10 ms·
> Is this really not obvious to people? It's about subtended angles - simple geometry. If the universe is infinite and filled uniformly with stars, the 1/r^2 f
by gaur 11y ago
> Is this really not obvious to people? It's about subtended angles - simple geometry.
If the universe is infinite and filled uniformly with stars, the 1/r^2 falloff in the radiation captured from each star is cancelled by r^2 dependence on the number of stars at radius r. So as you integrate r from 0 to ∞, you accumulate an infinite amount of radiation.
Is this really not obvious to you? It's all about infinitesimals - simple calculus.
- rdiddly 11y agoAs with others here, your problems start with "if the universe is infinite."
- gaur 11y agoYes, we are all aware of that. Nobody is saying that Olbers's paradox is unsolved; we are saying that your comment doesn't make sense. Olbers's paradox assumes from the outset that the universe is infinite. You cannot solve the paradox by invoking the inverse-square law.
- rdiddly 11y agoYou cannot solve Olbers' paradox at all, because it is a malformed question, that leads to a paradox.
- gaur 11y agoCorrect. Now could you please edit your top-level comment some more, so that it actually makes sense? First you fake incredulity about how people aren't finding it "obvious", although it's unclear exactly what you think is obvious (the paradox? its resolution? modern cosmology?). Then you launch into an explanation of the inverse-square law for a single point source. What's your intention here? By itself it doesn't demonstrate how to resolve the paradox. (As you say, the resolution is that the universe is not infinite. Thanks for adding that in the edit.) Overall, your top-level comment was incomprehensible, as evidenced by the large number of people who thought you were trying to use the inverse-square law to resolve the paradox.