4 ms·
My biggest problem with this explanation is that even if the star-filled universe were infinite that doesn't necessarily mean there would be a star at every poi
by kfury 14y ago
My biggest problem with this explanation is that even if the star-filled universe were infinite that doesn't necessarily mean there would be a star at every point you look at in the sky.
Depending on the density of the stars in space, it's quite probable that as you zoom in farther and farther you see more and more distant stars, you also see space between those stars. It becomes a limit problem where the 'star density' of the sky (vectors from your viewpoint which will eventually hit a star) gets closer and closer to a specific percentage the further you extend your sphere of view (or magnification level) but will never exceed it, and won't ever go to 1.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- shardling 14y agoAssuming that there's some small but non-zero chance of a randomly selected line intersecting with a star in a finite volume of space, it's pretty clear that for an infinite volume, the probability of hitting at least one star will approach 1. (So long as the density of stars is approximately constant, or at least has some lower bound.) And since stars are not point like objects, a line does indeed have a non-infinitesimal chance of intersecting a star. Although all of this is a bit different from arguing about the net brightness of light coming from distant stars.