![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOaWQ6oF0b3rbgE9-ox8eg9AvlJzKHlUMeXRiiwCMfu0XL1N7BhgynlMiFX0zMd8QsYh5uVUL5aPBR9Dn9jWM4i6iFH9MDx3JhnfER-i4zDV7fZakd48ull9Cj1MHxXluKamaKdL3Fqley28yiz_ZicdwFRTo_IPR4fBAJM6rwoHZ4HbpTjA_qPihtS_Se/w419-h415/20230313%20Galaxy%20interdistance.jpg)
Intergalactic distance unchanged over time. Photo credit: Giles.[1]
Another great question from George
Coyne:
“In case any of your readers are not
familiar with Olbers' paradox (a.k.a. Olbers and Chseauz's paradox), it says
that "the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an
infinite and eternal and static universe. In the hypothetical case that the
universe is static, homogenous at a large scale, and populated by an infinite
number of stars, any line of sight from Earth must end at the surface of a star
and hence the night sky should be completely illuminated and very bright. This
contradicts the observed darkness and non-uniformity of the night sky."
(Wikipedia)
Neil deGrasse Tyson discusses the
paradox in this video stating that if the universe is infinite then without
expansion the sky would be bright at night:
https://www.facebook.com/watch?v=1000071988217197
Using your model of a non-expanding
infinite universe, what is your solution to Olbers' paradox?”
[GB: First of all, I reject
Wikipedia’s interjecting the word “static” in their explanation of Olbers’s
Paradox. The Infinite Universe is not static. Every portion of it is in motion
with respect to other portions. Second of all, the regressive interpretation of
the so-called “Paradox” (which it is not) is based on an idealization.
Idealizations often are useful, but they are not reality. In this case, Tyson,
and others before him, use Einstein’s false assumption light was a massless
particle containing perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through
perfectly empty space. There is no evidence for perfectly empty space.
Einstein’s Untired Light Theory is false and unprecedented. Nothing travels from
point A to point B without losing energy.
There is no way for anything,
including light waves or Einstein’s magical light particles, to travel an
infinite distance without losing energy. We see this as a result of Zwicky’s
Tired Light Theory[2],
which is why the cosmological redshift increases with distance. Redshifted
waves have less energy than when they were emitted from distant stars. By the
time much of the light from the infinite number of stars in the Infinite
Universe reaches us, it has an equilibrium redshift of z=1089, as mentioned in
last week’s post.
Although this does not “prove” the
universe is infinite any more than does the discovery of the 20 trillion
galaxies estimated from the JWST photos. But it does get ever closer and those
data are from real objects, and not dependent on an ideal particle traveling
through ideal perfectly empty space. Rank idealist Tyson’s claim that Olbers
proves the universe is expanding is just as moribund as it ever was. On top of
that, the figure above shows no expansion between galaxies with time. This is an
observation we consider to be one of the falsifications
of the Big Bang Theory.
Here is another chance for readers
to choose between fundamental assumptions that are rational (science) or irrational
(religion).]
PSI Blog 20241014
Thanks for reading
Infinite Universe Theory! On Medium.com you can subscribe for free to receive
new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.” There you can support PSI financially by
clapping 50 times and responding with your questions.
[1] Giles, Douglas, 2023, What if the universe is NOT
expanding? Inserting Philosophy, Medium.com, Accessed 20230616
[https://gborc.com/Giles].
[2] Zwicky, F., 1929, On the Redshift of Spectral Lines
Through Interstellar Space: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v.
15, no. 10, p. 773–779. [http://www.pnas.org/content/15/10/773.short].