5 ms·

> So the night sky, if the universe is infinite, wouldn't be dark - it would be as bright as the sun You are inferring infiniteness also translates somehow to

> So the night sky, if the universe is infinite, wouldn't be dark - it would be as bright as the sun You are inferring infiniteness also translates somehow to cosmic density and luminosity. By definition of an infinite universe the vast majority will necessarily fall outside the observable universe and never be visible to us. As to luminosity, even now when we look up and see dark patches in the sky, they are in fact are full of stars and galaxies. The most famous picture ever taken by the Hubble, the “Hubble Deep Field”, was taken by pointing towards a dark patch revealing 10s of thousand of galaxies. These 10s of thousands of stars and galaxies still appear as dark patches in our skies because they are not sufficiently luminous to appear in out sky as light without the aid of telescopes to collect their dim light.

XorNot 5y ago
At this point that's a quibble that loops back around to Big Bang theory - the OP was postulating we somehow discover that that theory is not correct, and my point is that if it's not - if the universe isn't bubbles of matter evaporating out of each other's spheres of influence - then you run into serious problems with why the night sky looks the way we are. You've just looped it back around: expanding space gives finite, shrinking, observable universes. Which is just exactly the Big Bang theory. EDIT: Dark patches in the sky though don't work with infinite light sources - at the very least you have to explain why far away ones apparently switched on in a finite time in the past. But that's the issue too - we're deliberately ignoring evidence in this discussion which points away from that - i.e. the red shift which shows us galaxies are rushing away from us.
- throwawaycities 5y ago
  > You've just looped it back around: expanding space gives finite, shrinking, observable universes. Which is just exactly the Big Bang theory. There is nothing about Big Bang theory that explains the current expansion of our Universe (i.e. dark energy). In fact the Big Bang theory predicted our Universe should have stopped expanding and began collapsing on itself due to gravity (i.e. the Big Crunch), and that’s exactly why whoever can explain why the Universe is continuing to expand has a Nobel Prize waiting.

XorNot 5y ago

At this point that's a quibble that loops back around to Big Bang theory - the OP was postulating we somehow discover that that theory is not correct, and my point is that if it's not - if the universe isn't bubbles of matter evaporating out of each other's spheres of influence - then you run into serious problems with why the night sky looks the way we are. You've just looped it back around: expanding space gives finite, shrinking, observable universes. Which is just exactly the Big Bang theory. EDIT: Dark patches in the sky though don't work with infinite light sources - at the very least you have to explain why far away ones apparently switched on in a finite time in the past. But that's the issue too - we're deliberately ignoring evidence in this discussion which points away from that - i.e. the red shift which shows us galaxies are rushing away from us.

throwawaycities 5y ago
> You've just looped it back around: expanding space gives finite, shrinking, observable universes. Which is just exactly the Big Bang theory. There is nothing about Big Bang theory that explains the current expansion of our Universe (i.e. dark energy). In fact the Big Bang theory predicted our Universe should have stopped expanding and began collapsing on itself due to gravity (i.e. the Big Crunch), and that’s exactly why whoever can explain why the Universe is continuing to expand has a Nobel Prize waiting.