Redshift Solved Olbers Paradox The Big Bang Isn't Needed

Big Bangers use Olbers' Paradox to reject infinite non-expanding cosmologies, but Olbers' Paradox isn't a thing because it was solved by the Hubble Redshift.

The Zero-Point Universe

The 100 Greatest Lies in Physics

Goodbye Quarks: The Onium Theory

God Hates Science

[rayfleming]

If you would like to support my research you can also donate at paypal.me/rayflemingphysics or patreon.com/rayfleming

[justinadams]

My favorite video in a while. Shift happens 😂 Such a good point that the Big Bang model failing means it’s no better than any tired light theory. Excited to see that one! Good to have you back!

[muzduz]

I learned of Olber's P in Astro 101 as an undergrad 2003-4. It was delivered as a loose theory and on very shaky grounds back then. I thought it was long dead in the water as a theory by now even for most Big Bangers by the acceleration of expansion and subsequent redshift being used to account for the cold darkness of space. They are coming up with ever more fluffy solutions which is why I enjoy your more practical applications of the science we do know rather than relying on pasting new observations into a poorly founded base theory of the Big Bang. It reminds me of the good old Ptolemaic period when new observations were simply pasted into a system that worked well enough for calculations and navigation but failed to address the local physical phenomena of the retrograde planetary paths. A beautiful and utilitarian solution but extremely complex with significant flaws. Simplification via a practical application of observational perspective helped simplify this and resolve the flaws and so hopefully the same happens for our origins theories. Well done Ray. Don't forget Copernicus didn't publish his most controversial paper until he was safely near death's door and perhaps so he could avoid the dogmatic responses and avoid the gallows, the burning stakes or the guillotine. Luckily the death penalty has gone out of fashion these days but the dogma will and should always be present. :)

[gorowlystomak]

Hi Ray. Little superthanks for answering my dumb FTL questions the other day. I couldn't afford it at month's end (I'm poor!) but I appreciate what you do.

[larryw]

The night sky is not dark because we have the microwave background. Could the microwave background be just highly redshifted light from all the stars in an infinite universe. Microwaves are still light, just highly redshifted.

[pasqgrasso]

Thank you Ray for another excellent video. I would love to hear your thoughts on Halton Arp's redshift theory, that rather than being a doppler shift, the red or blue shift of a galaxy is based on its mass (and is therefore a subatomic effect). It seems to make sense that the more developed galaxies will be blue shifted, as that is the stronger part of the light spectrum, and young developing galaxies will be red shifted as the light they propagate is weaker. Would love to see you cover this on a new video!

[GamesBond.]

Olber's 'night sky' paradox can actually be explained without redshift. 
The paradox states that, 'if the universe is endless *and uniformly populated with luminous stars*, then every line of sight must eventually terminate at the surface of a star. Hence, contrary to observation, this argument implies that the night sky should everywhere be bright, with no dark spaces between the stars. This paradox was discussed in 1823 by the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers'. (Britannica)
 
The paradox is based on the assumption that the universe is 'uniformly populated with stars', which is a false assumption.
We know for more than a century that the universe is NOT uniformly populated with stars, and that stars are grouped into galaxies which are at billion light years apart ! Why is this paradox even taken into consideration, since its based on a false assumption ?

 Olber could only see the stars from our galaxy on the night sky, the stars from other galaxies were too far and too small to see with Olber's telescope which could not see any star outside our galaxy's. But as telescopes evolved and got more powerful like Hubble deep field telescope, they revealed that what Olbers thought it was a dark sky, it isnt a dark sky at all ! And that there is actually an astronomical number of galaxies and stars in the 'dark spaces between stars' where Olber's telescope could not see any star (and not all of them are redshifted beyond the visible spectrum).

So this is an obsolete paradox, based on astronomy from the early 19th century, when galaxies were not even discovered, or they were confused with stars ! Because telescopes were too weak and could not see any stars outside of our own galaxy.

[tevee]

looking forward to the tired light video!

[SamMackrill]

Ray Fleming 2023 "Shift Happens"

[jimmarsen]

I suggest that the CMBR is the redshifted light from galaxies that are so far away that their light has been redshifted beyond the far infrared wavelengths that JWST can "see" into microwaves.

I also suggest that although the acceptance of the original explanation that redshift is due to the Doppler effect seemed plausible at the time. However, there is no viable explanation for the fact that its magnitude is proportional to distance.

So let's just accept that we don't (yet) have a viable explanation that redshift is simply proportional to distance. It implies that the universe is not expanding and all the additional ad hoc hypotheses like the Big Bang are not needed. IMHO Eric Lerner presents a very convincing case for this alternative on his LPPFusion Youtube channel.

[infinitecosmos]

Great point about redshift! If only Big Bang proponents could learn, as you pointed out, ALL cosmological models have a Hubble redshift, it doesn't belong solely to the Big Bang theory. Guessing they will see your explanation as evidence in favor of their model, not an indication that other models explain the observations better. Olber's paradox never seemed to be paradoxical, since as stars get farther away, they appear dimmer, and the ratio of space to stars gets more extreme the farther away they are. Stars are not evenly spaced out, they are in clusters and galaxies and galaxy clusters, and stars only emit a finite number of photons for a finite time, those photons can only reach so many observers.

[frun]

I can show the Earth 🌍 is expanding. As the sound traverses the air-water boundary its wavelength shifts. This is the redshift. Earth 🌍 expansion theory is proved 💪🏻

[planmet]

The particles of 'tired light' probably come to a stop when their temperature lowers to 0 Absolute -somewhere outside the periphery of the Galaxy. I would describe this as cold dark matter.

[GamesBond.]

2:35 *'The night sky is dark for all starlight at all wavelengths'.*
But the night sky is not all dark for all stars, as there are billions of bright stars visible in the night sky...maybe you should refrase that ?

[kennethferland]

A re-absorbtion of the energy of starlight, which is the energy release from fusion would ultimatly need to un-fuse all heavy elements in order for the cycle to close. Hypothetically this could be by processes like photo-disintegration of the nucleus and neutrino induced inverse beta decay of neutrons which would then cause nuclei to disintegrate due to excessive positive charge.

[jezzamobile]

Philip Stott describes the decreasing speed of light in one video. Could this account for both red shift and apparent expansion of the universe?

[thebigeazye]

Thank you for the talk. Good food for thought, and I like your scientific questioning of dogmas.

[BrassPeace]

Great explanation! I would looove to hear your thoughts (new video) on the CMB.

[KaliFissure]

The cmb is the result of the innate gravity curve of the universe.
If the universe, therefore space with only the quantum flux, goes on forever but the curve imposed by quantum flux adds up over distance until the edges of visibility are bent into lower frequencies

[whig]

Is the CMB real or is it an artifact from oceanic radiation?