Olber's Paradox only works for fields of constant density with range

[Pyrotex]

I do not agree with the above reasoning.

Spherical shells consists of point sources. The intensity of light from each source diminishes with a very specific value (inverse square law). So the volume calculation does not follow.

okay okay...

 

Let's keep this really simple. The inverse square law applies to a given object that is moved radially, or to a set of identical objects at different radial distances.

 

A light bulb at 100 feet will appear 1/4 as bright as the same (or an identical) lightbulb at 50 feet. Are you with me so far?

 

Now let us consider a first "shell" spherically surrounding us at 50 feet away. We populate the area of that shell with identical light bulbs. Just for sake of argument, let's assume that the maximum number of bulbs we can fit on that shell is 10,000.

 

Now let us consider a second "shell", concentric with the first, only its radius is 100 feet away. We populate it just as tightly with identical bulbs.

 

But we need 40,000 light bulbs! Why? Because the shell has twice the radius, its AREA is FOUR times as large as the inner shell.

 

The intensity of each single bulb in the second shell will be 1/4 as bright as any single bulb in the first shell -- because it is twice as far away. But the outer shell will contain 4 times as many bulbs as the inner shell -- because it is twice as far away. Therefore the total light from the outer shell equals the total light from the inner shell. ( 4 X 1/4 = 1 )

 

THIS is the proper application of the Inverse Square Law. With all due respect, your attempt to apply the Inverse Square Law to shells of different area reveals a basic misunderstanding of either the geometry or the physics. Think this through again. Good luck. :confused:

[Pyrotex]

...If the cosmological principle were imposed on our solar system, we would be in a living hell right now.

Woops. You mean "on our universe", NOT "on our solar system". There is only ONE (1) star in our solar system. :confused:

[kmarinas86]

Woops. You mean "on our universe", NOT "on our solar system". There is only ONE (1) star in our solar system. :hihi:

 

I meant that the sun would consume us, or that we would all would be breathing the atmosphere of Saturn's south pole, or whatever :confused:.

[Pyrotex]

I meant that the sun would consume us, or that we would all would be breathing the atmosphere of Saturn's south pole, or whatever :hihi:.

What does this have to do with the Cosmological Principal ????? :confused:

 

Quoted from Wikipedia: "The Cosmological Principle means that the universe, when viewed on sufficiently large distance scales, has no preferred directions or preferred places. Or, in other words, on a large scale the Universe looks the same in all directions for an observer at any place."

 

You cannot apply the CP to a single solar system, not even conceptually.

[kmarinas86]

What does this have to do with the Cosmological Principal ????? :confused:

 

Quoted from Wikipedia: "The Cosmological Principle means that the universe, when viewed on sufficiently large distance scales, has no preferred directions or preferred places. Or, in other words, on a large scale the Universe looks the same in all directions for an observer at any place."

 

You cannot apply the CP to a single solar system, not even conceptually.

 

Just trying to be funny there :hihi:.

[kmarinas86]

Global thermodynamic equilbrium (GTE) is hell's toy :evil:. Rejoice over its lack of power. It has no tyranny against us!

 

[Pyrotex]

Dear Kmarinas,

you seem like such an intelligent person, and yet...

I cannot make heads nor tails of anything you are posting here.

The graphics are 'pretty' but they say nothing.

You are not communicating anything yet.

Perhaps you should back up and tell us a little about your background, your education, and (especially) what is it you are trying to tell us?

[kmarinas86]

Dear Kmarinas,

you seem like such an intelligent person, and yet...

I cannot make heads nor tails of anything you are posting here.

The graphics are 'pretty' but they say nothing.

You are not communicating anything yet.

Perhaps you should back up and tell us a little about your background, your education, and (especially) what is it you are trying to tell us?

 

What I'm telling: Olber's Paradox only works for fields of constant density with range.

What I'm assuming: The universe does not have constant density with range.

What my assumption implies: The cosmological principle is wrong.

What my assumption is implied by: There are regions of greater density than the local group or even our immediate universe.

What my assumption does not imply: The idea that "we are in the center of the universe".

What all of these combine lead me to conclude: The notion of 1/r^2 * r^2 assumes that the mass density of the universe is constant at the largest scales, but this this constancy is not held by fractal cosmology, so it is not limited by Olber's paradox.

Why this is complicated: Because we are not at the densest region of space, we may be surrounded by denser regions of space which are opaque to radiation, which share characteristics of the cosmic background radiation. But these must be very far away, because large galaxy clusters are not dense enough and are not opaque.

Another reason for complications: In a fractal, the density must ultimately decrease with distance from denser regions. As always, the infinite universe appears as if it had a finite extent, but only when we did not look in the right direction (or without enough sensitivity).

What others have observed: The universe is istropic at the large scales according to the range of distances at which observation in the universe can be made, but these are not tested very often at particular scales (e.g. the Hubble Deep field is a very small portion of the sky, but is very unique in terms of its observing range).

My background & education: University of Houston (junior undergraduate) & self-study in various fields

[kmarinas86]

The picture below is an attempt to show what I am visualizing. The immediate universe (nearest 1 billion LY) is mapped in a location at a distance from the large objects (not perfect scale). According to my idea, the apparent redshifting at larger distances is due to the larger objects (like gravitational redshift) rather than an expansion. This is one universe. Not mutiple big bangs, but rather an alternative explanation for observations of the distant universe.

 

Everything in the picture is supposed to exist at the same time. In otherwords, the heterogeneity of TIME is replaced by the heterogeneity of SPACE. The big bang in this case is just the surface of a really large suns (if you want to call them that).

 

The point is to show that it is possible, not to show that it is correct.

 

 

It's hard to convert this into something you can visualize as something beyond your window, but this is what it would look like:

 

[InfiniteNow]

Smaller Pictures!!! :D

[coldcreation]

okay okay...

 

Let's keep this really simple. The inverse square law applies to a given object that is moved radially, or to a set of identical objects at different radial distances.

 

A light bulb at 100 feet will appear 1/4 as bright as the same (or an identical) lightbulb at 50 feet. Are you with me so far?

 

Now let us consider a first "shell" spherically surrounding us at 50 feet away. We populate the area of that shell with identical light bulbs. Just for sake of argument, let's assume that the maximum number of bulbs we can fit on that shell is 10,000.

 

Now let us consider a second "shell", concentric with the first, only its radius is 100 feet away. We populate it just as tightly with identical bulbs.

 

But we need 40,000 light bulbs! Why? Because the shell has twice the radius, its AREA is FOUR times as large as the inner shell.

 

The intensity of each single bulb in the second shell will be 1/4 as bright as any single bulb in the first shell -- because it is twice as far away. But the outer shell will contain 4 times as many bulbs as the inner shell -- because it is twice as far away. Therefore the total light from the outer shell equals the total light from the inner shell. ( 4 X 1/4 = 1 )

 

THIS is the proper application of the Inverse Square Law. With all due respect, your attempt to apply the Inverse Square Law to shells of different area reveals a basic misunderstanding of either the geometry or the physics. Think this through again. Good luck. :D

 

Okay,

 

Several points, Pyrotex, are essential before examining the fractal cyclical universe.

 

For Olbers paradox to be operational the following assumptions are essential:

 

(1) The universe must be flat, i.e., the is no large-scale curvature, the universe is thus assumed Euclidean. This is not a deduction based on observational grounds but an assumption on philosophical grounds (neither WMAP data or the 1998 distant SNIa survey data indicate a flat universe, on the contrary). Note, general relativity states the impossibility of a Euclidean universe.

 

(2) The cosmological principle is base on philosophical grounds, not observation. The fact is, most of us believe that the universe (everywhere, now) looks pretty much the same. However, due to the velocity of light c, the is no such thing as 'everywhere now.' According to most world models I'm aware of there is supposed to be evolution in the lookback time, vis, the canonical-standard-hot-big-bang-cold-dark-matter-model; the further back in time one contemplates the fewer galaxies and stars there are, until a time is reached where there are no stars or galaxies. Only QSSC stated the 'perfect cosmological principle.'

 

Finally (for now), here is why your mathematics is useless when compared to the real world:

 

Place a 100 watt light bulb 1 meter away. Now consider a spherical shell two meters away with four 100 W bulbs. The four will give off more light to the point of origin (the observer centered in the shell).

 

Now lets go way beyond what is observed with the naked eye, beyond our Local Group of galaxies. Even if you know where to look to see M31 with the naked eye, its apparent magnitude is very low. Other galaxies in our group are not visible with the naked eye, yet their absolute magnitudes are as bright as billions of stars (apparent magnitude zero, again with the naked eye). Note that expansion is not occuring in the Loacal Group.

 

Place as many galaxies as you wish in a fixed spherical shell, say, at a distance of 1Gyr and the night sky will still be dark.

 

The latter will be true with or without the cosmological principle, the perfect cosmological principle and without large-scale curvature of the spacetime manifold.

 

So you see, the night sky is dark not because of expansion.

Olbers paradox is not real. It was used to justify (by S. Hawking and the likes) the big bang expansion when faced with a mencing steady state group, at the time a radical and relentless adversary who had other explanations for the other pillars of big bang cosmology: the CMB, premordial creation of the light elements (they agreed only on redshift z as a change in the scale factor, albeit, not for the same reason).

 

Possibly, if our eyes could dilate and stay open for two weeks pointing at the same point is space, the night sky would be light, but I doubt it. Look at the Hubble Ultra Deep Field. The sky is dark too, even with 10000 galaxies in view.

 

 

Olbers paradox is kaput.

 

CC

[kmarinas86]

:phones:

[LaurieAG]

But this would mean that the brightness reaching us from the rest of the universe is greater than the brightness coming from our super cluster which is more than the brightness coming from our galaxy! But we do not observe this! The universe does not appear to be billions of times brighter than our galaxy! Something is wrong with the calculations or something is wrong with current theory!

 

Hello kmarinas86,

 

I agree, there should be a solution that doesn't require dark/anti matter.

 

I've always wondered why we perceive a galaxy as something like a hurricane/cyclone etc from above, when it looks like what we get if we trace light rays originating from a (rotating) point source that takes more than 1 complete rotation of the source before the light reaches the observation point.

 

Say you spin a sparkler around in a dark room you will see a flaming circle. If you increase the scale to galactic proportions would you expect to see the individual (discrete) points from the tip of the sparkler, or would you expect to see a full circle?

[coldcreation]

The sun is 1 AU away.

1. The center of the galaxy is 2 billion AU away.
   
2. A sun at 2 billion AU away is 4 billion billion times dimmer than our sun.
   
3. There are about 200 billion stars within the radius of the sun's orbit.
   
4. It would take less than 20 million billion times as many stars to be as bright as our sun.
   

1. The Virgo SuperCluster is 6 trillion AU in radius.
   
2. A sun at 6 trillion AU away is 36 trillion trillion times dimmer than our sun.
   
3. There are about 10 trillion stars at the Virgo SuperCluster (10% of visible mass and 1% of virial mass).
   
4. It would take less than 3.6 trillion times as many stars to be as bright as our sun.
   

1. The visible "Big Bang" universe is 900 trillion AU in radius.
   
2. A sun at 900 trillion AU away is 810 thousand trillion trillion times dimmer than our sun.
   
3. There are about 70 thousand billion billion stars[1] in the visible "Big Bang" universe
   
4. It would take less than 12 million times as many stars to be as bright as our sun.
   

 

Overall:

Our overall galaxy is less than 20 million billion times dimmer than our sun.

Our overall super cluster is less than 3.6 trillion times dimmer than our sun.

Our overall universe is less than 12 million times dimmer than our sun.

But this would mean that the brightness reaching us from the rest of the universe is greater than the brightness coming from our super cluster which is more than the brightness coming from our galaxy! But we do not observe this! The universe does not appear to be billions of times brighter than our galaxy! Something is wrong with the calculations or something is wrong with current theory!

 

Nice post. I really do want to discuss your theory, but this Olbers paradox is getting in the way. My main point, to finish with it once and for all (though Pyrotex will surely want to get the last word in on the subject):

 

Olbers paradox is not proof of an expanding big bang universe.

 

Many galaxies in our own group (which is not expanding), several of which contain billions of stars, are not visble with the naked eye, or have extremely low apparent magnitudes, is evidence enough.

 

 

Now, on to the more interesting aspects of your thread.

 

I do agree with Pyrotex on at least one point; your illustrations are sweet looking, artistic like all good cosmology, and I'm sure have taken some time to realize, but they just don't make sense.

 

For example, and your answers to these question may shed light on my bewilderment. Regarding the picture with the lightcone copied and pasted over and over again to form a circle. Is that two-dimentional? If so, where is your time axis? What is in the center of the black circle surrounded by the big bang(s)? Is that area before the big bang? And, is the overlap that occurs between circles and other identical circles (I saw five of those I recall) two or more overlapping regions (not to use the word universes).

 

In short, to me, it doesn't look cyclic, fractal, or even multiple.

What happened to the old 'pictures are worth a thousand words' dictum.

 

I did glance at you page online, but hitherto came up emptyhanded.

Houston rocks.

[kmarinas86]

Hello kmarinas86,

 

I agree, there should be a solution that doesn't require dark/anti matter.

 

I've always wondered why we perceive a galaxy as something like a hurricane/cyclone etc from above, when it looks like what we get if we trace light rays originating from a (rotating) point source that takes more than 1 complete rotation of the source before the light reaches the observation point.

 

Say you spin a sparkler around in a dark room you will see a flaming circle. If you increase the scale to galactic proportions would you expect to see the individual (discrete) points from the tip of the sparkler, or would you expect to see a full circle?

 

A cyclone is a region of low pressure. Highs tend to be clear skies :hint::hint:.

[kmarinas86]

For example, and your answers to these question may shed light on my bewilderment. Regarding the picture with the lightcone copied and pasted over and over again to form a circle. Is that two-dimentional?

 

It's a two-dimesional over-simplification of a three-dimension system. Imagine a lot of basketballs in space. Then put a bunch of fireflies between them (those are the galaxies).

 

If so, where is your time axis?

 

Absoutely none, it's a snapshot like you take a snapshot of billard balls on a table. If you add some sand between them those are the galaxies.

 

What is in the center of the black circle surrounded by the big bang(s)?

 

It's a quasi-spherical particle. A very large one that is billions of light years wide. It's there to curve space around it. It is concievable in three spatial dimensions. it is not outside our universe. It's not the beginning of time or space. You could imagine it as a black hole of the same size, but not quite. It has to be something like a gravastar.

 

Is that area before the big bang?

 

No, it is an object which exists right now. It will collide with the other objects producing showers of galaxies. It will exist after the sun dies.

 

And, is the overlap that occurs between circles and other identical circles (I saw five of those I recall) two or more overlapping regions (not to use the word universes).

 

Exactly. They are overlapping regions of space.

 

In short, to me, it doesn't look cyclic, fractal, or even multiple.

 

Think of the quarks inside a nucleus and the particles exchanged between them.

 

Think about the cycles of quarks and how they interact.

 

Think about how they go through countless cycles without decaying.

 

If each cycle were trillions of years, can you see why it it is easy for this to be a cyclical fractal universe?

[coldcreation]

It's a two-dimesional over-simplification of a three-dimension system. Imagine a lot of basketballs in space. Then put a bunch of fireflies between them (those are the galaxies).

 

Absoutely none, it's a snapshot like you take a snapshot of billard balls on a table. If you add some sand between them those are the galaxies.

 

It's a quasi-spherical particle. A very large one that is billions of light years wide. It's there to curve space around it. It is concievable in three spatial dimensions. it is not outside our universe. It's not the beginning of time or space. You could imagine it as a black hole of the same size, but not quite. It has to be something like a gravastar.

 

No, it is an object which exists right now. It will collide with the other objects producing showers of galaxies. It will exist after the sun dies.

 

Exactly. They are overlapping regions of space.

 

If each cycle were trillions of years, can you see why it it is easy for this to be a cyclical fractal universe?

 

I may be missing something, but I don't see which of the phenomena you mention above are observed in nature, in the universe.

 

If that is the case, tell me which of your tenets are observed, or which in principle could be observed.

 

(1) How do you explain the origin of the CMB and its current (local) thermal spectrum.

 

(2) When, where, were created the light elements, their isotopes and the heavy elements. How do you justify their abundances.

 

(3) How does the observed redshift z in the spectra of distant objects today interpreted as a change in the scale factor to the metric fit into the mix.

 

(4) And too, how do the deviations (20% or so) from a smooth (linear) Hubble flow observed (throughout the 1990s) in the spectra (z along with light curves) of extremely distant SNe Ia jive with your hypothesis.

 

These four point are perhaps the most important that any theory challenging the standard model (or not) will have to face up to, then come the predictions...

 

CC