On 5 December 2014 at 05:52, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 04 Dec 2014, at 17:01, [email protected] wrote: > > On Thursday, December 4, 2014 2:09:11 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > The Hindu cycles seem more plausible then the Quran, Soonah, and Bukhari. >> Yet, no faith describes how the night sky appears and how it got that way. >> > > Nor Science. The blackness is subject to a range of speculation. It adds > up by one reading, but consistency is lost again no sooner than won, by > facing the wrong way to another reading. E.g. Physical law doesn't derive > from negative, hence absence of light. But the cosmological interpretation > worldview situates every point in the universe with the same effect we get > where we are - in the middle, everything expanding way. > > Making the universe effectively infinite and homogenous. That isn't > necessarily the view of everyone, but there's no alternative answer in play > either. > > But the consequence for that should be a lot more light. > > I thought this was solved by the plausible fractal dimension of the > "matter" distribution in space time. But I am not an expert. > Are we talking about Olber's Paradox? If so the solution is that the universe isn't 1. infinite in extent 2. of infinite age and 3. static Cosmology shows the universe is none of the above, although it may plausibly be the first (but the finite speed of light and age mean it's *effectively* finite from the viewpoint of lines of sight ending on stars) .... although not being any one of them is sufficient to dispel the paradox, I believe. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
