Why the sky is dark in the night

Surely, you recognize there is a problem with the strength of your case here.

One one side: the scientific community has studied the standard cosmological model, which has been constructed, layer by painstaking layer, verified and corroborated from centuries of actual observation and evidence.
On the other side: your opinion.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm simply saying ... C'maaaaaan!!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Your paddo boy games? So you are trolling?
Or is that rather childish admittance just to cover up the even more childish errors you are making at near every post? You know, things like not realising that according to cosmological data, the Universe is accelerating in its expansion rate and that we call that DE.....and that consequently in the long distant future, our local group of galaxies will merge.
You see my dear friend, the cosmological sciences are able to make such predictions simply based on the known accepted laws of Newtonian gravity and GR.
And we have a pretty good record on similar predictions in the past....Newton's description of planetary orbits, Haley on the return of his comet, and then 4 billion years hence, the merging of M31 and the MW.
Wonderful stuff, don't you agree?
No need for any omnipotent all powerful deity myth at all.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have read a book entitled "The BB Never Happened" which pushes this Electric/Plasma Universe hypothesis.
I than had the more technical parts debunked by two experts: One an Astronomer, the other a GR theorist expert on another now defunct forum that was fortunate enough to have such reputable cosmology experts.
It was a while ago and I do forget much of the details......

One of its nonsensical claims was along the lines of the Sun not being as mainstream say. Cosmologists and most scientists accept the fact that nuclear fusion powers the Sun and all other stars: For a number of twisted applications, E/PU hypothesis denies this:
Reasons given ar that it would produce Neutrinos of which we have not found as yet and that contrary to the mechanism of nuclear fusion, the Sun and stars are electrically based modes.
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com.au/p/challenges-for-electric-universe.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Circa 2012 : A paper referencing 2000 guys (well thats community) mathematically deduced something from an experiment, huge publicity followed..

Circa 2013 : Nobel is awarded, seems in hurry.

Circa 2014 : Few mainstream guys published in mainstream journal..that wow 2012 declaration may be or may not be..

So C'maaaaaaaan !! The world or especially 'some scientific community' is passing through a phase where they have been infected by this virus of materialism, careerism, fund inducing and publicity seeking. And this 'some scientific community' certainly includes GR mathematicians cum pseudo Physicists, String Guys, & QM/SM guys....(of course not all)

Take this GW detection....template matching = mastery of computer manipulations........This detection based on template matching is doubtful till they receive any collateral evidence, which they have not. None will get Nobel for this, let me assure you, the discovery certainly qualifies for Nobel, but because of trust deficit this will not be awarded for this....won't that give you a clue ?

 

After [edit] it has become passable, otherwise it was reflcting very poorly about your scientific acumen.....See those two BHs 1.3 bly does not really affect us, the probability of next prime number ending with 1,3,7,9 does not affect us, proof or no proof of Fermats last theorem does not affect us...so why bother about them too...the list is endless, but then science does not choose what affects us and what does not....poorly framed by you in order to get some brownie points ?

I am interested in that graph, I have tried, I could not find it...pl provide if you can, that will be some content from you.

 

Since BB effect, which could have caused brightness in the night sky, is sorted out by extreme red shifting of that light and subsequent CMBR detection...so let us see how CMBR fairs....

1. The present detection of CMBR is a perfect Black Body radiation curve, it matches excellently with the Black Body radiation theory, with insignificant error bars.

2. The question is was the initial emission (whenever and whatever it was, whether at t = o or at t = 380000 years or t = some other figure) from a Black Body ? And if it was so, what was that Black Body ? [If possibility can we avoid discusing that singulaity of spacetime at t = 0, simply because anything can be associated with that to get out from under.]

3. I am not sure, I am yet to find out, but a sensible question is, will a Black Body radiation fit the curve even after such extreme red shift ?

 

Ah. OK. Very different take on it.

I will have the thread moved to the CT forum where it belongs.
There it will get the treatment it needs.

 

The God does seem to take great pains to dismiss empirical cosmology while asking a question completely within its bailiwick.

Kudos to exchemist and origin for posts #4 & #5.

It would be nice for someone to do calculations in thread, but since Olber's assumptions of an infinite, static, eternal Euclidean universe are experimentally and observationally disfavored, we must move beyond "why is the sky dark" to "why is the sky as dark as it is in detail" and such details will include Big Bang optical effects causing distant galaxies to be dimmer both by red shift and causing them to take up more angular measure than if the universe weren't expanding.

The God is required to support all future posts on the this subject of cosmology with citations for each contested factual claim. For example in post #10 it is claimed that the only possible solution is Big Bang cosmology which naturally gives a cosmological redshift to distant galaxies, so The God contradicts his assertion in post #1 that there is no agreement.

The God is required to calculate what a redshifted black body curve is and to test if that shifted curve is still a black body curve.

 

No. I'm not going to put any more effort into other avenues while you continue to ignore the fact that your request for how to address the basic/standard paradox as pertains to Andromeda (given by you in post #10) was fulfilled in post #28:

You need to prove that you actually want to figure Olbers' paradox out and start doing so real work toward that (this should take about 3 minutes), not just keep leading us on argumentative wild goose chases.

I would be delighted to assist you in solving this very relevant and very easy problem *you* proposed, to help you learn why the sky isn't extremely bright. Is that not why you are here?

That said, FYI, all of the questions you asked in post #66 are answered in the wiki article on the CMBR. You should read it and get back to us with your updated understanding.

 

[delete]

 

A gravity wave detector that was sensitive enough to provide data on a recent black hole merge hints at a more ominous solution to Olber's paradox.

Perhaps the reason the sky is dark is that there are more black hole mergers than there are stars. How could we know?

 

No. Black holes don't eat their way through clusters of stars.

 

I hope you are right. The evolution of stars and the populations we can actually observe say this is probably the case, but is there any scenario in which the population of non-luminous objects might be much greater than we expect?

No science I know of can estimate the ages of black holes once they have formed, and stars that are massive enough can collapse whether they have ample fuel reserves or not. I don't think it can even be justified to speculate about the nature of what we can never see based on what we can. For the first time in the history of science, we just watched a pair of binary black holes collapse into one, and it only took about o.1 seconds. How many times would 0.1 seconds fit into the current age of the known universe? What is the estimated volume of space/sensitivity of the detector that can be effectively surveyed? Interpolations are almost always more trustworthy than extrapolations on either end of the science we know anything about.

The Big Bang is another example of science run off the end of the rails in terms of extrapolating science we don't yet know that cannot be accomplished by any means other than indefinitely suspending the science previously considered established. and so the conservation of energy in connection with the Big Bang must be jettisoned. Making the expansion or inflation periods much shorter is of course a solution, but time dilates at those energies, begging the question, BB or expansion was seen (or more to the point, timed) relative to what, exactly? And then the theory basically segues back to Steady State. Funny, if this was not supposed to represent science. A Steady State universe explains Olber's paradox quite neatly, by means of my previous post. If there is no limit placed on the age of the universe, Olber's paradox makes perfect sense.

Another strategy for getting rid of the conservation of energy is by manipulating scales and refusing to talk about the dynamics other than on a quantum level. Both strategies are tantamount to, if not outright fraud.

More gravity wave detections is a step in the right direction in both cases. But you can't have it both ways; either you do science or else exploit your imaginations for a living. Make a choice. Fantasy is the choice to forego the science.

 

Luminous or not, we can measure its mass and its effect on nearby stars and galaxies.

 

I and some others, including Steven Hawking, do not think that true.

You start with zero energy and divide into two equal (in magnitude) parts. One positive and associated with normal matter and the other negative and associated with "dark energy." In some of his simplified talks for people like me, he uses the analology of seeing a huge pile of dirt (and not noting the hole it came from). I. e. the total energy of the universe is still zero as it was in the begining. Conservation of energy is alive and well, thank you.

 

So, we can't use science to test and push the boundaries of the unknown? Science is fit for exploring only the known?

A million scientist's lives are a lie.

 

Conservation of energy, like many conservation laws, is (1) derived from a continuous symmetry in the laws of physics, specifically that the laws of physics have a time-translation symmetry. In General Relativity, this is going to be tricky as (2) General Relativity has a different understanding of time than other physical theories and therefore will have a different understanding of energy. (3) There is such a thing as an energy pseudo-tensor which is conserved, but like Newtonian total energy, it doesn't correspond to any quantity that can be measured and is in some ways an artifact of the conventions we choose when we talk about a system.

Simple cases are space-times which are asymptotically flat because they allow us to talk about energy and time as it is defined far away from the curved bits and static space-times since they don't change with time and thus have a simple time-symmetry. But cosmological expansion is neither. Nevertheless if one is willing to talk about gravitational energy pseudo-tensors, total energy does not change with cosmological expansion. Energy lost in Friedmann-Robertson-Walker spacetimes as the inflight radiation redshifts is balanced by additional gravitational energy.

But from points (1) and (2) there is no trivial discrediting of Big Bang cosmology from conservation of energy arguments. The Big Bang is an empirical fact so, by definition, successful cosmological theories have to explain its empirical basis in detail.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

But (3) isn't the only way to resolve (1) and (2), one may say that the concept of time in GR is so different that necessarily one should not equate any quantity in GR as "total energy" and thus throw out "energy" conservation laws. There are still plenty of meaningful replacements in GR like the Bianchi identities, but they require you to become a GR scholar, not a GR dilettante, to comprehend. As long as you embrace only a pop-physics level of discussion, saying "energy is not conserved in general relativity*" is like waving a red flag in front of a bull and with nearly equal utility to physics.

But as long as cranks and crackpots and autodidacts insist on being dilettantes instead of principled and intellectually honest scientists they are going to cling to misplaced outrage and empty self-righteous claims that utterly miss the point.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/

http://web.archive.org/web/20070703081157/http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/HTML/wrong.html

 

Of course there is.

E (total, before the Big Bang) = E (total, after the Big Bang)

Or is that argument considered a little too classical? Neglect gravity (if you consider it not to be an energy conserving force) and consider uniform distributions of energy in space before and after the BB, whatever that means. It is quite trivial, I would agree. That however does not make it a relation not to be reckoned with because it is inconvenient.

I'm not arguing that it cannot be explained; only that it typically isn't, for whatever reason(s).

The biggest reason this relation is rejected by some scientists and a great many laymen is trivial also:

E (G-d, forever) = infinity (non conservative)

I challenge you to comment on that, other than to point out it was not arrived at by means of the scientific method, the way energy conservation was.

 

You've ignored point (2) therefore have marked yourself as intellectually dishonest and fueled by outrage and not scientific reasoning. The Big Bang model says nothing about time (or energy) before the Big Bang.

Indeed, the very notion of "before" the Big Bang requires a notion of time outside the framework of General Relativity and therefore outside the scope of mainstream Big Bang cosmology.

You also have ignored point (1) in that you did not define or calculate either quantity in your equation and cannot demonstrate either is different than zero.

Thus you have ignored the greater part of my post to focus on a triviality which is far more a demonstration of your status as GR dilettante than a serious critique of Big Bang cosmology. For comparison, look at the linked page: http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/public/bb_problems.html Those are nine real topics of research that don't discredit the Big Bang model but indicate areas where our understanding may be improved over time.

 

Am I missing some subtlety?

The standard model does not assert that The Big Bang Theory abides by the principle of conservation of energy. CoE applies only the the universe after TBB.