Proof we are in the matrix: Olber's Paradox

[AlfredJPruffock]

Time is what it's defined to be.

The Time that can be deescribed is not the True Time - nor even Tea Time.

[TimberWolf]

The Time that can be deescribed is not the True Time - nor even Tea Time.

There is no 'true' time, everyone's clock ticks at a different pace.

[AlfredJPruffock]

Then the light would reach us! (eventually)

Aye AB

In fact you are correct in a way - your earlier point regarding the Universe expanding faster thatn the speed of light is true - if Big Bang theory is correct - that in the milliseconds followng the First Light - the Universe did expand faster than the speed of light - some Cosmologsts atribute this to that during the those frst milli-seconds the nomal Laws did not apply.

And of course if the data from Planck confirms that the MulitVerse theory is correct than Big Bng theory in turn is obsolete - well -we should all sit down and have a good cup ot tea.

So it goes.

[filthy1980]

during my key stage 3 science lesson i also asked my teacher at the time, if sun illuminates the earth why is space dark? simple answer came back, because light rays need to bounce off something to be visible

maybe i've misunderstood the question but isn't that still the case?


(unless my science teacher lied to me, he is in prison now having been convicted of sex with a minor)

[Zoiderman]

during my key stage 3 science lesson i also asked my teacher at the time, if sun illuminates the earth why is space dark? simple answer came back, because light rays need to bounce off something to be visible

maybe i've misunderstood the question but isn't that still the case?


(unless my science teacher lied to me, he is in prison now having been convicted of sex with a minor)

He probably lied to him/her

[gingerjedi]

Indeed not. Time is an illusion and tea time is doubly so.

Lunchtime Shirley?

[PAH]

because light rays need to bounce off something to be visible

So it's possible that our sun is in fact the only star in the universe, and all the others are just reflective planets.

Hubble isn't seeing into the past from the point of the big bang but into the past from how far our sun's light has reached.

[Does that nobel prize come with plenty of wonga and scantilly clad babes gagging for man to explore where few have explored before? ]

[scooterscot]

Oh for pities sake. A nice drive around Tenerife and you've still not figured it out.

Myself included, we often assume the universe is static. If this were the case the universe would be flooded with light.

Space does not need to expand faster than light travels, it took nearly 200 years for humans to understand this.

Imagine travelling on the road a 100 miles to you destination. After the first mile travelled you've got 199 miles to go, 2 miles into the journey you find you've got 298 miles to go and so on.

This is what is happening to the photons that finally make it to us and why the visibility of the edge of space as we know it is limited.

[Arturo Bassick]

Oh for pities sake. A nice drive around Tenerife and you've still not figured it out.

Myself included, we often assume the universe is static. If this were the case the universe would be flooded with light.

Space does not need to expand faster than light travels, it took nearly 200 years for humans to understand this.

Imagine travelling on the road a 100 miles to you destination. After the first mile travelled you've got 199 miles to go, 2 miles into the journey you find you've got 298 miles to go and so on.

This is what is happening to the photons that finally make it to us and why the visibility of the edge of space as we know it is limited.

Common sense tells me this "flooded with light" business is bollocks. I see the light from distant stars as functioning similarly to light from a torch a mile away. I can see the torch shining from that distance (therefore the light has reached me BTW) but it is ineffective at illuminating the place I am standing as it is so dispersed.