waves and BH confirmations by aLIGO.

 

[DaveC426913]

Your argument that since it has come from the career guys, so it cannot be wrong, is no argument at all.....

Certainly true. That is not my argument at all.

My argument is simply that, in an otherwise vacuum (i.e. without preconceptions) -
on one side let's place a group of people who have studied something for a goodly portion of their career, and
on the other side let's place you, who feel that studying something a lot is useless, one will get better answers not studying it at all -
which one is more likely to get closer to right?

Of course they don't know everything, or get everything right. But, where does that leave you, knowing even less about it? You cannot claim that any of your knowledge is steering you to the right answer, as you have just dismissed knowledge as a valid path to right answers. So, where are your right answers coming from? A divining rod?

You have logically dismissed yourself.

 

[DaveC426913]

...it is amply clear that you know nothing about this subject...

Yet you insist that those who know a lot about the subject are inane or parroting mainstream.

Since, by your logic, the only people who are qualified to discuss the subject are those who don't know much about it, shouldn't it be closed?

Or perhaps - you are willing to grant that maybe dismissing the body of knowledge that you have drunk so deeply from yourself, to be able to make any statements at all, might be a little self-contradictory?

Now, can we move on to the evidence and logic, and leave the dumb attacks by the wayside?