Banned
How s-l-o-w-l-y do you want me to type this??????You said you didn't know what olbers paradox is. Then you said you did, and you were there when Olber "paradoxed" it.
Olber's paradox and OBLER's paradox are completely different things!!!
I K-N-O-W what O-L-B-E-R-S Paradox is. What I said is I don't K-n-o-w what O-b-l-e-r-s paradox is. I mean't I don't K-N-O-W W-H-A-T O-B-L-E-R-S paradox is. You see, they are N-O-T T-H-E S-A-M-E thing. Is that slow enough for you????/
Established Member
Jerry, as far as I can tell, isn't saying that the paradox you describe has been declared before. He's just saying that you seem to have arrived at it in a similar way to how Dirac arrived at his. So quit the wounded-martyr act, and read what he's actually saying, instead of what would be the worst way possible to take it.Originally Posted by lyndonashmore
Banned
[/quote]He's just saying that you seem to have arrived at it in a similar way to how Dirac arrived at his. So quit the wounded-martyr act, and read what he's actually saying, instead of what would be the worst way possible to take it.
see the replies to jerry's post and see how they took it! "stolen" is one of the posts. One week jerry, no more.
Established Member
.
Jebus, make up your mind...
Established Member
Have you ever farted in a tornado?
Have you done research on this?
Is it anything like farting in a hot-tub?
lmfao
Banned
Only way I know to get your own back!!!Have you ever farted in a tornado?
Have you done research on this?
Is it anything like farting in a hot-tub?
lmfao
Banned
[/quote]Jebus, make up your mind...
I know that mark twain said he could not respect a man who only knew one way to spell a word, but all I am asking is, what is OBLER's paradox. Dakini, ask your dad.
Established Member
Huh?? My own what? To retrieve my own fart? To cover my butt?
I'm confused. :-k
Established Member
Lyndon, you should cool down a bit. I think Jerry was probably trying to put your model in a good light. If there are apologies due, I'm afraid they're from you.
Established Member
It is a common mispelling of "Olbers' Paradox". One so frequent, I didn't even notice it.
I'm still impressed that you were around when good ol' Obler was paradoxing.
And just to confirm the mispelling, I Googled "obler's paradox", and the first thing that came up was: The MadSci Network Q&A
So, I can see how interested you were in learning something "new" here, LALA.Olbers' paradox, simply stated, is "Why is the sky dark at night?" (By the way, note the spelling of "Olbers"; this has to be the most misspelled name of all time!)
Established Member
this is why i said that you were calling people names. you're not acting much like a good scientist, but then when have you ever.
Established Member
*sigh* my dad is a biochemist... i brought him up because he's dealt with outlandish claims from pseudoscientists and frauds and he said tha tyour website had all the calling cards of being written by such a person.
he also knows a pointless coincidence that doesn't mean a thing when he sees one, and he's a good enough of a scientist to know that you can't arbitrarily divide by units for no reason other than to make them fit.
Established Member
Eh, it's the same ol' same ol', dakini. "If you disagree with what I say, it's because you're closed minded. If I disagree with what you say, it's because you're dumb."
Order of Kilopi
So you were being petty? You obviously knew he meant Olber's paradox. Its hardly relevant to the validity of the arguments in his paper that "Olbers" is incorrectly spelled.LA: Now I am going to type this slowly because it is absolutely obvious that some of you out there cannot read fast.
I know what Olber's paradox is, I was there when he paradoxed it. In jerry's paper he refers not to Olber's paradox but to OBLER's paradox - all the time. So why attack me? Read his paper, be intelligent for a change.
He didn't attack you. He made some points RE your paradox. He gave you some useful suggestions. Arguments against your ideas are not personal attacks.LA: Secondly, I had no intention of attacking Jerry until he attacked me. But people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Established Member
Lyndon, you still haven't said how you were alive in 1826.
Emphasis mine.
BTW, just because Mark Twain would respect you for making up words, doesn't mean I have to.
Established Member
As this has already degenerated into the Pedantry World Cup, I'd like to be the first to point out that it's neither Obler's Paradox nor Olber's Paradox. It's Olbers' Paradox.
Established Member
Touche!
Of course, I'm not sticking on the spelling point. I want to see how he was alive in 1826. Maybe we have another "John Titor" on our hands.
Established Member
I'm, admittedly, interested in what the verb "to paradox" means exactly. If I were to be both solid and fluid at the same time, would I be paradoxing? Or would I just be glass...?
Established Member
Lyndon, I'm disappointed you've been around so long, and it's only now that you've come up with this worthless 'paradox.'
Or were you 'paradoxing' it at the same time as Obler (sic), and have waited till now to share it with us via the intarweb (sic)?
Order of Kilopi
Yes, precisely. If you put parachutes on a couple of Dirac's terms, Out pops Lyndon's observation. Last time I checked I am not anyone's fact checker: A job I would fail miserably at, so if you won't go to Peebles and check it yourself Lyndon, find some hungry grad student to chase it down for you. I do happen to have another slightly different version sitting on my desk: Http://bourabai.narod.ru/universum.htm. It seems a lot of calculators have those same three keys.Jerry, as far as I can tell, isn't saying that the paradox you describe has been declared before. He's just saying that you seem to have arrived at it in a similar way to how Dirac arrived at his. So quit the wounded-martyr act, and read what he's actually saying, instead of what would be the worst way possible to take it.
The irony is, I agree with you. I think there is a good probability there is something meaniful here, so did Mach & Hoyle & it still costs Jim Peebles a lot of sleep. But you should at least take a look at Dirac's and Mach's derivations, probably Narlikars too, he gives it a pretty fair treatment. If you can answer at least a couple of Peebles' arguments we will all be happy. Really.
Established Member
I think that Edward Harrison has already solved this paradox even for static universe. I tried to find some web resources on this, but there's not much. It is briefly mentioned in this paper, here's quote:
If that doesn't work, then what about black holes? In every direction you look you eventually see a surface of a star OR a surface of a black hole, and black holes are quite good radiation blockers, I think.Harrison [6] suggested that the paradox does not exist even in the context of a classical Universe, in the framework of which it was conceived, because there are too few stars and their lifetimes are too short. In other words the Universe does not contain enough energy to produce a bright sky.
Established Member
except, if a star is between the BH and us, the light isn't blocked. While if there is a star between us and the other star, its just brighter (unless its an actual eclipse).
Now, Harrison's answer assumes the universe is finite, a valid solution.
I don't agree that the paradox doesn't hold in the Classical Universe in which it was concieved because: 1) The universe was eternal and 2) infinite in that conception.
Harrison is merely stating that if it is finite, then the paradox doesn't exist, something the scientific community came to realize a long time ago.
Established Member
Ari, the paper you linked to by Arpino and Scardigli could be useful for readers who are unfamiliar with Olbers paradox, but they have made some rather serious errors. They refer to Edward Harrison's work, as you've quoted. Harrison considered the problem within the Big Bang model, and concluded that universal expansion does not account for darkness at night. Rather, it is the finiteness of the cosmos in time and space which is responsible in the BB model.
Harrison discusses the problem at length in the interesting book Darkness at Night. This book gives a nice history of the problem. But he misses the boat where the static model is concerned. To understand why, think of the analogous 'paradox', for those living in a big city, of why is the city quiet at night. Think of all the noise from traffic, sirens , etc, pouring in from miles around the poor sleeper. Why does it all not build up to a deafeining noise? The answer of course is that the energy of the sound waves dissipates in the air, ultimately producing much lower-frequency waves (a 'hum') and heating of the air. Same thing in the static model - the starlight from far away redshifts and the energy turns up in the CMBR, the background hum of the universe. [As I pointed out above, the CMBR also redshifts, but is continuously replenished]
Neither Harrison nor the authors of the paper put this in a proper context for the static model.
Moderator
I hate to jump in so late, but if this really is a summation of Lyndon's Paradox (and it seems to be), then he really should credit my college roommate with its discovery.
In 1970 he introduced me to The Burnop Factor. Simply stated, you run the calculations and then divide by an appropriate number/units to derive the right answer. He had used this since high school, but had refined it in engineering college.
I used it on a homework assignment once and received 8 out of 10 points. The TA noted that I got the right answer, but he couldn't understand the calculations.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov
Moderation will be in purple.
Rules for Posting to This Board
Established Member
Sort of akin to just randomly dropping things, isn't it? I know in my EM exam on Tuesday, I simply decided that a factor of epsilon1/epislon2 no longer needed to exist because it made my answer incorrect...
Order of Kilopi
I don't think it can quite be this simple: The spectral distribution of the CMB is wrong for redshifted stellar light. A heat analogy of the city is better: The city cools at night because the heat shuffles off into the sky, but if we trapped it in some way, the city would just keep getting hotter. If you make the universe infinite, you have the same problem. There is a heat sink: black holes, but they don't seem to be distributed widely enough, and don't have the right band width to prevent a rise of thermal energy. Or do they?
That being said, the Big Bang CMB solution is no longer palatable either. Specifically, there is way too much structure - everyone agrees this should create much greater reverbs in the CMB than we observe, and we spent millions of dollars trying to find them. To mitigate this, the WMAP cosmologists used the accelerating 'dark energy' siphoned out of the supenova attenuation factors by Perlmutter. But now Tonry and Riess say the acceleration ended...This launches the WMAP cosmology off the end of the diving board, and there is no water in the pool.
Established Member
Let me try another analogy. Take an oven for instance. It has point sources of heat (the heating elements) but there are leaks for heat to escape (the door, etc.) The combined result is that the oven temperature rises to a stable temperature and the radiation should be in the form of blackbody radiation.I don't think it can quite be this simple: The spectral distribution of the CMB is wrong for redshifted stellar light. A heat analogy of the city is better: The city cools at night because the heat shuffles off into the sky, but if we trapped it in some way, the city would just keep getting hotter. If you make the universe infinite, you have the same problem. There is a heat sink: black holes, but they don't seem to be distributed widely enough, and don't have the right band width to prevent a rise of thermal energy. Or do they?
Now for the universe in a static model, we also have sources (the stars) and we also have a sink (the redshift effect). The redshifted energy must go back into gravitational energy and ultimately the regeneration of light elements. Since the universe has been doing this an infinite amount of time in a static model, I don't see why it also would not have acquired a stable blackbody spectrum too. Ned Wright argues that the CMBR cannot be redshifted starlight. True enough, but neither is the oven blackbody radiation redshifted thermal radiation from the heating elements.
They'll always find a way to add water!That being said, the Big Bang CMB solution is no longer palatable either. Specifically, there is way too much structure - everyone agrees this should create much greater reverbs in the CMB than we observe, and we spent millions of dollars trying to find them. To mitigate this, the WMAP cosmologists used the accelerating 'dark energy' siphoned out of the supenova attenuation factors by Perlmutter. But now Tonry and Riess say the acceleration ended...This launches the WMAP cosmology off the end of the diving board, and there is no water in the pool.
Banned
What planet are you on Jerry? Would everyone please turn to page 9 and you will see beyond any doubt, that it was I who posted the bourabai site as being of interest to you all - and here is Jerry recommending it to me as if it were his own idea!!! Now who is not being original?Yes, precisely. If you put parachutes on a couple of Dirac's terms, Out pops Lyndon's observation. Last time I checked I am not anyone's fact checker: A job I would fail miserably at, so if you won't go to Peebles and check it yourself Lyndon, find some hungry grad student to chase it down for you. I do happen to have another slightly different version sitting on my desk: Http://bourabai.narod.ru/universum.htm. It seems a lot of calculators have those same three keys.
You will also be pleased to know that I don't need a grad student, I have all the above references and many more besides.
But really Jerry, we are on the same side(ish). You can easily put some cross sections into your Creil stuff and work it out from start to finish. Maybe you should get a hungry grad student to do it for you.
Established Member
you still havent' told me how you saw Olber pose his paradox in ~1826.
Banned
I am psychic, you see ricimer, in a pulsating universe we are collapsing so time is now going backwards. As a consequence I see into the future which is now the past.
Simple when someone explains it to you, aint it.
Posting Permissions
