Inverse square law explains Olbers' paradox?

[Bandersnatch]

You don't. At that point you can only measure the total brightness of the area.

 

[humbleteleskop]

If you're willing to listen and not just link random wikipedia articles I'll help explain it to you. If something doesn't make sense, ASK for more detail on it, don't just find something that you think supports your understanding.

Please do explain. If apparent brightness varies with distance, how can possibly the amount of light received be the same from objects in the same plane perpendicular to the line of sight and from those which are not?

 

[Bandersnatch]

If apparent brightness varies with distance, how can possibly the amount of light received be the same from objects in the same plane perpendicular to the line of sight and from those which are not?

It's not true for individual stars. It's true for light coming from any area of the sky in Olber's paradox, as the stars fill the sky completely. Once again, it's not about individual stars - it's about the total contribution of all visible stars to the brightness of the sky.

 

[humbleteleskop]

You don't. At that point you can only measure the total brightness of the area.

Houston, we have an agreement.

We were talking about Olber's paradox, weren't we?

Does answer depend on it? We are talking about facts of reality, they should hold true in our hypothetical scenarios just like in the real world.

It says there ought to be more stars farther away to compensate for the reduced brightness of each single star.

It says total intensity received from each shell is the same, and we all agree. It does not mention any other kind of compensation or pixel saturation related to individual stars as suggested earlier on, but that doesn't bother me. Is that what you are referring to?

 

[Bandersnatch]

Does answer depend on it? We are talking about facts of reality, they should hold true in our hypothetical scenarios just like in the real world.

Answers you get depend on the setup you start with. The sky looks different if you start with an eternal, infinite universe, and different when you start with a finite one.

Yes, the physics is the same here and there, but the initial conditions are also improtant.

During this overly long discussion, there has been talk about both the physics of what makes stars less bright, and the end result of having infinitely many shells of equal brightness. I believe you've had them mixed at least once, which seems to be the source of the confusion.

It says total intensity received from each shell is the same, and we all agree. It does not mention any other kind of compensation or pixel saturation related to individual stars as suggested earlier on, but that doesn't bother me. Is that what you are referring to?

It also says there's an infinite number of shells. Which leads to pixel saturation.

 

[russ_watters]

Ok, that's enough. These are the same issues that were covered -- many of which were then ignored instead of resolved -- exactly 24 hours ago. Since this thread is going in ever tightening circles, it is locked.