/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8585783
>So here is something I've been wondering. One of the biggest things which sunk infinite universe theory was Olbers paradox, which in a nut shell states that if the universe was infinite, then there would be no dark space in the night sky since in every direction would be a star
The reason we don't see an infinitely bright sky from infinite stars around us is because those stars have not been around us forever, they have only been around us since the Big Bang, which is not enough time for their light to reach us. The reason we don't see an infinitely bright sky from the energy of the dense universe of the Big Bang is because that light has been so redshifted by the expansion that it is only visible with microwave detection. So the "paradox" means that the universe cannot be static, it has nothing to do with it being infinite.

>>8585796
Thanks, that's not really what I was asking, but that's my fault for not articulating the question very well.

>>8585796
>Let me try it another way
Let's say that if we where on a fixed point, would it be possible for a fixed light emitting object to be so far away, that the light does not reach us, due to gravity slowly altering it's course?

I thought that the universe was infinite but at a certain distance it expands faster than the speed of light, making the photons from those stars never reach us

>>8585811
Yes of course. A black hole blocks us from seeing everything behind it by pulling the light from those objects into itself.

>>8585820
Yes, but that only explains why we won't be able to see them in the future, not now. Billions of years from now we will not be able to see many of the astronomical objects we see today.

>>8585811
thats pretty interesting actually, There would be infinite gravity in every direction cancelling that effect as well right?

>>8585822
I know that part, what I'm wondering is if there is a cut off point at which it requires so much gravity to shift a photons flight path, or if it's that it takes a massive amount of gravity to shift a photons path enough to become observable.

>>8585828
>infinite gravity
Huh?

>>8585828
That's another thing I've been wondering too.

>>8585831
Infinite universe imply gravity is infinite in every direction because infinite room for stars and stuff not to mention virtual matter

>>8585829
Any amount of gravity will pull a photon. It takes a large amount of gravity to visibly bend a photon's path, a large galaxy's worth.

>>8585838
>Infinite universe imply gravity is infinite in every direction because infinite room for stars and stuff not to mention virtual matter
No. Gravity "travels" at the speed of light so the answer is exactly the same as why we don't see infinite amount of light.

>>8585840
That pretty much answers that question I had then. That would mean that at a non fixed distance, light from an object would not be observable.

>>8585848
Yes, it has nothing to do with distance, it's the gravitational pull that matters.

>>8585843
Now the million dollar question is what actually is gravity lol.

>>8585852
>>8585843
I know some physicist have made the argument that it's also a form of light, but I'm not really sold on that desu.

>>8585856
>same fag
Wtf? When did it start auto changing t/b/h to desu?

>>8585843
Yea i didnt realise that. but if the universe didnt travel at the speed of light then the gravity would cancel eachother out and the light far enough would be absorbed by black wholes? or is that still a paradox

What I really find interesting is when you factor in to all of this the fact that time isn't linear.

This honestly is why I love physics, and cosmology, they're among the few fields of sciences, that it's likely we'll never learn all there is to know about them.

Those warriors from hammerfell, they got curved space time
CURVED SPACETIME!

What I've always found funny is the idea of everything we currently know now about cosmology possibly being altered like ptolemy's model was. When you think about it, his model explained all the information they had at the time, but was proven to be dead wrong.

>>8585899
its funny how sure we can be on a theory then some mad scientist finds one new particle and suddenly everything is wrong and we have to start over.
But dark matter and dark energy is probably as wrong as the aether

>>8585904
Maybe, but as for right now, it's the only real explanation for how gravity is transferred from one body to another on a galactic scale.

>>8585908
no thats wrong
all things with mass have a gravitational attraction to eachother. Every single thing

>>8585924
That's true, but that wouldn't explain how galaxies actually stay together. Computer models done by NASA, actually show that some solar systems would actually "spin off" without added unobservable mass.

>>8585928
thats where the dark matter theory comes into play but i think general relativity is just not accurate over long distance like that

>>8585977
Honestly I hope you're right. If it was possible for the laws of physics to not be universally consistent, that would open the doors to a great deal of scientific discovery.

We don't see a light sky at night because star light is too dim. This is what our closest galactic neighbour Andromeda would look like if it were bright enough.