Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[DarwinX]

The night sky should be as bright as day, that is, if the universe was infinite, according to current thinking, but, is this thinking correct? The current explanation of why the night sky isn't bright is that the universe is young and that the light hasn't reached us yet. This basically the Big Bang Theory.

Now, the problem lies with the definition of infinity. When people talk about infinity, what they are really talking about is infinity in the outward direction. People seldom consider that infinity could also continue inwards as well. This is where the confusion has occurred. Now, if we consider the inwards version of infinity, then, immediately we can deduce that light would be partially blocked by this inner universe. This inner universe would be what we call dark energy or matter.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

The night sky should be as bright as day, that is, if the universe was infinite, according to current thinking, but, is this thinking correct?

No, that thinking is incorrect. The reason the day sky is brighter is because we are not in the shadow of the Sun. Being in a shadow makes it darker. And because light disperses over distances, the brightness of the sun--the closest major source of light--and the degree to which one is in a shadow of that light as opposed to not in a shadow is the main factor in total brightness.

The current explanation of why the night sky isn't bright is that the universe is young and that the light hasn't reached us yet. This basically the Big Bang Theory.

No. The former is simply the proposition that the universe is not infinitely old. The Big Bang Theory contains a lot more propositions and theories than that.

Now, the problem lies with the definition of infinity. When people talk about infinity, what they are really talking about is infinity in the outward direction.

Do you have a source for this? What evidence do you have that that is what people are "really talking about"?

People seldom consider that infinity could also continue inwards as well.

Is that a premise? What evidence do you have that people seldom consider that?

This is where the confusion has occurred. Now, if we consider the inwards version of infinity, then, immediately we can deduce that light would be partially blocked by this inner universe. This inner universe would be what we call dark energy or matter.

Could be.

[Mechsmith]

Unfortunetly we cannot go infinitely small without losing most of the properties of matter. Matter in its many ramifications is what we are dealing with mostly. When we get too small we run out of matter and into the realm of QM. We can reduce the Universe to quarks. Can we divide a quark and see what it's made of

[DarwinX]

No, that thinking is incorrect. The reason the day sky is brighter is because we are not in the shadow of the Sun. Being in a shadow makes it darker. And because light disperses over distances, the brightness of the sun--the closest major source of light--and the degree to which one is in a shadow of that light as opposed to not in a shadow is the main factor in total brightness.

I don't necessary agree with Obler's paradox. I am just offering an explanation of it. Obler's paradox claims that the night sky should be as bright as the day sky, if you apply the infinity rule to space and time. What I am contesting, is the definition of infinity, which is, in most cases, interpreted as meaning the outward version. They never consider the inwards version of infinity. The dimensionality of infinity must change depending on scale. Thus, time and distance must have a different meaning as far as the atom is concerned because the atomic scale operates to a different system to ours. This is why we can't observe or quantify atomic structure to any specific degree. Thus, anything which exists at or below the atomic level exists in another time and distance dimension which is mostly inaccessible. We can only feel the effects of atomic structure and not see its structure because the time scale doesn't allow it.

Now, the problem lies with the definition of infinity. When people talk about infinity, what they are really talking about is infinity in the outward direction.

Do you have a source for this? What evidence do you have that that is what people are "really talking about"?[/quote]

I haven't seen any reference in scientific journals to the inner version of infinity. If you have seen some, then quote your sources.

Is that a premise? What evidence do you have that people seldom consider that?

As above

This is where the confusion has occurred. Now, if we consider the inwards version of infinity, then, immediately we can deduce that light would be partially blocked by this inner universe. This inner universe would be what we call dark energy or matter.

Could be.[/quote]


Logic dictates that there is nothing to prevent an inner version of infinity from existing. If you can think of any particle which is the ultimate (smallest)particle. Then, magnify this particle a billion times and see with your imagination that this so called ultimate particle has many parts or inner spaces which make up its structure. Thus, you can never have an ultimate particle. Therefore, an inwards infinity must exist.

-- Updated September 13th, 2014, 11:27 pm to add the following --

Unfortunetly we cannot go infinitely small without losing most of the properties of matter. Matter in its many ramifications is what we are dealing with mostly. When we get too small we run out of matter and into the realm of QM. We can reduce the Universe to quarks. Can we divide a quark and see what it's made of

Quarks exist is a different dimension to ours. Therefore, trying to make sense of them will ultimately be a waste of time. The infinitely small is infinitely unknowable. All we can do is study the effects of the infinitely small. This includes light, magnetism, electricity and gravity.