Was there really a big bang? (and other questions)

[enigma_0Z]

This discussion started in this thread: http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/6...ng-energy.html

... just to recap ...

No, this doesn't sound elementary to me... as these are very "big" questions...

But, I'll do my best to reply clearly!

Originally Posted by the.matt View Post
This I am sure will come across as elementary, but if energy can neither be created or destroyed what would have triggered the big bang if it once was a inifinately small and or dense body at one time smaller than what an adom? an electron? I personally believe the ruberband theory answers that question i.e. the universe expands to maxmimum size based on the initial outward force untill it exhausts it's momentum then colapses in on it self untill once again it explodes outwards. so we are back to what triggered the expansion in the first place and what if there can be anything that is outside of the universe, and how many times would it be able to sustain this before losing steam, again energy lost that once was, lost in black hole? a parallel universe? is this really a plausable explanation, again if so where did they come from and what is they expand or cantract into and or created them???????????

Well sortof. Let me rephrase some things to ensure that we are on the same page...

1. If the big bang happened, then where did the energy come from--eg if energy is constant, where did it come from?
2. The motion of the universe seems to be of a rubberband motion, which would partially explain the big bang, but the question of where the energy came from (what started it) still remains.
3. How long would this run before losing steam?
4. And then what happens to the energy lost?

I'll answer #1 and 2 last...

In response to #3 and #4, when the universe expands--if it is expanding, we are converting Kinetic energy to Potential Gravitational energy--the further away from the center we are, the more potential energy (eg. no loss...). But, all of the (not dead) stars are burning--expending energy in the form of visible and invisible radition, expending energy in a theoretically closed system... which begs the question what happens to the energy expended by stars near the theoretical edge of the universe? Is it reflected by some sort of wall? I believe that the Universe is in fact infinite--the concept of what is beyond the edge of the universe eludes me, and I believe that there is no great and encompassing sphere (or disk?) that surrounds the Universe, as this is borowed from antiquated theories about the solar system. So all that "spare" radiation will be picked up somewhere--therefore energy (and mass) are conserved. Yet, if the Universe is infinite, then how can there be a center? I did, however state that the universe is expanding. Let me clarify that for this discussion. It appears to be expanding...

So then how do I explain the expansion motion that seems to readily apparent to mainstream astronomers? It is a heirarchy of orbits... let me explain. Nature, in every from (be it earthly or celestial) exhibits self-similarity in that smaller structures make similar larger structures. No where more evident is this, however, than outside of our tiny blue planet. The solar system is a disk of planets orbiting a star, which is orbiting a galaxy, which is orbiting other galaxies in a cluster, which is orbiting other clusters... can you see where I'm going? I believe that there are clusters and larger clusters of clusters and so on going on infinitely... and while this is a grandiose view, there has been nothing to disprove it... so is the Universe expanding? probably not. depending on where we're at in the solar system, it appears as though the planets are moving away from us... is is possible that rather than everything moving, we are simply moving through everything, and that the apparent red and blueshift is simply evidence of our motion, not expansion... (redshift where we've been as a galactic cluster cluster, and blue where we're heading...) Not only that, but not much in nature really travels in truly straight lines, nature prefers circles, so why would there be anything different out of our neighborhood (even galaxies are circular and spiral-shaped--are there any square galaxies???) Even the shape of an atom and it's electron spheres are, well, circular, and this is the most common structure in the Universe...

So, back to #1, and #2... I believe that the Big Bang did not happen, and while the rubberband theory makes sense as a generalization of the Big Bang, if there was no initial explosion, there's no real reason for the Universe to be expanding... What I believe is that the big bang theory was first, and then when people discovered red and blue shifted background radiation, they saw just what they wanted to: The Big Bang... then people (like you and me) said, "Wait! What happens when it stops?" Along comes the rubberband theory...

After evaluating the possible alternatives, I am then left with one logical solution: the Universe was created, not exploded into existence...

...

Sorry for the lengthy reply, but hopefully this answers the question...

And you think that an edge to the universe is "borrowed from antiquated theories"? Your thinking here is all pretty antiquated. I think the original poster actually wants a reputable answer, as this is the "astronomy", not ATM, section.

So then... I have the following questions:

Are these ideas really "Antiquated"?

1. Was there really a big bang?
2. How can the universe have an end?
3. Could the background red/blueshift simply be evidence of motion, not expansion?

DISCUSS!!!

[korjik]

This is against the mainstream. Please read the rules for creating a thread in this forum.

[Serenitude]

DISCUSS!!!

Are you prepared to defend?

[John Mendenhall]

3. Could the background red/blueshift simply be evidence of motion, not expansion?

What blue shift? To the best of my knowledge, all cosmologically distant objects are red shifted.

[mugaliens]

No one knows for sure, but from I know, it was more like either a rapid expansion of the universe itself, or a rip/tear in the fabric of space-time which allowed matter to stream in over a period of time heading in all directions.

[korjik]

What blue shift? To the best of my knowledge, all cosmologically distant objects are red shifted.

Andromeda is the only large galaxy that is blue shifted.

[enigma_0Z]

This is against the mainstream. Please read the rules for creating a thread in this forum.

Done. Did I break a rule?

Are you prepared to defend?

Yes.

What blue shift? To the best of my knowledge, all cosmologically distant objects are red shifted.

... If this is true, then (almost) everything is moving away from us?

No one knows for sure, but from I know, it was more like either a rapid expansion of the universe itself, or a rip/tear in the fabric of space-time which allowed matter to stream in over a period of time heading in all directions.

I'm not sure I undertand what you mean... If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the Big Bang was a rapid expansion of the universe itself, and a tear in space-time allowed matter to stream in from somewhere else?

Andromeda is the only large galaxy that is blue shifted.

Which means that it is moving towards us, right?

[Cougar]

...while this is a grandiose view, there has been nothing to disprove it...

Can you prove that the universe was not created by a blue genie? It means nothing to say "you can't disprove my idea." What matters is whether YOU can provide any scientific support for your theory.

By the way, analogies are sometimes helpful in trying to understand a concept, but they in NO WAY provide evidence to scientifically support an idea.

[Jim]

Enigma_OZ, just so we're all on the same page, are you proposing an ATM idea? If so, can you state it briefly?

[enigma_0Z]

(I hope that there aren't too many theories, they all are related)

Here's what the ATM idea is (for clarification)

1. There was no big bang
1a. Question/Theory: If there was a big bang, where did the mass/energy come from (conservation of mass and energy)
2. "Evidence" of big bang via background redshift is simply evidence that we're moving
2a. Theory: In the Atom, Solar System, Galaxy, and between galaxies, things orbit each other, therefore background redshift is simply us (as a super-super cluster or whatever) orbiting something else
3. Theory: The uniiverse has no end (eg. it is infinite), so therefore mass and energy are conserved

That's about it. if I can re-phrase it to make it clearer, let me know (i'll edit this into the first post later tonite)

Can you prove that the universe was not created by a blue genie? It means nothing to say "you can't disprove my idea." What matters is whether YOU can provide any scientific support for your theory.

By the way, analogies are sometimes helpful in trying to understand a concept, but they in NO WAY provide evidence to scientifically support an idea.

You are entirely correct. The reason I said that was to make a point--alot of people tell me that the big bang is true, yet there is no real proof that it actually happened. And I do know that I have the burden of proof, but I've already convinced myself--ask me questions.

But to provide reasonable doubt, things in the Universe are not entirely random... Earth's orbit is nearly perfect, Jupiter protects us from big asteroids, and our tiny blue planet is the only one that we've (ever) found that has liquid, solid, and gaseous water--HOW can this be random (as in a big bang). In contrast, if everything was truly random, the Earth would have a highly eccentric orbit (like a comet, or some extrasolar planets)

[iantresman]

There was no Big Bang. If the evidence is interpreted incorrectly, then it appears there was a Big Bang.

• You can't get your vacation clothes in your suitcase, so to think you can fit the contents of the Universe into something smaller than your suitcase is preposterous.
• We are lead to believe that nothing escapes a black hole, so to consider that the Mother of All black holes (the moment before the Big Bang) somehow overcame the mother of all gravitation fields, is preposterous.
• To make the Big Bang work, we need (a) An action without a cause (b) a means to create "space"... from nothing (c) black holes, (d) dark matter (e) dark energy (f) neutron stars.
  
  Except in the notebook of a theoretical physicist, none of these are observed in the laboratory. How many other hypotheses are based on half a dozen unproven hypotheses?

[Nereid]

(I hope that there aren't too many theories, they all are related)

Here's what the ATM idea is (for clarification)

1. There was no big bang
1a. Question/Theory: If there was a big bang, where did the mass/energy come from (conservation of mass and energy)
2. "Evidence" of big bang via background redshift is simply evidence that we're moving
2a. Theory: In the Atom, Solar System, Galaxy, and between galaxies, things orbit each other, therefore background redshift is simply us (as a super-super cluster or whatever) orbiting something else
3. Theory: The uniiverse has no end (eg. it is infinite), so therefore mass and energy are conserved

That's about it. if I can re-phrase it to make it clearer, let me know (i'll edit this into the first post later tonite)



You are entirely correct. The reason I said that was to make a point--alot of people tell me that the big bang is true, yet there is no real proof that it actually happened. And I do know that I have the burden of proof, but I've already convinced myself--ask me questions.

But to provide reasonable doubt, things in the Universe are not entirely random... Earth's orbit is nearly perfect, Jupiter protects us from big asteroids, and our tiny blue planet is the only one that we've (ever) found that has liquid, solid, and gaseous water--HOW can this be random (as in a big bang). In contrast, if everything was truly random, the Earth would have a highly eccentric orbit (like a comet, or some extrasolar planets)

Please provide, in quantitative form (to at least an OOM (order of magnitude) level), a scientific explanation for the following:

1. Olbers' paradox
2. The blackbody SED (spectral energy distribution) of the CMB
3. The (primordial) abundance of the light nuclides H, D, ³He, ⁴He, and ⁶Li
4. The Hubble redshift-distance relationship (including the thousands of observations of high-z Ia SNe)
5. The angular power spectrum of the CMB
6. The matter power spectrum, P(k).

Please be sure that your scientific explanation does not incorporate any component of any LCDM model.

[Nereid]

There was no Big Bang. If the evidence is interpreted incorrectly, then it appears there was a Big Bang.

• You can't get your vacation clothes in your suitcase, so to think you can fit the contents of the Universe into something smaller than your suitcase is preposterous.
• We are lead to believe that nothing escapes a black hole, so to consider that the Mother of All black holes (the moment before the Big Bang) somehow overcame the mother of all gravitation fields, is preposterous.
• To make the Big Bang work, we need (a) An action without a cause (b) a means to create "space"... from nothing (c) black holes, (d) dark matter (e) dark energy (f) neutron stars.

iantresman, can you please confirm my understanding of your three (ATM) claims?

1) ("preposterous"): argument from incredulity (no science involved)
2) ("the moment before the Big Bang"): strawman argument (asserts the scope of LCDM cosmological models is greater than it in fact is)
3) ("(a), (b), (c), (f)"): also a strawman argument.

Except in the notebook of a theoretical physicist, none of these are observed in the laboratory.

Just so that I'm quite clear on your claim here: are you claiming that the only objects which can be considered to have a physical existence are those which can be observed in an (earthly) lab? If not, then what are you claiming (wrt "observed in the laboratory", in general)?

How many other hypotheses are based on half a dozen unproven hypotheses?

What "hypothesis" are you referring to here (the first, not the second)?

What, in your view of cosmology as a science, constitutes proof of a hypothesis?

[iantresman]

1) ("preposterous"): argument from incredulity (no science involved)
2) ("the moment before the Big Bang"): strawman argument (asserts the scope of LCDM cosmological models is greater than it in fact is)
3) ("(a), (b), (c), (f)"): also a strawman argument

The dictionary defines "preposterous" as "completely contrary to nature, reason, or common sense".

My analogy of squeezing clothes into a suitcase was perhaps simplistic, but quite scientific. You can extend the analogy to the incompressibility of solids and liquids, and perhaps even to nuclear particles such as electrons, protons and neutrons. "A camel through the eye of a needle" springs to mind.

Every scientific theory which I am aware, and as far as I know is demonstrable, tells me that you can squeeze only so much into a pint pot.

The unscientific bit, is taking a bunch of observations, ignoring every known scientific theory, and claiming the Universe could fit through the proverbial needle... and then support it with even more hypotheticals.

So which is the "argument from incredulity"?

[Nereid]

1) ("preposterous"): argument from incredulity (no science involved)
2) ("the moment before the Big Bang"): strawman argument (asserts the scope of LCDM cosmological models is greater than it in fact is)
3) ("(a), (b), (c), (f)"): also a strawman argument

The dictionary defines "preposterous" as "completely contrary to nature, reason, or common sense".

My analogy of squeezing clothes into a suitcase was perhaps simplistic, but quite scientific. You can extend the analogy to the incompressibility of solids and liquids, and perhaps even to nuclear particles such as electrons, protons and neutrons. "A camel through the eye of a needle" springs to mind.

Every scientific theory which I am aware, and as far as I know is demonstrable, tells me that you can squeeze only so much into a pint pot.

The unscientific bit, is taking a bunch of observations, ignoring every known scientific theory, and claiming the Universe could fit through the proverbial needle... and then support it with even more hypotheticals.

So which is the "argument from incredulity"?

I assume that you have addressed only 1).

If so, please acknowledge (and address 2) and 3).

If not, please clarify your response wrt 2) and 3).

[Nereid]

The dictionary defines "preposterous" as "completely contrary to nature, reason, or common sense".

My analogy of squeezing clothes into a suitcase was perhaps simplistic, but quite scientific. You can extend the analogy to the incompressibility of solids and liquids, and perhaps even to nuclear particles such as electrons, protons and neutrons. "A camel through the eye of a needle" springs to mind.

Every scientific theory which I am aware, and as far as I know is demonstrable, tells me that you can squeeze only so much into a pint pot.

Are you familiar with General Relativity (GR)?

How familiar are you with the hundreds (thousands?) of tests of GR?

Quantitatively, please show how much can be squeezed into a pint pot, maintaining consistency with GR.

Please show - quantitatively - that LCDM models which require a hot, dense period in the very early history of the observable universe are inconsistent with GR.

The unscientific bit, is taking a bunch of observations, ignoring every known scientific theory, and claiming the Universe could fit through the proverbial needle... and then support it with even more hypotheticals.

So which is the "argument from incredulity"?

Please show - quantitatively - that analyses of observations of the CMB "ignor[e] every known scientific theory". You may choose any paper which reports such analyses, but I'd prefer that you use ones by the WMAP team.

[korjik]

The dictionary defines "preposterous" as "completely contrary to nature, reason, or common sense".

My analogy of squeezing clothes into a suitcase was perhaps simplistic, but quite scientific. You can extend the analogy to the incompressibility of solids and liquids, and perhaps even to nuclear particles such as electrons, protons and neutrons. "A camel through the eye of a needle" springs to mind.

Every scientific theory which I am aware, and as far as I know is demonstrable, tells me that you can squeeze only so much into a pint pot.

The unscientific bit, is taking a bunch of observations, ignoring every known scientific theory, and claiming the Universe could fit through the proverbial needle... and then support it with even more hypotheticals.

So which is the "argument from incredulity"?

Please use the theories you mention to figure out the maximum mass in a pint pot. I suggest using a pint as 500 ml of volume.

[iantresman]

Please use the theories you mention to figure out the maximum mass in a pint pot. I suggest using a pint as 500 ml of volume.

While chemists tell me that atoms fall apart when there is more than about a hundred neutrons, even if I assume the pint pot is full of neutrons, its mass does not exceed about 10¹⁵kg.... nine orders of magnitude smaller than the mass of the Earth.

I's sure that chemists would doubt you can get a pint pot full of neutrons, and it's still a billion times smaller than the mass of the Earth.

Add to that black holes, dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars and an action without a cause, Alice in Wonderland would have approved: she like to "believed in as many as six impossible things before breakfast".

[stutefish]

... Alice in Wonderland would have approved: she like to "believed in as many as six impossible things before breakfast".

Actually, it was the Red Queen, not Alice, who approved of believing impossible things before breakfast.

And you'd fit right into her court, as you must believe at least one of the things on your "impossible" list: Action without a cause. Or do you have a complete list of causes, going back infinitely beyond space and time, to explain the origin of the universe?

[ManInTheMirror]

Are you familiar with General Relativity (GR)?

How familiar are you with the hundreds (thousands?) of tests of GR?

Does the word "test" in that sentence include any type of control mechanism of any sort, is or this a "test" we have to put faith in at some point?

Please show - quantitatively - that LCDM models which require a hot, dense period in the very early history of the observable universe are inconsistent with GR.

According to Einstein himself, his addition of any sort of constant to GR was his greatest blunder. That would suggest to me that your Gumby Lambda thingamabob isn't consistent with GR according to the guy that wrote the theory. GR (as Einstein taught it) didn't make any reference to dark stuff nor does it say a word about inflation.

Did you guys (and gals) ever come up with a gram of dark matter or any controlled test to demonstrate it actually exists? How about inflation? If not, how in the world could anyone prove invisible forces (that no one can prove actually exists in the first place) are somehow inconsistent with GR? That's like asking him to demonstrate that a theory based on invisible potatoes and invisible unicorns is somehow inconsistent with GR (as Einstein taught it). Talk about impossible requests......

[R.A.F.]

...if everything was truly random, the Earth would have a highly eccentric orbit (like a comet, or some extrasolar planets)

Is there some reason why you would think that?

The development of planetary orbits is well understood...what you have said doesn't make sense.

[iantresman]

Actually, it was the Red Queen, not Alice, who approved of believing impossible things before breakfast.

I stand corrected.

And you'd fit right into her court, as you must believe at least one of the things on your "impossible" list: Action without a cause. Or do you have a complete list of causes, going back infinitely beyond space and time, to explain the origin of the universe?

You assume there was an origin. I think a Universe with, and without an origin, are equally incredible. I choose the one which doesn't break any laws of physics (ie. the one that doesn't try and squeeze the Universe into my suitcase, and spontaneously jumps out without cause).

[jybryce]

I think that the big bang theory is true but don't know much about it. I am using the guest account on windows because I forgot the password! It sucks!!!! So the reason we are here is because of the big bang. I don't know much so tell me in private message.

[enigma_0Z]

Is there some reason why you would think that?

The development of planetary orbits is well understood...what you have said doesn't make sense.

... And then, how is this understood?

Has anyone observed a planet (or solar system) forming?

And, there is there is reason:
I assume, first of all, that you are speaking of the nebular hypothesis

If (and I stress if) heavy elements are ejected from Super Novae, then these elements must form sparse clouds throughout the universe. These clouds, over an impossibly long time, gradually coalesce and rotate around a destination star (such as our sun), and eventually form rocky or gaseous (as in jovian) planets that are now conveinantly orbiting a star?

First of all, why then are all planets formed into a disk, rather than in several different orbits--if they were formed from a cloud, then the planets really were formed at the gravitational "hotspots"--where things were more dense. And then, in that case, we just happen to be lucky that we on our little blue planet are on a hostpitable planet?

Of course, this all happened after the supposed big bang, because the mass would have been moving waaay too fast to form disks and clouds anyway?

So then, please explain why Uranus has such an odd orientation, hot Jupiter planets, and what observational data actually supports the theory?

[enigma_0Z]

Please provide, in quantitative form (to at least an OOM (order of magnitude) level), a scientific explanation for the following:

1. Olbers' paradox
2. The blackbody SED (spectral energy distribution) of the CMB
3. The (primordial) abundance of the light nuclides H, D, ³He, ⁴He, and ⁶Li
4. The Hubble redshift-distance relationship (including the thousands of observations of high-z Ia SNe)
5. The angular power spectrum of the CMB
6. The matter power spectrum, P(k).

Please be sure that your scientific explanation does not incorporate any component of any LCDM model.

Olbers' paradox
While the universe may be infinite, we know that the further away the point of light is, the less light actually reaches us. To solve the problem, we have our (extreme?) light buckets, such as the Hubble. As we gather more light, we see more and more into the universe, and the deeper we see, the more we see. Simply put, there are alot of things that could happen to that light from the theoretical infinitely far away star before it reaches us:

1. There simply isn't enough light to detect with our current instrumentation
2. The light from these distant galaxies is likely further diminished by the exitance of dust lanes and nebulae

The blackbody SED (spectral energy distribution) of the CMB
Why couldn't this radiation be distributed from the infinite number of galaxies and stars in the Universe? In theory, it is evidence of the big bang, but could it also be that in theory, it is the distributed and diffused radiation from galaxies that we simply cannot observe as of now?

The abundance of the light nuclides H, D, ³He, ⁴He, and ⁶Li
Stars produce the lightest of elements until the later stages of their lives--solar wind? Furthermore, where has this been observed?

I do not have time to provide rebuttal to the rest right now, I'll post them later.

[Serenitude]

Does the word "test" in that sentence include any type of control mechanism of any sort, is or this a "test" we have to put faith in at some point?

You're obfuscating purposefully. Control mechanism in the most classical sense is impossible - we don't have another copy of the universe to compare it to. More pragmatic examples are difficult. But ultimately, the data either verifies or not. The tests confirm expected observations from GR. You deliberately control your wording to disingenously imply that the tests are inherently faulty, and instead must rely on "faith."

According to Einstein himself, his addition of any sort of constant to GR was his greatest blunder.

This is only part of the story...

That would suggest to me that your Gumby Lambda thingamabob

This is the logical fallacy known as the Appeal to Ridicule. Statement invalidated.

isn't consistent with GR according to the guy that wrote the theory. GR (as Einstein taught it) didn't make any reference to dark stuff nor does it say a word about inflation.

Einsein, while the creator, is not the only contributor to GR, as you well know. High-school students are taught some of the basic solutions contributed to GR, and it's classical offspring theories and models.

Did you guys (and gals) ever come up with a gram of dark matter or any controlled test to demonstrate it actually exists? How about inflation? If not, how in the world could anyone prove invisible forces (that no one can prove actually exists in the first place) are somehow inconsistent with GR? That's like asking him to demonstrate that a theory based on invisible potatoes and invisible unicorns is somehow inconsistent with GR (as Einstein taught it). Talk about impossible requests......

To my knowledge, no scientist on Earth has ever come up with a gram of matter from Pluto. Thankfully, science has other ways of verification. Is this so simple that you require an explanation, or is another example of deliberate obfuscation?

[Nereid]

Please provide, in quantitative form (to at least an OOM (order of magnitude) level), a scientific explanation for the following:

1. Olbers' paradox
2. The blackbody SED (spectral energy distribution) of the CMB
3. The (primordial) abundance of the light nuclides H, D, 3He, 4He, and 6Li
4. The Hubble redshift-distance relationship (including the thousands of observations of high-z Ia SNe)
5. The angular power spectrum of the CMB
6. The matter power spectrum, P(k).

Please be sure that your scientific explanation does not incorporate any component of any LCDM model.

Olbers' paradox
While the universe may be infinite, we know that the further away the point of light is, the less light actually reaches us. To solve the problem, we have our (extreme?) light buckets, such as the Hubble. As we gather more light, we see more and more into the universe, and the deeper we see, the more we see. Simply put, there are alot of things that could happen to that light from the theoretical infinitely far away star before it reaches us:

1. There simply isn't enough light to detect with our current instrumentation
2. The light from these distant galaxies is likely further diminished by the exitance of dust lanes and nebulae

The blackbody SED (spectral energy distribution) of the CMB
Why couldn't this radiation be distributed from the infinite number of galaxies and stars in the Universe? In theory, it is evidence of the big bang, but could it also be that in theory, it is the distributed and diffused radiation from galaxies that we simply cannot observe as of now?

The abundance of the light nuclides H, D, ³He, ⁴He, and ⁶Li
Stars produce the lightest of elements until the later stages of their lives--solar wind? Furthermore, where has this been observed?

I do not have time to provide rebuttal to the rest right now, I'll post them later.

Thanks for the swift response.

Unfortunately, the response does not address my post at all.

First, the response seems entirely devoid of anything quantitative.

Second, questions are not a scientific explanation.

If you require clarification, please ask for it.

If you do not know, or cannot answer, please say so.

I look forward to a post that is a direct response to mine.

[Svemir]

Why couldn't this radiation be distributed from the infinite number of galaxies and stars in the Universe?

You have to read this:
Can the CMBR be redshifted starlight
and all of N. Wrights tutorials and FAQs are obligatory reading before arguing against Bing Bang.
To make CMBR a light from stars you need an intermediate: "cosmic iron whiskers" or something else.(which implies more reding)
Another thing (if it's any help Enigma 0Z):
Olber's paradox (regarding light) has been (re)solved on several occasions also here, on the site.
Together with it goes any objection to "infinite" in Infinite Universe.
Bing Bang is also pledged with infinities (infinite density in the Bing Bang singularity, infinite volume/time on the other end due to accelerated expansion).
And never the less, the Gravitational Olber's paradox, which is the question from BigBang people to InfiniteUniverse people:
"Why the infinite universe does not colapse under the infinite amount of gravity?" The question implies that you assume (or know) that the range of gravity is infinite (!)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[iantresman]

Please provide, in quantitative form (to at least an OOM (order of magnitude) level), a scientific explanation for the following:
1. Olbers' paradox

Doesn't Olbers' paradox rely on some assumption? ie Infinite Universe, infinite number of stars, and uniformly filled? How do we tell whether those assumptions are valid, and what the implications if they are not?

I think most astronomers will agree that the Universe is not uniformly filled with stars, but they form galaxies, and even strings of galaxies.

Sorry, I don't know how to provide this in quantitative form, let alone work out an order of magnitude approximation for a set of assumptions.

[Nereid]

Doesn't Olbers' paradox rely on some assumption? ie Infinite Universe, infinite number of stars, and uniformly filled? How do we tell whether those assumptions are valid, and what the implications if they are not?

I think most astronomers will agree that the Universe is not uniformly filled with stars, but they form galaxies, and even strings of galaxies.

Sorry, I don't know how to provide this in quantitative form, let alone work out an order of magnitude approximation for a set of assumptions.

Indeed, it's too terse.

In modern, quantitative terms, something like: account for the observational fact that the (extra-terrestrial) night sky is no brighter than {insert values here, for wave bands from gamma rays to radio}.

The explicit exclusion is the CMB.

In the case of the optical waveband (say, broadband U, B, V, and R), the diffuse (non-point source) background light (away from the Milky Way bulge and ~5^o from the plane) is fainter than ~25 mag per square arcsec.