 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:29
|
|
Um, my limited knowledge of astronomy does not suggest that supernovae are as common as you are implying, but I could easily be wrong.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:29
|
|
Ah. Yeah, that's probably right. I was only awake through half of my astronomy courses. Not that it wasn't interesting, just WAY too early.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001 time: 00:29
|
|
Sava, having read Hawking's ABHOT, in which he doesn't posit any infinite star theory, I'd have to ask you to provide some evidence.
Stars burning out is irrelevant--you're asserting that, right now, there are an infinite number of stars. If all matter in the universe emanated from the Big Bang, it is impossible for there to be an infinite number of stars, as you would also have to postulate the Big Bang happening an infinite number of years ago, which we know not to be the case.
Olber's Paradox still defies explanation:
"Think about the universe as stars evenly distributed on crystalline spheres surrounding us, much like the layers of an onion. Let's say stars appear nice and bright in the layer closest to us. The layer twice as distant would also contain stars, but each would appear four times fainter. The stars in the layer three times farther away would appear nine times fainter and so on.
It might be easy to conclude that because the most distant stars would be so terribly faint, there would be no way we could see them. But with the increase in layer size comes more stars. So, while stars in the layer twice as distant are four times fainter, there are four times as many of them. On the layer three times farther, there are nine times as many and so on.
In other words, each layer would contribute exactly the same amount of starlight to our sky, no matter how far away it is. And an infinite number of stars (and layers) would produce a nighttime sky as bright as the sun itself.
The paradox - known as Olber's Paradox - is named after Heinrich Olber, who tried to explain it in 1826. The paradox hasn't been totally explained even today."
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
infinite is a poor way to conceive of the universe. when a physicist sees an infinite it is usually a sign his theory has broken down at that point.
suchas the infinite density of black holes predicted by point particle physics.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29. Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|