And it's completely wrong. This is the dumbest explanation ever. First if all light is just red shifted then you'd have an infinitely bright universe in the red light spectrum. Second, the reason the Universe is "dark" is solved by the Orchard Problem which you dumbazzes probably know nothing about. Even in an infinite forest most of the directions you look never sees a tree, and that probability increases the thinner the trees are. Because regardless if the forest is infinite most of the space is empty. Same with the fycking Universe. You dumb losers.
and yet it only explained why the paradox wasnt relevant as "well in reality things aren't the way we think it is and instead it's like this, where rules are in place that makes the things you would argue against this, actually invisible". Sounds like a kid reinventing reality in their game in order to keep control of the game.
Answer.... Universe is expanding Light's speed is constant There's actually more space than number of stars
4 роки тому+5
i read this in a book: Olber assumed that stars are evenly spread through out the universe. but all known stars are in galaxies, and galaxies are in clusters, which are in superclusters... and something like 99% of the universe is empty space between superclusters!
@@chitaena23 Go back to school. Better yet go back to Kindergarten and just start from the beginning. The kids could teach you a lot and you could teach them which crayons taste the best
@@chitaena23 Keep telling yourself that mate. What exactly are you awake to? You clearly don't even know what "immature" means. There's nothing immature about following something that makes logical sense to you. Even if it's wrong. You're not immature for believing in the flat earth. You're just uneducated and a bit (very) dumb. Ironically, it's you that has been manipulated and fallen into a belief system based on lies. You are the Dunning-Kruger effect incarnate
@@chitaena23 Okay well I sure don't want to help protect liars and thieves so please help me on my journey to find the truth. Enlighten me so that I can join you in the woke world. Answer this one simple question. It requires no science or anything that we could have been lied to about by whichever lizard people it is you believe in. How is it that we always see the same side of the moon no matter where we are on Earth? If you have an alternative explanation that works I am all ears. I don't want to believe the wrong thing so please, give me a plausible alternative to the globe that I am merely ignorant to. If you can't, don't feel the need to use the go to "do your own research" line that all you flat earth sheeple use, because that's not how truth seeking works. If you had an answer you would want to tell people. So you don't even have to worry about responding, just take a few seconds and think to yourself, "Huh, I actually can't do that one simple thing. It really doesn't require anything more than my own observations and some common sense so maybe I'm wrong." Just know that any response other than providing a reasonable explanation is admitting that you can't do it. That includes silence. The only way for you to not expose yourself as the ignorant fool that you are, is to give me an answer to a simple question. An added bonus for you is that in providing *an adequate* answer you get to expose me as the ignorant sheep.
Reminds me of Douglas Adams talking about what infinity looks like. He said something along the lines of "look at the night sky, at the blackness between stars. You can see infinitely far because there is nothing to block your gaze in that direction, but there's also nothing to see there. Just infinitely distant nothingness."
This is a great example of a very common misconception: treating infinity as a number. Infinity is a concept that can be imagined, neither concrete nor demonstrable. You can imagine abstract numbers that go on forever, but not physical objects. Neither stars, ping pong balls, nor Hydrogen atoms can exist to infinity. You say, there are infinity ping pong balls (PPBs) in existence. But I look and see that there is room in my house for at least a dozen more. There must, then, only be infinity minus 12 PPBs in existence. As long as there is room for more, and as long as there is physical matter that has not yet been used to make more PPBs, we have not yet reached infinity. Try to manufacture an infinity of any physical object and you will eventually use up all matter, and all space, in the process. Anything less is not yet infinity. So there.
David Henderson You actually taught me something in a UA-cam comment; you’re a miracle worker! Great response and I really do appreciate you taking the time to write it.
So i'm trying to understand (correct if i'm wrong) Olber's paradox proves That the univers is In fact finite Becaus if it was Infinite there WILL BE an Infinite amount of stars forming which means the crowded stars WILL radiate Infinite amount of light But That is only if there was finite space So here is my question:if the univers is Infinite shoudn't there BE Infinite space and therefore stars WILL form In That space So there WILL BE no crowded stars and the explination would work if the univers is finite or infinite
I think there are two assumption. 1. As universe is infinite,there are stars which are very far from our solar system whose light is diminished as it reaches our solar system. 2. There is theory of dark energy absorbing light as no's of years I think it will absorb universe.
I tried a slightly different art style in this video, and also animated at 60fps instead of 30fps. I'm learning all the time so hopefully my videos will continue to get better!
I have only 1 question: You make it seem as if the universe solely consists out of stars, leaving planets and other sort of debris out of the picture. This debris however can and effectively will cancel out light as it’s trying to reach us. Take shining a flashlight onto an object with a stone blocking the path as an example. The object simply wouldn’t be able to observe any of the light and hence will not be lit up, so in the case of our universe, a perfectly snow-white lit up sky isn’t logical to happen anyways. Please correct me if I am wrong, I meant it.
you may be missing the point... the night sky is lit up, but our eyes are no able to see infra red and radio waves, that are that are red-shifted light from all older stars.. the next thing is light pollution from cities, clouds, etc ..
Even if there were an infinite number of stars evenly distributed, the light dims faster than it adds together, meaning that infinite stars infinitely far away will never be as bright as a closer, smaller star cluster.
But the farther you go, the more space there is for there to be more stars. Stars don't get dimmer the farther they are they just get smaller which our eyes interpret as dimmer.
It's a paradox if you believe the Universe is infinitely old like Olbers and scientist in his time believed. If the universe is infinitely old, the light of every star would have already reached you because the light had an eternity to travel, therefore you should be able to see every star that ever existed perfectly bright lighting up the sky. We know now that the universe is a finite age, so the light of stars that are far far away(or young and far away) from Earth hasn't reached us yet because the light has only been traveling for so long, solving the paradox. If a star is 400 billion light years away, but has only been light for 300 Billion years it still has 100 billion years until it reaches Earth.
This was /is an arguement against the “steady state model”....it kinda nudged us towards big bang / inflationary model which solves olber’s paradox. Yay for science!
I can't believe this channel isn't popular yet. I've been watching your videos and I can compare it to channels like Kurtzgesat without even thinking about it twice. The quality of animation is very good. Hope to see more paradox videos.
Something that always blows my mind is, if you look around, up, down, left, right, all around in every direction, you've just looked in every direction of the entire universe lol
I might be wrong, but if the source of light is moving away from you, you are "seeing" a light that has a lower frequency (larger wave length) than it actually is (Doppler's effect, like a car approaching and leaving). So if the universe is expanding, an the stars are getting further away, Doppler's effect makes you see them as a "wider" wave length, up to a point where you don't see them anymore. If I'm wrong, as wrong I might well be, please correct me. Just my 2 cents
So I actually took an astronomy class since then and the shift in light is not what makes the sky dark. What the shift in like does is show whether a star is moving towards or away from us and at what speed. If you know the temperature of a sun then you know what color it should be so when it is color shifted to the red it is because the light waves are moving away. It does not make the light dimmer however.
But the number of stars should increase with distance, thus cancelling out the reduction in brightness. So the brightness at any point on the sky should be the same.
I have a problem with the very precept of the paradox. Maybe I am missing something, but I’ve been trying to figure it out for years. I figure since Marilyn Savant won’t explain it after multiple attempts to ask, maybe there is no explain. If the universe was truly infinitely old, even with an infinite number of stars, wouldn’t it be dark? With an infinite amount of time comes an infinite amount of time for an infinite number of stars to have utilized all their energy and gone out. What am I missing? Why shouldn’t, the universe be dark if the initial presumption of the paradox were true? I understand the explanation of the reason for the paradox being erroneous, I just don’t understand the initial presumption to start with, that there would be infinite brightness after an infinite amount of time had passed, as was believed....?
Sniper Logic if there were truly infinite stars we would be getting new stars to light up our sky every second, they would be everywhere and wed even see the light from stars billions and billions of years ago. But some of that space isnt occupied
Sniper u are partly correct. An (1) eternal & (2) infinite universe will not result in an Olber's Paradox unless we have a third input & this is (3) the creation of energy. Without (3) the universe might be hot but it would not be infinitely bright or infinitely hot, it might be at say 3000 K instead of say 3 K. With (3) the universe will be infinitely bright & infinitely hot, if (1)(2) are true (which they are). Standard science says that (1)(2) are not true, ie that we have a bigbang universe, & that (silly) bigbang theory certainly kills Olber's Paradox. Howeve Olber's Paradox is real because we have (1)(2)(3). We know that (3) is correct because otherwise the universe should be at an even temperature (here u were partly correct again)(u said dark). The real answer to Olber's is that energy is being permanently annihilated somewhere somehow (otherwise the universe would be infinitely bright & hot). There must be a redshifting happening that does the trick. Conrad Ranzan posits a velocity differential redshift due to stretching of aether (u can google this stuff)(in his DSSU website). Plus he posits that matter & photons are permanently annihilated in dark stars.
I was thinking, if energy can be either electromagnetic waves or matter by E=mc2 then light should be able to be transformed to matter, then the sky does not have to light up. Also if I am not mistaken, atoms can have different energies and emit and receive photons and also combine with other atoms to create molecules with higher or less combined energy.
because the universe is constantly expanding at such a rate that the light from those stars will never reach us as visible light! Also we don't see the "birth" of a star as clearly as the death of one because it doesn't happen as an explosion, so there isn't an observable flash of light ( i think? ) and the core of a star takes thousands of years to form!
Watched 20 seconds: There isn’t infinite stars or space. It’s called the *observable* universe. It’s expanding faster than light so we see less and less strays. We literally can’t see more than a set amount. We don’t know how big it is after that. Edit: spelling
Your Sleep Paralysis Demon infinite space and stars are not incompatible with observable universe. It may be infinite but not ALL is observable. The expansion IS accelerating (observable phenomenon) but has not reached c+ speeds....stay tuned
The explanation is very simple. Consider an image of the night sky and then magnify part of it with a telescope. The new image will be the same as the original. Zoom in on a part of the new image in the same way and you will have a third image, which will be the same as the previous two, and so on indefinitely. That is, the ratio of the dark area to the light can remain the same at all magnifications, despite the fact that the number of stars is infinite. Olbers' conclusion was hasty.
Sometimes I just don't see why there's a paradox in the first place. Look up with the naked eye at a patch of night sky as defined say by a meter diameter hoop held at arm's length, and then that same area with a telescope. Say everything is magnified 2x, the area of the patch, the apparent magnitude of the stars you originally saw, the number of stars in the patch, and - crucially - the amount of empty space between the stars. Why should it be otherwise? You can repeat this with ever more powerful telescopes, not necessarily endlessly, but without the stars necessarily getting more and more crowded each time. There's an increasing number of stars but at the same time an increasing amount of space for them to be scattered about in. I wonder if Olbers' paradox results from just one particular, and peculiar, kind of argument.
No, if the universe is infinitely large, infinitely old, static and uniform, then there should be no empty space at any point on the sky, whether you observe with your eyes or with telescopes. Because there would have been an infinite amount of time available for stars to form and fill any voids.
WJ D Because stars will form wherever they can. In an infinitely large static universe, nothing is moving away from its neighbors. So given an infinite amount of time, all possible niches will be populated by stars, galaxies or other material like dust and nebulae.
Vimal Ramachandran Yes, but if we assume an infinite number of stars with an infinite amount of space can't we then have infinite distances between them? In which case everywhere we look from Earth at night would be a uniform pitch black instead of a solid blaze of light. That's Olbers' paradox too. I think the best way out of the puzzle is drop the use of this rather abstract idea, infinity, and allow the mind to get a glimpse of how astonishingly huge and empty interstellar distances actually are. That seems to me enough to explain the sparsely lit night sky. Check out ua-cam.com/video/026GF7yLCeE/v-deo.html
I have a problem with the very precept of the paradox. Maybe I am missing something, but I’ve been trying to figure it out for years. I figure since Marilyn Savant won’t explain it after multiple attempts to ask, maybe there is no explain. If the universe was truly infinitely old, even with an infinite number of stars, wouldn’t it be dark? With an infinite amount of time comes an infinite amount of time for an infinite number of stars to have utilized all their energy and gone out. What am I missing?
It is a paradox because at the time it had an un-intuitive solution. And the explanation has been vastly simplified here, the real one is much more rigorous.
I believe the real answer lies around the redshift solution (1:52). Notice all of the different forms of electromagnetic radiation; and visible light is only a small fraction of that spectrum. Radio waves are light in a sense, as are gamma rays, etc. We're actually bathed in "light", as all of those electromagnetic wavelengths are being emitted constantly. To wit, NASA's beautiful images are often taken in x-ray, and coloured after the fact, based on x-ray wavelength. To the naked eye, they'd be just bright pinpricks!
Great video! I'm studying General Relativity and Cosmology, and this helped me understand the paradox better than two or three reads of the section on D'Inverno's book. Thanks!
The infantile universe does not help explain why we cant see all the stars though as we all have the same origin this would only make sense if the stars origin was different than our own. The part that would help explain it is if the universe is or has expanded at a speed greater than that of light. Which could only be possible with the extreme energy generated by the big bang.
Hey if anybody ever gets the chance to, I highly recommend looking up at the night sky when wearing night vision goggles that use infrared. I used the AN-PVS 14 night vision monocular while I was in the US Army, and I looked up one night and I felt like crying because I was so suddenly awestruck.
@@louisuchihatm2556 the entire sky was dense with stars, even the areas which appeared to be total voids with the naked eye were almost solid with stars. It was just a really humbling experience, I was suddenly hit with a feeling of total insignificance.
@@AlcerusOfficial lol, I know people who saw Jupiter or Saturn or both through a telescope. They say they felt the same thing, a feeling of insignificance. Just like the Astronauts who went to the moon and saw the earth as a blue marble. Lol...I wonder how its like!
1. Star Density is too low. If the density of stars was higher it would not be a black night. 2. But if the universe was infinite then the density would be enough to fill every point with a star. 3. That may be true but the universe is expanding and some of those stars light will never reach us, the expansion rate is higher than the speed of light. If we could speed up light for those stars then yes it would be a brighter night as we would have some light in those dark areas 4. Yea but that light would be red shifted. True but short wavelengths are also shifted into the visible spectrum so red shift alone would not kill all visible light. 5. yea but don't interstellar gases absorb some of the light too? - yes but they would heat up and emit light. Bottom line is star density is not high enough in the observable universe. Expansion prevents the stars further away from contributing any light as it can't reach us.
So, what I gathered from this video is that the night sky is black because only a small percentage of stars are close enough to shed their light on us at this time. Does this mean that the night sky is actually getting brighter day by day as more light from more stars eventually reach us? Or has the expansion rate of the universe reached the speed of light, which would make the light from those unseen stars impossible to catch up to us?
At each and every possible radial distance, r, the amount of light that gets to us from that shell should be both directly proportional to the radius squared (the number of stars) and inversely proportional to the radius squared (they get apparently dimmer with distance). These two effects cancel each other. So, every spherical shell of radius r should add the same small additional amount of light. In an infinite universe, when we sum (integrate as in step 4 above) the light coming from all the infinite and uncountable number of possible radial distances, r, the sky should be infinitely bright.But the night sky is not infinitely bright. It’s dark. Why? There is a well-known relationship between distance and the apparent magnitude. If a star is 10 parsecs = 32.6 Light Years distant, and it looks like a 1st magnitude star, we say it has an absolute magnitude = 1. Ten parsecs is the “standard distance” at which we measure absolute magnitude. If we move a very bright star of 0 absolute magnitude of a star. For example, if we move a (very bright) star of 0 absolute magnitude to a distance of 51.8 light-years, its apparent magnitude will go down to 1. Humans cannot see any star whose magnitude is higher (less luminous) than 6.4. Of course, some stars are much brighter than absolute magnitude 0 or 1.0 and thus would be visible farther out than around 600 LY. But, many are much dimmer too, so as an overall approximation let us consider the average star. There is an horizon beyond which we cannot see any stars. There are a very few vastly distant objects that we can see with our naked eyes such as the Great Andromeda Galaxy (M 31). It is over 2 million light years away. But it is such a concentrated collection of stars and plasma that it looks to us about as bright as a single 4 magnitude. There are bigger and brighter galaxies but they are so distant that their apparent magnitude is greater (dimmer) than 6.4, so The infinite sum described above is incorrect. The sum stops at a radial distance of some 600 light years for the typical star (and somewhere beyond that for even the brightest ones). There is an upper limit on the absolute brightness of a single star; there is no such thing as an infinitely brilliant star. Nothing to do with a cosmological expansion and stretching of non-material space into the 'nothingness'. Only material things can be stretched into space.
have you heard of the Hubble telescope?? this is out side the earths atmosphere, so can see many more stars.. and then they pointed it at a large area where there were NO stars... it stayed looking for a MONTH.. and found thousands more galaxies and stars!!!
This is very similar to a paradox I invented in my head. Imagine a line, it begins growing very fast, but then starts to glow slower and slower, from 1 gazillion miles at a time all the way down to 1 atom, and even smaller. Is this line infinite or does it stop eventually? *My Idea:* We have to understand the perception of zero. One and zero are infinitely far away from each other. One is closer to 1 gazillion than it is to zero. Same would go with 1 gazillion is closer to one than infinity. The line may grow at slower rate, but it will grow forever, and will that therefore make it stretch across the entire universe?
No it's not. The expansion of the universe is increasing exponentially in all directions, so eventually the stars will be too far for the light to make it here. The stars will actually begin disappearing from view until eventually there won't be any left in sight. Basically the exact opposite of what you're saying would happen.
@@JadeRabbit-je4gd The video doesn't say that. The video talks about starlight not having reached the Earth yet because it's so far away to explain why the night sky is not lit.
Yes it says the light hasn't reached us because of the universe expanding, which is still happening. In fact it's expanding faster now than it was just two minutes ago. Your conclusion would require the expansion to stop completely, and even then stars dont exist forever. They'll eventually go supernova or collapse in on themselves, meaning there would still be spots in the sky with no light.
Everything about this video is perfect The animation is So clean The explination is very clear And it is not to detailed So it is the perfect length And an extra point for the accent Keep going amazing cotent🌌🌠🚀
So, if the light of a star at the far reaches of the universe hasn't yet hit the Earth, does that mean that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light?
If the universe began as a point, and every object is expanding away from this point, with nothing to ever slow it down, then the night sky would look different every night. Not exactly the same for thousands and thousands of years.
For everyone saying it's not a paradox: Newton said that the universe necessarily had to be infinite because otherwise the gravitational attraction of the stars would pull them all together. Later Olbers pointed out that if that model of the universe were true, the night sky wouldn't be dark. Newton has to be right, or the universe would collapse in on itself. But Olbers also has to be right. It's a paradox. The expanding universe theory solves this paradox. At least, that's what I understand from my astronomy textbook. Hope this helps.
I think it is very simple... We do get all the light from the distance stars & the sky is beautifully lit bright but our retina is not so sensible to perceive that light. If the light from a very distant star A is not detected by our eyes that spot will be dark & any light given by another star B which may be beyond star A will be blocked by our star A . The space between the stars & us are great too not speaking of the galaxic dust, dark matter ,black holes etc.. We need a very large retina to collect all those lights .Your owl may see the night sky brighter than us.
lol..there are billions of stars in the universe! We only see a few in the night sky yet we expect the night to be lit by all of them but no! its mostly pitch black! How's this possible: ....
I'm starting to think there no such thing as a paradox lol with all these videos calling things a paradox that's not a paradox just a trick question or working on bad info The best I can find is the grandfather paradox, but we don't know how time travel works maybe it's impossible to kill ur own gramps, it's only a paradox because we assume thatshow time travel works Make a video called" the paradox paradox " cuz a paradox ain't real bam!!
Ideally a paradox shouldn't exist in reality. That's why it's important when someone, such as Olber in this video, presents a paradox that arises from the current (at the time) understanding of something. It points out that, as you said, they're working with bad info.
So we already concluded that there are stars we can't see due to them being far away? How does that make any sense??? I'm not a scientist but I'm confident there's proof to that. Your proof construction was very poor this video. :/
It doesn’t even address the impact of the inverse square law on apparent luminosity, which is something they should have known about at the time of Olbers. What a stupid paradox.
I thought you were gonna start talking about the fact that there’s nothing really for the light to hit/reflect off of and thus we don’t see just whiteness
Wrong. Astrophysicists don’t even know if the universe is infinite (although there is strong reason to believe that it is). If the universe is infinite then there are infinite stars.
Moreover, If the sky is tightly packed with stars like the pixels on our computer screens & also with infinite number of panels one behind another, all pixels (stars) are not formed at the same time. Their lights are emitted over different time & from different distances(different galaxies). By the time one star's light reaches us, the light from the farther star may not have reached us yet and when it does reach us the other star's life may be over & a new born star behind that star begin to emit light & will take many eons to reach us.
The cosmic microwave background is the white sky of Olber's paradox. Big bang has been wrong for a long time. Right now all we can say is that there is redshift. The deeper we look (Hubble ultra and extreme deep fields) we continue to see more galaxies than ever remotely thought possible. The density is increasing as r^2, but the intensity falls off slightly faster than r^2, due in part to redshift and occlusion (dust re-radiates but isotropically and thermally). Redshift is the key. In fact, the sky is filled with noise in every direction, and not cosmic microwave background. It's star background. There is no reason to think that it should be white in our tiny visible spectrum like some stars appear. The peak of the spectrum is not in the visible region due to redshift.
the big bang is such bullshit. THINK of a pool break...... every ball going I'm opposite tangents.... all travelling about 6 million mph through space......that's 144 MILLION MILES A DAY- AND THAT means 4 trillion,345 billion920 million MILES PER MONTH...... (are you seeing the bullshit of the big bang yet??) that EACH OBJECT is going at that pool break tangent...getting further and further apart from each other.... yet an ASTROLABE, invented 2,220 years ago, CAN STILL MAP THE NIGHT SKY TODAY, PROVING NOTHING HAS MOVED. yupp, you can still find your way and know the date by an astrolabe, BECAUSE STARS HAVE NOT CHANGED IN 2220 YEARS. and do not forget WE on EARTH are traveling away from all of those stars (supposedly, if the big bang were more than a lie) in that big ficticous BIG BANG pool break that is proven absurd by old star charts and an astrolabe (in essence, an old star chart). big bang is a proven lie. oh, and an indoctrinating tv show, lol.
Explain to me how it is not a paradox. Are you really trying to argue with basically most scientists? If you can prove your viewpoint I would be interested to hear so.
once this channel gets goin and youtube recognise the quality and put u on recommended pages u'll be flying! such nicely made videos!
also i subbed at under 100 so when ur big i can say i was watchin u from the start! :)
I'll remember this comment!
This Chanel was recommended for me today lol
@@kdubs_qt3231 sadly this channel is inactive for 2 years :(
This channel was recommended to me today, but it seems as though he won't come back
Hey man, I see you're just getting started with this channel. I think you're really good at this, and I think you should stick with it.
Thanks! I've got plenty of ideas for new videos, so won't be stopping anytime soon
I second that, good job mate!
This was so simple and so easy to understand, thank you! great job
And it's completely wrong. This is the dumbest explanation ever. First if all light is just red shifted then you'd have an infinitely bright universe in the red light spectrum. Second, the reason the Universe is "dark" is solved by the Orchard Problem which you dumbazzes probably know nothing about. Even in an infinite forest most of the directions you look never sees a tree, and that probability increases the thinner the trees are. Because regardless if the forest is infinite most of the space is empty. Same with the fycking Universe. You dumb losers.
and yet it only explained why the paradox wasnt relevant as "well in reality things aren't the way we think it is and instead it's like this, where rules are in place that makes the things you would argue against this, actually invisible".
Sounds like a kid reinventing reality in their game in order to keep control of the game.
Answer....
Universe is expanding
Light's speed is constant
There's actually more space than number of stars
i read this in a book:
Olber assumed that stars are evenly spread through out the universe.
but all known stars are in galaxies, and galaxies are in clusters, which are in superclusters...
and something like 99% of the universe is empty space between superclusters!
@@chitaena23 Go back to school. Better yet go back to Kindergarten and just start from the beginning. The kids could teach you a lot and you could teach them which crayons taste the best
@@chitaena23 Maturity is over-rated. An education isn't.
@@chitaena23 Keep telling yourself that mate. What exactly are you awake to? You clearly don't even know what "immature" means. There's nothing immature about following something that makes logical sense to you. Even if it's wrong. You're not immature for believing in the flat earth. You're just uneducated and a bit (very) dumb.
Ironically, it's you that has been manipulated and fallen into a belief system based on lies. You are the Dunning-Kruger effect incarnate
@@chitaena23 Okay well I sure don't want to help protect liars and thieves so please help me on my journey to find the truth. Enlighten me so that I can join you in the woke world. Answer this one simple question. It requires no science or anything that we could have been lied to about by whichever lizard people it is you believe in.
How is it that we always see the same side of the moon no matter where we are on Earth?
If you have an alternative explanation that works I am all ears. I don't want to believe the wrong thing so please, give me a plausible alternative to the globe that I am merely ignorant to. If you can't, don't feel the need to use the go to "do your own research" line that all you flat earth sheeple use, because that's not how truth seeking works. If you had an answer you would want to tell people. So you don't even have to worry about responding, just take a few seconds and think to yourself, "Huh, I actually can't do that one simple thing. It really doesn't require anything more than my own observations and some common sense so maybe I'm wrong."
Just know that any response other than providing a reasonable explanation is admitting that you can't do it. That includes silence. The only way for you to not expose yourself as the ignorant fool that you are, is to give me an answer to a simple question. An added bonus for you is that in providing *an adequate* answer you get to expose me as the ignorant sheep.
You should also mention the Hubble deep field images. They picked a dark random spot of the sky and found a huge number of stars and galaxies.
This deserves more views. And you deserve more subs. Good luck!
Thanks, I'm just getting started!
@@SmartbyDesign last famous words eh
@@O2RiDeR_ :(
Reminds me of Douglas Adams talking about what infinity looks like. He said something along the lines of "look at the night sky, at the blackness between stars. You can see infinitely far because there is nothing to block your gaze in that direction, but there's also nothing to see there. Just infinitely distant nothingness."
I hate how underrated this channel is..
This is a great example of a very common misconception: treating infinity as a number. Infinity is a concept that can be imagined, neither concrete nor demonstrable. You can imagine abstract numbers that go on forever, but not physical objects. Neither stars, ping pong balls, nor Hydrogen atoms can exist to infinity.
You say, there are infinity ping pong balls (PPBs) in existence. But I look and see that there is room in my house for at least a dozen more. There must, then, only be infinity minus 12 PPBs in existence. As long as there is room for more, and as long as there is physical matter that has not yet been used to make more PPBs, we have not yet reached infinity. Try to manufacture an infinity of any physical object and you will eventually use up all matter, and all space, in the process. Anything less is not yet infinity.
So there.
David Henderson You actually taught me something in a UA-cam comment; you’re a miracle worker! Great response and I really do appreciate you taking the time to write it.
Very brilliant..
I get it but I don't understand the relevancy here. The concept of "nearly infinite" is usually what people mean, no need to be picky.
Some infinities are larger than others. That''s the flaw in this logic
Sounds like the paperclip game
So i'm trying to understand (correct if i'm wrong)
Olber's paradox proves That the univers is In fact finite
Becaus if it was Infinite there WILL BE an Infinite amount of stars forming which means the crowded stars WILL radiate Infinite amount of light
But That is only if there was finite space
So here is my question:if the univers is Infinite shoudn't there BE Infinite space and therefore stars WILL form In That space So there WILL BE no crowded stars and the explination would work if the univers is finite or infinite
And PLEASE excuse my poor English it is not my mother language
I think there are two assumption.
1. As universe is infinite,there are stars which are very far from our solar system whose light is diminished as it reaches our solar system.
2. There is theory of dark energy absorbing light as no's of years I think it will absorb universe.
Your graphics! They're so clean!!!
I tried a slightly different art style in this video, and also animated at 60fps instead of 30fps. I'm learning all the time so hopefully my videos will continue to get better!
Well it turned out great, so I'm sure they will! Keep it up!
I have only 1 question:
You make it seem as if the universe solely consists out of stars, leaving planets and other sort of debris out of the picture. This debris however can and effectively will cancel out light as it’s trying to reach us. Take shining a flashlight onto an object with a stone blocking the path as an example. The object simply wouldn’t be able to observe any of the light and hence will not be lit up, so in the case of our universe, a perfectly snow-white lit up sky isn’t logical to happen anyways. Please correct me if I am wrong, I meant it.
you may be missing the point... the night sky is lit up, but our eyes are no able to see infra red and radio waves, that are that are red-shifted light from all older stars.. the next thing is light pollution from cities, clouds, etc ..
Even if there were an infinite number of stars evenly distributed, the light dims faster than it adds together, meaning that infinite stars infinitely far away will never be as bright as a closer, smaller star cluster.
Very interesting... but you're still not getting my liver.
lol
Bahahahaaa. You win the internet for today
how is this a paradox, where you see black theres a star there yes just far enough you cant see it
But the farther you go, the more space there is for there to be more stars. Stars don't get dimmer the farther they are they just get smaller which our eyes interpret as dimmer.
It's a paradox if you believe the Universe is infinitely old like Olbers and scientist in his time believed. If the universe is infinitely old, the light of every star would have already reached you because the light had an eternity to travel, therefore you should be able to see every star that ever existed perfectly bright lighting up the sky. We know now that the universe is a finite age, so the light of stars that are far far away(or young and far away) from Earth hasn't reached us yet because the light has only been traveling for so long, solving the paradox. If a star is 400 billion light years away, but has only been light for 300 Billion years it still has 100 billion years until it reaches Earth.
@@charles82605 if it traveled for eternity it will never reach you
This was /is an arguement against the “steady state model”....it kinda nudged us towards big bang / inflationary model which solves olber’s paradox. Yay for science!
All you need is redshift and a bit of dust as an option -- not any bangs or inflations.
I can't believe this channel isn't popular yet. I've been watching your videos and I can compare it to channels like Kurtzgesat without even thinking about it twice. The quality of animation is very good. Hope to see more paradox videos.
Something that always blows my mind is, if you look around, up, down, left, right, all around in every direction, you've just looked in every direction of the entire universe lol
I feel like red shift was not explained well and that you should have gone into a little more depth about it.
I might be wrong, but if the source of light is moving away from you, you are "seeing" a light that has a lower frequency (larger wave length) than it actually is (Doppler's effect, like a car approaching and leaving). So if the universe is expanding, an the stars are getting further away, Doppler's effect makes you see them as a "wider" wave length, up to a point where you don't see them anymore.
If I'm wrong, as wrong I might well be, please correct me.
Just my 2 cents
So I actually took an astronomy class since then and the shift in light is not what makes the sky dark. What the shift in like does is show whether a star is moving towards or away from us and at what speed. If you know the temperature of a sun then you know what color it should be so when it is color shifted to the red it is because the light waves are moving away. It does not make the light dimmer however.
And what abou the fact that we can't be sure that all sky would be filled with stars?
Love this!! Thank you!!
what about this explanation:
The luminosity of a source shrinks with the cube of the distance from the source. We still get the light but too little
But the number of stars should increase with distance, thus cancelling out the reduction in brightness. So the brightness at any point on the sky should be the same.
Very little light from an infinite number of stars is still infinite light!
I have a problem with the very precept of the paradox. Maybe I am missing something, but I’ve been trying to figure it out for years. I figure since Marilyn Savant won’t explain it after multiple attempts to ask, maybe there is no explain. If the universe was truly infinitely old, even with an infinite number of stars, wouldn’t it be dark? With an infinite amount of time comes an infinite amount of time for an infinite number of stars to have utilized all their energy and gone out. What am I missing? Why shouldn’t, the universe be dark if the initial presumption of the paradox were true? I understand the explanation of the reason for the paradox being erroneous, I just don’t understand the initial presumption to start with, that there would be infinite brightness after an infinite amount of time had passed, as was believed....?
Sniper Logic if there were truly infinite stars we would be getting new stars to light up our sky every second, they would be everywhere and wed even see the light from stars billions and billions of years ago. But some of that space isnt occupied
Sniper u are partly correct. An (1) eternal & (2) infinite universe will not result in an Olber's Paradox unless we have a third input & this is (3) the creation of energy. Without (3) the universe might be hot but it would not be infinitely bright or infinitely hot, it might be at say 3000 K instead of say 3 K. With (3) the universe will be infinitely bright & infinitely hot, if (1)(2) are true (which they are). Standard science says that (1)(2) are not true, ie that we have a bigbang universe, & that (silly) bigbang theory certainly kills Olber's Paradox. Howeve Olber's Paradox is real because we have (1)(2)(3). We know that (3) is correct because otherwise the universe should be at an even temperature (here u were partly correct again)(u said dark). The real answer to Olber's is that energy is being permanently annihilated somewhere somehow (otherwise the universe would be infinitely bright & hot). There must be a redshifting happening that does the trick. Conrad Ranzan posits a velocity differential redshift due to stretching of aether (u can google this stuff)(in his DSSU website). Plus he posits that matter & photons are permanently annihilated in dark stars.
Well presented, good paradox well summarised
It's not actually a pardox though.
@@JadeRabbit-je4gd was a paradox with the steady state model of universe
1:05 Alright this animation and their expressions are just too cute
I was thinking, if energy can be either electromagnetic waves or matter by E=mc2 then light should be able to be transformed to matter, then the sky does not have to light up. Also if I am not mistaken, atoms can have different energies and emit and receive photons and also combine with other atoms to create molecules with higher or less combined energy.
Well explained!
amazing video!!
Okay... sooo why don't we see new stars?
I've watched stars die, but never new ones pop up or like what he said "the light hasn't reached us yet"
because the universe is constantly expanding at such a rate that the light from those stars will never reach us as visible light! Also we don't see the "birth" of a star as clearly as the death of one because it doesn't happen as an explosion, so there isn't an observable flash of light ( i think? ) and the core of a star takes thousands of years to form!
Watched 20 seconds:
There isn’t infinite stars or space. It’s called the *observable* universe. It’s expanding faster than light so we see less and less strays. We literally can’t see more than a set amount. We don’t know how big it is after that.
Edit: spelling
>Believes Big Bang
>Believes finite time
ok
Your Sleep Paralysis Demon infinite space and stars are not incompatible with observable universe. It may be infinite but not ALL is observable. The expansion IS accelerating (observable phenomenon) but has not reached c+ speeds....stay tuned
ScienceFan1859
If it’s observable we literally can’t see the stars past a certain distance. That’s how light years work with far away stars.
The explanation is very simple. Consider an image of the night sky and then magnify part of it with a telescope. The new image will be the same as the original. Zoom in on a part of the new image in the same way and you will have a third image, which will be the same as the previous two, and so on indefinitely. That is, the ratio of the dark area to the light can remain the same at all magnifications, despite the fact that the number of stars is infinite. Olbers' conclusion was hasty.
Finally someone with common sense
Did someone first solve this paradox? Or was it simply understood once we understood that the universe was expanding?
Sometimes I just don't see why there's a paradox in the first place. Look up with the naked eye at a patch of night sky as defined say by a meter diameter hoop held at arm's length, and then that same area with a telescope. Say everything is magnified 2x, the area of the patch, the apparent magnitude of the stars you originally saw, the number of stars in the patch, and - crucially - the amount of empty space between the stars. Why should it be otherwise? You can repeat this with ever more powerful telescopes, not necessarily endlessly, but without the stars necessarily getting more and more crowded each time. There's an increasing number of stars but at the same time an increasing amount of space for them to be scattered about in. I wonder if Olbers' paradox results from just one particular, and peculiar, kind of argument.
No, if the universe is infinitely large, infinitely old, static and uniform, then there should be no empty space at any point on the sky, whether you observe with your eyes or with telescopes. Because there would have been an infinite amount of time available for stars to form and fill any voids.
why do they need to fill a void? the void remains the void...
WJ D Because stars will form wherever they can. In an infinitely large static universe, nothing is moving away from its neighbors. So given an infinite amount of time, all possible niches will be populated by stars, galaxies or other material like dust and nebulae.
Vimal Ramachandran Yes, but if we assume an infinite number of stars with an infinite amount of space can't we then have infinite distances between them? In which case everywhere we look from Earth at night would be a uniform pitch black instead of a solid blaze of light. That's Olbers' paradox too. I think the best way out of the puzzle is drop the use of this rather abstract idea, infinity, and allow the mind to get a glimpse of how astonishingly huge and empty interstellar distances actually are. That seems to me enough to explain the sparsely lit night sky. Check out ua-cam.com/video/026GF7yLCeE/v-deo.html
I have a problem with the very precept of the paradox. Maybe I am missing something, but I’ve been trying to figure it out for years. I figure since Marilyn Savant won’t explain it after multiple attempts to ask, maybe there is no explain. If the universe was truly infinitely old, even with an infinite number of stars, wouldn’t it be dark? With an infinite amount of time comes an infinite amount of time for an infinite number of stars to have utilized all their energy and gone out. What am I missing?
What is the universe expanding into ? Without knowing that the rest of the speculations are superficial
Great video! You are very talented in explaining science concepts!!
"scientific concepts"... :-)
Enjoyed it
So does that mean as the universe ages the night sky will get brighter, because light from further and further away stars will reach you?
I don't love that this is called a paradox. And I don't love the explanation.
It is a paradox because at the time it had an un-intuitive solution. And the explanation has been vastly simplified here, the real one is much more rigorous.
Make a better one. I absolutely love this video.
I believe the real answer lies around the redshift solution (1:52). Notice all of the different forms of electromagnetic radiation; and visible light is only a small fraction of that spectrum. Radio waves are light in a sense, as are gamma rays, etc. We're actually bathed in "light", as all of those electromagnetic wavelengths are being emitted constantly. To wit, NASA's beautiful images are often taken in x-ray, and coloured after the fact, based on x-ray wavelength. To the naked eye, they'd be just bright pinpricks!
What if there are a lot of black holes that absorb all the photons? Black holes don't emit light...
I am so bad at learning from text. After looking at my coursebook and wiki I came here and got it within 3 minutes no problem.
Great video! I'm studying General Relativity and Cosmology, and this helped me understand the paradox better than two or three reads of the section on D'Inverno's book. Thanks!
Same here I am studying cosmology, and I think this video is a good way to start before going details and details and details..
nice
Very clear, well done. It would be even more so, for me at least, without the distracting (and irrelevant) background music.
The infantile universe does not help explain why we cant see all the stars though as we all have the same origin this would only make sense if the stars origin was different than our own. The part that would help explain it is if the universe is or has expanded at a speed greater than that of light. Which could only be possible with the extreme energy generated by the big bang.
Hey if anybody ever gets the chance to, I highly recommend looking up at the night sky when wearing night vision goggles that use infrared.
I used the AN-PVS 14 night vision monocular while I was in the US Army, and I looked up one night and I felt like crying because I was so suddenly awestruck.
wait...what did you see...
@@louisuchihatm2556 the entire sky was dense with stars, even the areas which appeared to be total voids with the naked eye were almost solid with stars.
It was just a really humbling experience, I was suddenly hit with a feeling of total insignificance.
@@AlcerusOfficial lol, I know people who saw Jupiter or Saturn or both through a telescope.
They say they felt the same thing, a feeling of insignificance.
Just like the Astronauts who went to the moon and saw the earth as a blue marble.
Lol...I wonder how its like!
@@AlcerusOfficial Interesting... so you saw that Olber's basic perception was wrong, right?
I did the same thing in the Army. I never understood why night vision brought out so many stars. Now I know.
The night sky is brightly lit up. Where have you been looking from?
Couldnt an explanation be light polution from our own sun? Such that we only see the brightest stars.
Thanks for the amazing content. Additionally, thanks for not making a 10 min video with the same non sense or extremely technical jargon...
Thank you.
But james web telescope proved big bang theory wrong so what will be the other reason behind this?
Interesting
The night sky is all light up, we just cant see every wavelength as explained.
"Here's a paradox you've never heard of. Guess what? It's not a paradox."
Nice attempt. But no.
@@joejitsu034 Ok. Well thank you. Please don't fold my clothes while I'm still in them. May my God bless you through Christ.
Does this mean the night sky would grow brighter night by night
I thought it's because the stars are very far away from each other.
1:32 *Universe Pog*
1. Star Density is too low. If the density of stars was higher it would not be a black night.
2. But if the universe was infinite then the density would be enough to fill every point with a star.
3. That may be true but the universe is expanding and some of those stars light will never reach us, the expansion rate is higher than the speed of light. If we could speed up light for those stars then yes it would be a brighter night as we would have some light in those dark areas
4. Yea but that light would be red shifted. True but short wavelengths are also shifted into the visible spectrum so red shift alone would not kill all visible light.
5. yea but don't interstellar gases absorb some of the light too?
- yes but they would heat up and emit light.
Bottom line is star density is not high enough in the observable universe. Expansion prevents the stars further away from contributing any light as it can't reach us.
space is expanding but how come our solar system or our galaxy not expanding?
So, what I gathered from this video is that the night sky is black because only a small percentage of stars are close enough to shed their light on us at this time. Does this mean that the night sky is actually getting brighter day by day as more light from more stars eventually reach us? Or has the expansion rate of the universe reached the speed of light, which would make the light from those unseen stars impossible to catch up to us?
At each and every possible radial distance, r, the amount of light that gets to us from that shell should be both directly proportional to the radius squared (the number of stars) and inversely proportional to the radius squared (they get apparently dimmer with distance).
These two effects cancel each other. So, every spherical shell of radius r should add the same small additional amount of light.
In an infinite universe, when we sum (integrate as in step 4 above) the light coming from all the infinite and uncountable number of possible radial distances, r, the sky should be infinitely bright.But the night sky is not infinitely bright. It’s dark. Why?
There is a well-known relationship between distance and the apparent magnitude. If a star is 10 parsecs = 32.6 Light Years distant, and it looks like a 1st magnitude star, we say it has an absolute magnitude = 1. Ten parsecs is the “standard distance” at which we measure absolute magnitude. If we move a very bright star of 0 absolute magnitude of a star. For example, if we move a (very bright) star of 0 absolute magnitude to a distance of 51.8 light-years, its apparent magnitude will go down to 1. Humans cannot see any star whose magnitude is higher (less luminous) than 6.4.
Of course, some stars are much brighter than absolute magnitude 0 or 1.0 and thus would be visible farther out than around 600 LY. But, many are much dimmer too, so as an overall approximation let us consider the average star. There is an horizon beyond which we cannot see any stars.
There are a very few vastly distant objects that we can see with our naked eyes such as the Great Andromeda Galaxy (M 31). It is over 2 million light years away. But it is such a concentrated collection of stars and plasma that it looks to us about as bright as a single 4 magnitude. There are bigger and brighter galaxies but they are so distant that their apparent magnitude is greater (dimmer) than 6.4, so
The infinite sum described above is incorrect. The sum stops at a radial distance of some 600 light years for the typical star (and somewhere beyond that for even the brightest ones). There is an upper limit on the absolute brightness of a single star; there is no such thing as an infinitely brilliant star.
Nothing to do with a cosmological expansion and stretching of non-material space into the 'nothingness'. Only material things can be stretched into space.
have you heard of the Hubble telescope?? this is out side the earths atmosphere, so can see many more stars.. and then they pointed it at a large area where there were NO stars... it stayed looking for a MONTH.. and found thousands more galaxies and stars!!!
This is very similar to a paradox I invented in my head.
Imagine a line, it begins growing very fast, but then starts to glow slower and slower, from 1 gazillion miles at a time all the way down to 1 atom, and even smaller. Is this line infinite or does it stop eventually?
*My Idea:* We have to understand the perception of zero. One and zero are infinitely far away from each other. One is closer to 1 gazillion than it is to zero. Same would go with 1 gazillion is closer to one than infinity. The line may grow at slower rate, but it will grow forever, and will that therefore make it stretch across the entire universe?
The line is infinite. There is no limit to how slow an object can go. At least that's what I believe.
This is achilles and the turtle all over again; it would stop when it reaches one planck lenght at a time.
That’s not a paradox. You’re basically wondering what 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4... equals. (It’s infinity)
So there will eventually be a time where the night sky is filled with light?
No, that's not even close to an accurate conclusion.
@@JadeRabbit-je4gd Then the video is missing information because that's the implication.
No it's not. The expansion of the universe is increasing exponentially in all directions, so eventually the stars will be too far for the light to make it here. The stars will actually begin disappearing from view until eventually there won't be any left in sight. Basically the exact opposite of what you're saying would happen.
@@JadeRabbit-je4gd The video doesn't say that. The video talks about starlight not having reached the Earth yet because it's so far away to explain why the night sky is not lit.
Yes it says the light hasn't reached us because of the universe expanding, which is still happening. In fact it's expanding faster now than it was just two minutes ago. Your conclusion would require the expansion to stop completely, and even then stars dont exist forever. They'll eventually go supernova or collapse in on themselves, meaning there would still be spots in the sky with no light.
this paradox: exists
us, who know that the sky is just a dome made by the government: k sure
Outro...
Pleasant-sounding music, calm voice, cute graphics with pastel colors, and recommended video: WILL AI DESTROY THE HUMAN RACE!?
Everything about this video is perfect
The animation is So clean
The explination is very clear
And it is not to detailed So it is the perfect length
And an extra point for the accent
Keep going amazing cotent🌌🌠🚀
By the way this is the first video I have watched but definitlly not the last🌸
What accent?
So, if the light of a star at the far reaches of the universe hasn't yet hit the Earth, does that mean that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light?
Yes because of cosmic inflation
Look at the night sky with night vision optics. You see it all then. ( almost)
If the universe began as a point, and every object is expanding away from this point, with nothing to ever slow it down, then the night sky would look different every night. Not exactly the same for thousands and thousands of years.
Now that the Big Bang theory is kind of out, the paradox stands
What if spacetime expanded so rapidly that it causes virtual particles to not annilate each other.
For everyone saying it's not a paradox:
Newton said that the universe necessarily had to be infinite because otherwise the gravitational attraction of the stars would pull them all together. Later Olbers pointed out that if that model of the universe were true, the night sky wouldn't be dark. Newton has to be right, or the universe would collapse in on itself. But Olbers also has to be right. It's a paradox. The expanding universe theory solves this paradox.
At least, that's what I understand from my astronomy textbook. Hope this helps.
I think it is very simple... We do get all the light from the distance stars & the sky is beautifully lit bright but our retina is not so sensible to perceive that light. If the light from a very distant star A is not detected by our eyes that spot will be dark & any light given by another star B which may be beyond star A will be blocked by our star A . The space between the stars & us are great too not speaking of the galaxic dust, dark matter ,black holes etc.. We need a very large retina to collect all those lights .Your owl may see the night sky brighter than us.
sick
I still don't understand
lol..there are billions of stars in the universe! We only see a few in the night sky yet we expect the night to be lit by all of them but no! its mostly pitch black! How's this possible:
....
@@louisuchihatm2556 I still don't understand
I'm starting to think there no such thing as a paradox lol with all these videos calling things a paradox that's not a paradox just a trick question or working on bad info
The best I can find is the grandfather paradox, but we don't know how time travel works maybe it's impossible to kill ur own gramps, it's only a paradox because we assume thatshow time travel works
Make a video called" the paradox paradox " cuz a paradox ain't real bam!!
Ideally a paradox shouldn't exist in reality. That's why it's important when someone, such as Olber in this video, presents a paradox that arises from the current (at the time) understanding of something. It points out that, as you said, they're working with bad info.
Obviously it's not a paradox but a wrong assumption by who stated it.
So we already concluded that there are stars we can't see due to them being far away? How does that make any sense??? I'm not a scientist but I'm confident there's proof to that. Your proof construction was very poor this video. :/
So many problems with this video. Dust would heat up and radiate IR radiation, not visible light.
It doesn’t even address the impact of the inverse square law on apparent luminosity, which is something they should have known about at the time of Olbers. What a stupid paradox.
I thought you were gonna start talking about the fact that there’s nothing really for the light to hit/reflect off of and thus we don’t see just whiteness
There are many more other things than stars out there wich would block the light comming fron those stars
I hate the dark. It’s pitch black outside rn in New Zealand and I hate it. I like the day time
Universe expansion is not a fact, there are other theories that explain the redshift.
Such as?
Actually there aren't infinite stars in the universe, so this problem doesn't really make sense
Wrong. Astrophysicists don’t even know if the universe is infinite (although there is strong reason to believe that it is). If the universe is infinite then there are infinite stars.
It would align with both evolution and creation then….
Are you still alive?
Johnston Run
Moreover, If the sky is tightly packed with stars like the pixels on our computer screens & also with infinite number of panels one behind another, all pixels (stars) are not formed at the same time. Their lights are emitted over different time & from different distances(different galaxies). By the time one star's light reaches us, the light from the farther star may not have reached us yet and when it does reach us the other star's life may be over & a new born star behind that star begin to emit light & will take many eons to reach us.
I can't clearly understand the narrator's pronunciation.
Puberty Glue
*?????????????? HUH?.......WHAT?
For starters, there is not an infinite amount of stars in the universe. Far from it.
Why is the sky dark at night? Simple. Because God wanted to give nerds something to stare at at night.
The cosmic microwave background is the white sky of Olber's paradox. Big bang has been wrong for a long time. Right now all we can say is that there is redshift. The deeper we look (Hubble ultra and extreme deep fields) we continue to see more galaxies than ever remotely thought possible. The density is increasing as r^2, but the intensity falls off slightly faster than r^2, due in part to redshift and occlusion (dust re-radiates but isotropically and thermally). Redshift is the key. In fact, the sky is filled with noise in every direction, and not cosmic microwave background. It's star background. There is no reason to think that it should be white in our tiny visible spectrum like some stars appear. The peak of the spectrum is not in the visible region due to redshift.
There's no light until there's something in front of it . The moon
Thanks for explaining it in an easy way! My Prof over complicates things :(.
the big bang is such bullshit. THINK of a pool break...... every ball going I'm opposite tangents.... all travelling about 6 million mph through space......that's 144 MILLION MILES A DAY- AND THAT means 4 trillion,345 billion920 million MILES PER MONTH...... (are you seeing the bullshit of the big bang yet??) that EACH OBJECT is going at that pool break tangent...getting further and further apart from each other.... yet an ASTROLABE, invented 2,220 years ago, CAN STILL MAP THE NIGHT SKY TODAY, PROVING NOTHING HAS MOVED. yupp, you can still find your way and know the date by an astrolabe, BECAUSE STARS HAVE NOT CHANGED IN 2220 YEARS. and do not forget WE on EARTH are traveling away from all of those stars (supposedly, if the big bang were more than a lie) in that big ficticous BIG BANG pool break that is proven absurd by old star charts and an astrolabe (in essence, an old star chart). big bang is a proven lie. oh, and an indoctrinating tv show, lol.
We just have to mess with the render settings
I really wish people knew what an actual paradox was. This is in no way a paradox.
Explain to me how it is not a paradox. Are you really trying to argue with basically most scientists? If you can prove your viewpoint I would be interested to hear so.