JWST Dumps Olbers’s Paradox and Confirms Infinite Universe Theory

PSI Blog 20221205 JWST Dumps Olbers’s Paradox and Confirms Infinite Universe Theory

 

The notion that light could travel nearly infinite distances without losing energy is old-fashioned idealism.

Light from distant galaxies loses energy over distance, in direct contradiction of Olbers's speculation.

From George Coyne[1]:

 

You may find that commenting on Olbers's paradox is an appropriate topic. One of the problems that I notice in the paradox, is the assumption that the universe is static and homogeneous at a large scale. Could you comment on why your infinite universe model does not result in a completely bright night sky?

 

From Wikipedia: "Olbers's paradox, also known as the dark night sky paradox, is an argument in astrophysics and physical cosmology that says that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe. In the hypothetical case that the universe is static, homogeneous 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.

  

The darkness of the night sky is one of the pieces of evidence for a dynamic universe, such as the Big Bang model. That model explains the observed non-uniformity of brightness by invoking expansion of the universe, which increases the wavelength of visible light originating from the Big Bang to microwave scale via a process known as redshift. The resulting microwave radiation background has wavelengths much longer (millimeters instead of nanometers), which appears dark to the naked eye and bright for a radio receiver."

 

[GB: George, thanks for the great question.

I included this problem in my Blog on Paradox Resolution. In short, paradoxes are resolved by finding the erroneous underlying assumptions.

 

The night sky in the Infinite Universe is dark because light from distant galaxies loses energy over distance. Like his cosmogonical descendants, Olbers assumed that space was perfectly empty. That erroneous assumption was critical for Einstein’s “Untired Light Theory,” which is the foundation of the Big Bang Theory. As in the Wikipedia article, that idealistic nonsense still infects cosmology as well as physics.

 

In the real world, nothing, whether particle or wave, can travel from point A to point B without colliding with other things along the way. For light, this means a change from high-energy short wavelengths to low-energy long wavelengths. Given enough distance, this means light eventually reaches the infrared region (the electromagnetic radiation detected by the James Webb Space Telescope) and finally the really long wavelengths detected as the Cosmic Microwave Background.

 

This is irrefutable evidence for energy loss over distance and makes Olbers’s conjecture moot. The universal expansion ad hoc in the Wikipedia article won’t cut it. It is totally unneeded and appears there as the usual erroneous special pleading to save the faltering Big Bang Theory.

 

About the cosmogonical argument “the universe is static and homogeneous at a large scale”:

 

Two points:

1.    The universe is not static. Every portion of the universe is moving with respect to other portions. Is it dynamic? Yes. Is it evolving like the cosmogonists assume? No. Evolution is a property of each portion of the Infinite Universe, but it cannot be a property of the universe itself. The universal mechanism of evolution is univironmental determinism (what happens to a portion of the universe depends on the infinite matter within and without). Obviously, the Infinite Universe has no “without,” and thus cannot evolve as an entity, although the entities within are continually forming via convergence and dissipating via divergence.

2.    Nothing, including the Infinite Universe, is homogeneous at any scale. That statement is derived from the Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things). That is consupponible with the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). BTW: the homogeneity assumed by cosmogonists is sometimes called the “Cosmological Principle.” It is based on the Ninth Assumption of Religion, absolutism (Identities exist, that is, any two things may have identical characteristics). That seems necessary for their idea the universe exploded of nothing, or out of a mysterious “singularity.” In either case, no differentiation would be expected. The explosion would produce identical parts that later would combine as the hypothesized finite universe evolved. The principle is sometimes stated as “an observer's view of the universe depends neither on the direction in which he looks nor on his location.” You can dismiss that yourself by simply looking out your window. Cosmogonists would say you need a big enough scale. Sorry, but the space telescopes have already proven that no two directions in the universe are perfectly identical. Instead, each view is unique, having some characteristics that are similar and some characteristics that are dissimilar to all other views.]

 

---

[1] George is the Head of the Vancouver Regional Office of the Progressive Science Institute. He is the author of: Coyne, George, 2021, Notfinity Process: Matter in Motion (2nd ed.), JCNPS, 408 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/Notfinity21].

 

 To read this and its updates on Medium, click here.

 

On Medium.com you can read more than three essays monthly by joining for $5/month.

Half of your membership fee supports the endowment of the Progressive Science Foundation, which will continue advancing Infinite Universe Theory as the ultimate replacement of the Big Bang Theory. You’ll also get full access to every story on Medium. Just click here.

 

When on Medium, you can clap a lot of times to aid the foundation, follow me, and subscribe to get these weekly essays directly in your inbox.