It has been a while since I posted a topic so I thought I would do this one:

Olbers's Paradox realates to the fact that the night sky seems to be very dark, in spite of the fact that because of the number of stars it contains it should be bright. Since we have a supposedly infinite large universe, or even if we have a large but finite one, they should be a star in almost every direction. Many might be faint because they are very far away, but their sheer numbers should make up for their faintness. Even Kepler has commented on this one.

I have my own ideas why this is so, but I thought I would ask you people since you seem as bright as the night sky should be what your answers are.

Note: this has nothing to do with light pollution.

If we lived in an infinitely large steady state non-expanding universe, Olber's paradox would be an issue, but we don't. We live in a universe in which light has only been coming in our direction for 13 billion years or so, and the most distant light sources are dimmer than they would be if they were stationary because they are going away from us at a fast pace.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

"If we lived in an infinitely large steady state non-expanding universe, Olber's paradox would be an issue, but we don't"

I think Heinrich Olber would say something like, "I told you so!"

Bob

I must be exeptionly thick. I think the answer is simple. As they amit thier energies 360deg in all directions equally. ( near enuff ) The ferther we are from any object the lesser of its emision we will see. That point of light we see is all that is reaching us. The photons do not travel parallel.

An interesting historical footnote is the fact that Olbers' Paradox was first explained correctly by a certain author known for his stories of the macabre, none other than Edgar Allan Poe.

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/jsp/db/vie...rs'+paradox

http://www.bo.astro.it/~cappi/poecosmo.html

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArticle.asp...D=14446&pid=974

Dave Mitsky

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

It was a paradox only because of the time in which Olber lived. Back then it was believed that the universe was infinite both in time and in space and unchanging. Because they thought stars had existed eternally and filled the universe out to infinity then no matter how far away a star might be its light had time to reach us here. That meant that no matter what point of the sky you looked at your eye should see light from a star. No matter how small that point of light might be there'd be another directly alongside of it, there would be no gap whatsoever. In other words, no matter where you looked you'd always see the surface of a star so the whole sky should have been as bright as the sun. Except it isn't, hence a paradox. So something about their idea of the universe had to be wrong.

Then eventually red shift was discovered which led to the idea of an expanding universe which led to rejecting an infinite age and size of the universe. The paradox was explained. There aren't enough stars that have been around long enough to make the night sky bright.

Does the fact that different orders of infinity are involved have any bearing?

Consider the following configuration of very unlikely to occur but allowed star/galaxy/gas distribution within an unbounded universe. Partition the universe into right circular conical sections with apex at the observers location and of equal volume as computed at identical distances from the apex of each cone. Obviously the "base" end, though inaccessible, of each cone is both an infinite distance from its apex and of infinite radius however small it was at 15 billion light years distance from the observer. I maintain that a set of cones with equal apex solid angles can be chosen such that many of these hypothetical cones would contain neither stars nor galaxies due to the gravitational clumping (observed homogeniety and isotropy notwithstanding) of mass. As the solid angles of the apexes approach zero, the number of cones approaches a larger infinity than the set of all positive integers i.e., stars and galaxies.

Also, the consensus derived from GR is that light travels in curved paths.
One can postulate that there is a radius of curvature (the reciprocal of the curvature of a curve) with respect to the location of an infinite set of emitters below which points beyond the light path curvature will never intersect the photons of such emitters.

__________________
For those inclined to oppose human meddling with the structure of the universe or the composition and configuration of objects and groups of objects within the universe, consider:
Whether there is a limit to the magnitude of a modulation of chaos below which order remains invariant? Or, is order but a fiction invented by perspectives applied over finite, however large, time intervals?

Part of Olber's Paradox stems from the fact that the universe is probably infinite.

Olber's paradox is an old paradox from the steady state theory, which most of you stated. ( a theory that even Einstein supported at one time). If we are to believe the Big Bang theory then the paradox is resolved because that means the universe has a finite age but is still expanding. The light from distant stars still has not had time to reach us and the light from very distant stars has redshifted which has lowered the temperature of the universe. That means it is not hot enough to raise dark matter(gee that is a new word here) and dust to the temperature of the stars.

I thought it was an interesting paradox. Thanks for replying.

All the above posts do not express the paradox accurately at all...

There are 3 measurements and a few ratios that create the paradox..

1.) light weakens by the inverse square law...1/d^2

2.) the angular area subtended by any object weakens by the inverse square law as well...1/d^2...and angular areas, no matter how small they get, NEVER disappear..

3.) heat weakens by the inverse square law..1/d^2

4.) Brightness per surface area is determined by dividing the equation in 1.) above by the equation in 2.) above...

That is...1/d^2 divided by 1/d^2 = unity...Brightness per surface area is, therefore, independent of distance...Remember, this is NOT saying that brightness is independent of distance..just that brightness per surface area...a ratio..is independent of distance

What this means is that if you point your telescope right at the Sun and block out all but 1 trillionth of an arc second...then look into the night sky and find a G star that subtends 1 trillionth of an arc second...their brightness per suface area will be equal and you will have to use the same aperture and power to see each...

Now throw in your every line-of-sight experiment and stars should exist that take up the same angular area as the Sun and produce an equally bright star...Keep adding more as you fill up the rest of the sky and we should be blinded...

But....what about dust? That will brighten it further in an infinitely old universe...
With stars on every line-of-sight and heat being throw into the very same weakening rate per surface area and being just as independent from distance, that dust will not be cold at all..It will glow and be brighter than all the nebulas we see...

blueshift

Oh, Olber's paradox does not exist at all and it's not mentioned as a direct proof for BB theory.
The story is going on and on. It seems, one have to repeat a million times a few objections to Olber's paradox:
1.If you look at the sky with the microwave eyeglasses you will see very bright sky in all directions. The sky is bright. Even at night.
2. When talking about the visible light, the stars have limited lifetime, they don't shine infinitely long time, thus you can't suppose an infinitely number of stars in the line of sight.

Olber's paradox does not rule out an infinite universe,
otherwise they will conclude, allready at Olber's time, that Universe must be finite.

I have two comments.

It is not known whether the universe is finite or infinite. In fact, we may never know the answer to this quandry.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog...ogy_faq.html#RB

http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMR53T1VED_people_0_iv.html

The man's name was Heinrich Olbers. Thus, his claim to fame is Olbers' or Olbers's Paradox.

Here's a good explanation of said paradox:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela.../GR/olbers.html

Dave Mitsky

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Have you done the experiment? Or, did you read that off of Mamret's site and assume that it's been done? Further, doesn't this imply a special frame of frequency reference? Even the CMB will be blueshifted in the direction we are headed galactically and redshifted behind us..

Your second point ignores that new stars would be born in an infinite universe and ignores the role of angular area..

Thirdly, there is nothing that can prove an infinite universe...especially if you use finite quantities to describe it..That is why some cosmologists feel quite comfortable with the concept of singularity..They feel that it does describe infinity properly and that the universe was infinite at t=0, but then shattered into 3 expanding spatial dimensions and one of time..

We cannot rule out, in your favor, the possibility of an infinite 3D universe with a finite number of stars...Of course, then an explanation would be needed for all the finite things we see and measure around us like the constants and using finite measures to describe them...Infinite measures require infinite measuring systems and they shouldn't make any sense to us just as dividing by zero makes no sense.
There cannot be any reference points in an infinite system..Infinity has no coordinates..and cannot have only 3 dimensions of space and one of time that I can perceive..

By the way, thanks for the sites, Dave..

blueshift

btw, I never said that Olber's paradox was evidence of the Big Bang. I just said that if you believe in the BB, then Olber's paradox would be resolved because then the age of the universe would be finite . Although Olber's paradox works better for an infinite universe, it also works for a HUGE finite universe as well.

Nice sites! I love paradoxes.

No, I don't think Olber's paradox would work for a huge finite universe;
in order for the whole sky to be the same brightness as the the Sun
(or as an average star, to be more accurate)
the universe has to be:
/infinite in space
/eternal in time, i.e. without a beginning
and
/not expanding.

If it fails to meet any of those criteria then the sky will be dark. In fact it fails to meet all of those criteria.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

Blueshift, I'm refering to CMB when I'm talking about microwave bright sky.
So, experiment has been done (COBE;WMAP).
I'm somehow alwais confused with your posts, you just throw a bunch of statements in your post without any logical conection, as I see it.
Some exemples:
Isn't it just the way they established our speed to CMB?

I don't know, what to say. Einstein and many others used "finite quantities" to describe a universe they thaught was infinite.
Even in BBT the Universe is infinite. Using your "t=0", how much energy Universe possessed at that point?

How come? I can choose whatever I want as a reference point, regardless of of shape, inifinity etc. of Universe.

I don't know were these conclusions come from, and what it has to do with Olber's paradox.
As I said very, very confused replies.

Indeed stars could approach the distribution you have asserted, but there is no compelling reason for them to have to be distributed in such a manner. It seems reasonable to assume that gravitational clumping would lower the probability of your suggested distribution.

Do you agree that different orders of infinity are involved such that the infinity of all points (uncountable due to positions located at coordinates designated with irrational numbers and non-terminating decimal fractions) in space is of larger order than the "countable" number of stars within any finite volume however large? As the finite volume grows to infinite size the ratio of points in space to numbers of stars or galaxies also remains at infinite size assuming that division of a higher order infinity by a lower order infinity has definition. Remember a Planck length line segment contains an infinite number of points as does a planck length divided by 10e10000 or any much larger finite exponent of 10.

There cannot be points referenced in every position of an infinite system, but we can arbitrarily assume a 3D coordinate system with origin wherever we are and measure the location of objects within such a frame and extrapolate the frame however large we need for subjects under discussion.

__________________
For those inclined to oppose human meddling with the structure of the universe or the composition and configuration of objects and groups of objects within the universe, consider:
Whether there is a limit to the magnitude of a modulation of chaos below which order remains invariant? Or, is order but a fiction invented by perspectives applied over finite, however large, time intervals?

I think Benoit Mandelbrot suggested something like that, GOURDHEAD;

but it seems likely to me that an uneven distribution in an infinite universe would lead to fractal streaks and patches of brightness in the sky, which would still be visually impressive.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

I almost forgot I put anything up on this matter...Thanks for the replies..

Anyway, for Gourdhead...It is very possible that an infinite universe, which cannot be proven to exist, does behave in the manner you suggest...but how do we account for any possibility for virgin spacetime to exist? If spacetime is infinite in age, then all those areas have had infinite amount of time to form stars..

I do see infinites as defined by the math we were raised on..They make sense in
a finite universe..In an infinite universe? There should be infinite numbers of dimensions, including time dimensions..If not, why not? Only that might get off the subject and, perhaps, I shouldn't have brought it up..


Svemir...sorry for the confusion...

The CMB IS blueshifted in the direction we are going and shows a higher temp..and you might be right that they are calculating our motion relative to it..

The infinite universe Einstein envisioned was finite in size..I know that sounds utterly ridiculous and it is probably the reason he was glad to throw it out..He felt that the universe was closed and that no matter which way you traveled, you would fail to exit the universe because all of space curved back on itself..

The same analogy can be drawn from a circle...Where is its starting point? Where is its endpoint? It has neither so any journey taken in a circle universe cannot escape its finite boundary..The journey can go on and on and on...infinitely.

Again a good point is brought up when you say "I can choose whatever I want as a reference point"...In a limited sized universe I completely agree..

And, you are right that I should not have brought this up since it does not deal with Olber's Paradox...

But to keep with that your 3K glasses have nothing to do with Olber's Paradox because they have nothing to do with visible light..

Further, the heat per angular area is also independent from distance for the same reason as I mentioned earlier..1/d^2 divided by 1/d^2 gives unity
Therefore, it should not only blind us but bake us as well, assuming the line-of-sight argument holds..It should only fry us if Gourdhead's argument holds..

blueshift

True physical infinities are funny things to try to deal with. Assume that space is truly infinite in size. This means it's impossible to add even one cubic inch of volume to it. If you could then it wasn't truly infinite to begin with. So how many stars (or galaxies) could there be in this infinite universe? An infinite number? Nope, because to have an infinite number they'd have to be packed closely enough to be touching each other. So there's less than an infinite number. So what would be the average seperation between a less than infinite number of stars in a truly infinite in size universe? Here's the catch, it'd have to be an infinite distance.

There are other similar arguments that show a true infinity is impossible, whether it be time or space or anything else you can think of.

We do not share the same understanding of arithemetic applied to infinities. Let infinity be represented by & and N be any real positive number however large, then:

& + N = &, & - N = &, & - & = &, & + & = &.

Consequently, although I don't necessarily agree that it is the case, there can be space (volume) being added constantly to the universe, an infinite number of stars, and the spacing between them can be arbitrary.

The infiniteness of each of the four dimensions with which we are familiar imposes no constraint on the possible number of dimensions.

__________________
For those inclined to oppose human meddling with the structure of the universe or the composition and configuration of objects and groups of objects within the universe, consider:
Whether there is a limit to the magnitude of a modulation of chaos below which order remains invariant? Or, is order but a fiction invented by perspectives applied over finite, however large, time intervals?

Einstein, Newton, and Hawking did not, do not believe in singularity.

If you can understand that brightness is independent of distance [the inverse square law for distance and radiation exactly cancel]-

You should know, if you've researched this as I have, that the Big Bang model would have more than enough stars in the sky to cover an area at least as large as the area covered by the sun.

We know that these stars should shine together as brightly as the Sun. [Even with the redshift, which only slightly reduces brightness.]

As the night sky is not more than half as bright as the day, this itself is observational proof that light is diminished in it's long travel through space.

When applied to CMBR /expansion, this tends to support steady state theory.

Steady state attributes redshift to the diminishing of light through space and not expansion. BB theory relies on light traversing space undiminished.

I'm BAAAAAACK!

__________________
WAR IS PEACE / FREEDOM IS SLAVERY / ETC.

Winston,

You have a few problems here..

First, it is not brightness that is independent of distance..It is brightness per unit of area..

Second, the BB model does NOT have enough of a dense sky to produce an angular area = the sun..The ratio of the universe to all of the area that light has traveled in the BB/ inflationary model is greater than the ratio of all the area that light has traveled to the size of one proton...If you were truly standing at the limit where space is expanding, you would have more difficulty locating the light bubble of the universe than you would finding a contact lens dropped in the Atlantic 20 years ago..

If light diminishes with its travel, then how do you explain why light leaves a refracting substance at speed c?

Further, gravity per angular area is independent of distance as well. In an infinite universe just one region in the night sky, as you suggest, that subtends the same arc angle of that of the sun will compete with the sun over us gravitationally...


blueshift

I am saying brightness per unit area of sky. One million stars the size of the sun at a distance of ont thousand times that of the sun would [if undiminished]radiate the same ammount of light to Earth as the sun, while covering the same area of sky.

I constantly hear the arguement that no ligh or CMBR has left the universe, and that the universe is only as large as the Galaxies in the big bang expansion makes it. That would make the universe and the travelling light the same size, ratio 1:1.

On every subject, the Big Bang gives two (or more) opposite answers. People find this fascinating, and it STRENGTHENS their belief in the theory.

The refraction of light occurs in a fraction of a nanosecond, not over eons traversing space. The comparison is mute anyway, as collision/refraction has no part in the tired light phenom, at least by my theory.

Theres the sci-fi aspect of your theory. It does sound fascinating to bend or stretch space, but it's all farce.

On larger scales, the gravitational attraction of objects on all sides cancel.

__________________
WAR IS PEACE / FREEDOM IS SLAVERY / ETC.

Your first statement I agree with and it supports my argument..

Your second statement is simply dead wrong.You are trying to tell me that there was no space between anything at the point that atoms first formed. The ratio was never 1:1..

Your third statement doesn't take into account that there are simply more astronomers that support the Standard Model so there should be more various views to support the many measurements that exist..It was Robert Dicke, a Big Bang scientist, who held General Relativity's feet to the fire with greater intensity than anyone..Gemini, Apollo, Viking, and Mariner missions all indirectly tie many of their origins to Dicke...Many alternative theories have taken parts of his old hypotheses and still cling to them...MOND wouldn't exist without Dicke..

Your fourth statement displays some arrogance..Fritz Zwicky came up with the tired light theory 70 years ago..

Your fifth statement fails to recognize observations of the tidal effects..The stretching of the up/down dimension is clearly displayed between the Earth and the Moon while the other two perpendicular dimensions are squeezed, giving high and low tides...

Your sixth statement fails to see the same math as you saw earlier concerning brightness per angular area..1/d^2 divided by 1/d^2 produces unity..Therefore, gravitation per angular area is independent of distance..

Lastly, you haven't responded to downunder's post which might be the most compelling of all.

blueshift

Lets say you had an infinite number of rooms, in a row which is infinite in both directions. If only every third room is occupied, you could say that there are an infinite number of boarders.

They are not touching each other.

They are not infinitely spaced apart.

Perhaps you should explain infinity with a second quality: density. If all of the infinite rooms are filled, that would be an infinity with full density. If every other room was occupied, that would be an infinity of one-half density.

That removes the paradoxism.

An infinity is an impossibility for any living creature, or localized area of space. We could never see it, or encouter it. Infinity is the container and we are all adrift in endless time and space.

__________________
WAR IS PEACE / FREEDOM IS SLAVERY / ETC.

You cannot "have" an infinite number of rooms without adding them to the universe. By adding them to the universe you are admitting that the universe was not infinite to begin with.

If the universe is infinite, where are all the 64 trillion year old rocks? Or do you think we are traveling through virgin spacetime? Distance does not determine age in an infinite universe..

If time is infinite then how do you account for the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
There had to be less entropy in the past and less before that until we wind up with a single degree of freedom..


Your example of light spending a nanosecond in glass doesn't hold up either because the light from the Sun heads through thousands of miles of Earth's atmosphere and back out into space where it travels at speed c..

blueshift

As I said, expanding univers in BBT contains infinity in itself, so the concept of an infinite universe shouldn't bother a BBT supporter.
For mathematical operations on infinity, look at Gourdhead.
64 trillion year old rocks is a good example.
I expect we can find them just after we find 13 billion years old rocks. :P
Neutron stars contain mostly neutrons. Any neutron leaving the neutron star (i.e. due to extrem rotation) decays in 14 min in a proton and an electron becoming plasma. Extrem EM field of the neutron star is able to accelerate dem to escape velocity. When they reventually recombine after some time, there is no way to tell wether such Hydrogen atom has origin from a 64 trillion old rocks fallen into neutron star or is it primordial.

You are right, distance does not determine age of an infinite universe. So what?
I don't see a problem with scalar component of time being infinite and time still having a direction ("arrow of time").
Besides, how can you be sure that the second law apply to a universe as a whole?

That would be yet another physical characteristic of spacetime besides permability and "bendity" (curving in presence of matter).
Aging of spacetime.
Could it account for redshift?
I mean, if curvative of spacetime has influence on lights path, the aging of spacetime could influence lights wavelength.
Just an idea.

[Preface by assuming you read the link to Rufus Young's galaxy theory]

Matter is recycled. In the neutriod that becomes galaxies, pair production occurs creating H and HE, basically protons and neutrons.

Measuring tha "age" of matter really isn't a literal measure of the particles' age....It's a measure of radioactive elements; applying half-lifes to account for a sample becoming one half as radioactive as many times as necessary to match current levels.

This does not prove that matter was not formed in pair production, and was created by the big bang singularity.

Why do the ages of samples of matter differ at all in BB? Shouldn't all matter be 13.7 billion years old?

We have a tool (Hubble) that can look 20 billion years in the past, but they haven't done it. Why?

NASA has pictures of 15 billion light years away. there is nothing about the picture that suggests that the universe was any different 15 billion years ago.

The universe was not homogenous, not more dense or hot, and not expanding.

The universe wasn't even supposed to exist at the time. remember how BB theorists used three separate methods to measure the age of the Universe, and how they all agreed at exactly 13.7 billion years?
Entropy supposedly moved the universe continually towards a system of less order. This was based on behavior of closed systems. The universe is not a closed system.

Mix some liquid ingredients into a jar. There is no order. Set it on a table. The different ingredients separate. This is more order. The gravity of the Earth did the work, but such is the nature of the Universe...

Collisions result in heat travel to the cooler particle. Yet potential energy converts to heat energy, all energy converts to heat, and you cannot destroy energy. Randomization keeps many particles cold, and many superheated as in stars. In an elastic universe, this can continue infinitely.

FALSE

We can measure the redshift from the light of the Sun.

You are just playing with fallacious concepts. No creature can experience, count or touch infinity, as I said.

An infinite universe is akin to an infinitely large container. If you fill one percent of the universe with matter(or rooms), that leaves ninety-nine percent of the space open. Both would be infinite, by this concept, with no paradox.

I thought You would appreciate how I cleaned up the logic for you with the density concept.

All paradoxes are either fallacious or incomplete concepts, and don't really exist as science or fact. They should be used as a strike against a theory...

__________________
WAR IS PEACE / FREEDOM IS SLAVERY / ETC.

These are getting pretty interesting..

First of all, entropy doesn't work that way..It increases with time..You increased entropy when you stirred because your hand is not isolated from the system. The tool that was used for stirring is not either..Heat was released and the overall entropy increased..You place something in a refridgerator to interrupt the entropy of the food but not without the overall increase of entropy produced by the nuclear power plant that gave the fridge its power..

Matter recycled? Then proton decay should show up and we should see it occuring all around us..Gamma radiation is a by product of proton decay and there should be gamma radiation alerts all over the planet on a daily basis...That should be killing humans...A possible explanation for not seeing proton decay might be that decayed protons are exactly what dark matter is..That would show far stronger support for a very old universe, showing that 95% of the universe is so old that we cannot measure it that well at all..But you are stuck here...Like sheep who all answer the same bell, every one of the static state believers disregard dark matter all together...Why dump your best argument?

Ther are many half lives in radioactive decay that should have finished 7/8 their journey to completion, rendering ages that far exceed 13.7 billion years and there are none so far..In fact, a good point raised here is that we haven't seen 13 billion year old material and we should in our future..Earth is only 4 billion years old and hasn't traveled through that much space in BB/inflationary terms..In a static state term, however, what are the odds that we have managed to miss very old material
in our journey that has had forever for that material to linger, left behind by other matter? The majority of all micrometeorite dust falling to Earth should be very ancient even if just one molecule per trillion years survived back toward infinity..
It should be the majority of what I breath...

To support your arguement you need to come up with evidence that all molecules have some parameter where they decay at a rate that prohibits us from measuring ages that are quite ancient..

You can measure the reddening of the Sun, not the redshift due to the atmosphere.
Light does not slow down in a refractive substance, it has been given a longer journey to travel..The different frequencies of light will annihilate at different number of times at the quantum level..longer wavelength photons will interact less than the shorter ones..Their speeds don't change..their journey lengths do. That's why the sun reddens at dawn and dusk..

You measure the redshift by comparing the absorption lines to the emission lines and realizing that the absorption lines must be redshifted less than the absorption lines that are both related to the galaxy in question..When emission lines are less redshifted in relationship to absorption lines being viewed, then they are not related to the same object being observed..Just comparing emission lines to something in a lab does not tell us enough. Our line of sight could have other objects with which those emission lines are related to..

You are very right that all concepts are incomplete..Only a clockwork universe vision looks for perfect symmetry which is not there..There are slight violators that signal new concepts to us ..Kaons and muons violate mirror symmetry. Antimatter decays at a different rate than matter..Finding violations to relativity will signal signatures of quantum gravity..etc

Gourdhead's perception and yours holds on to a math construct of infinity..
We can place any number between any two that we jot down but the quantum world reminds us that the universe is quantized...

A better way to argue against my position is to do what Robert Dicke would have done..claim that the BB suggests infinity and that the static state fails to do so..
If there was a single degree of freedom in the past that suggests a singularity, both physically and numerically, then perhaps that is right on the money..Something without dimension cannot really be called small without a reference to what is "larger"...So the word "small" is only from our Aristotelian view..From a singularity's point of view there might not be anything called large or small or have any constants at all..Infinity may be implied here more accurately than math does..

If the Second Law does not apply to the universe as a whole then both time symmetry and translational symmetry is invalid, ruling out the conservation of momentum...This would show up locally on both accounts..

The 64 trillion year old rock issue brings up a question as to the decay rate of all molecules..not baryons..I did drag them in on this post with mentioniing proton decay...Perfect recycling of matter should show up in our particle accelerators..It doesn't..

By the way...thanks for the inputs..Without differences and debates nothing gets brought out...

With this editing I realize that I should have answered the room density question raised...One slight displacement of any one room and I see a domino effect gravitationally that brings that situation to an end. Einstein realized this..

blueshift

why does'nt all the light burn us to death? even if its only been coming for " ? " years, if the big bang was true, everything would have been toghether so the light would have already reached what would later be earth. :huh: