Illustrating Olbers' paradox

That which you called me a liar for out of your blind ignorance. The paradox, what it presumes to arrive to the conclusion. Here it is again:

Wikipedia: -"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."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Humbleteleskop, do you remember that when you joined PF a month ago, you posted the wiki animation of the paradox even while demanding we treat the stars as point sources and still claimed the result would be a dark sky?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You mean when you literally treated the stars as points with no actual size while I was only talking about their appearance?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oy, no. I guess we're done here.

 

You just forgot to admit that I was right all along, like you said you would.

Olbers' paradox is flawed by assuming infinite number of shells would contribute to the total brightness, and we know you agree with that because you insisted all along that number is not infinite, but as you can see in the paradox it really is. Sure you can assume infinite number of stars can fit in a finite field of view, but you should never draw conclusions about the actual universe based on such invalid hypothetical premises.