Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Why? Doesnt that just mean absence of light or somethijt?
Yes. But why is there an absence of light?
If there are infinite stars, then every direction you look would encounter a star. (Things stay the same brightness per subtended angle as they get far away. Space dust doesn't matter, as it would thermalize and radiate.)
So, the universe can't have infinite luminous matter, be static and ageless, because if it were then the night sky would look like the surface of a sun.
This may all seem obvious, but it's neat that you can figure that out with the naked eye.
Can't we see stars that do not show up in the night sky? Like that spot looks dark to the naked eye, with a hobby telescope it looks dark, but with a space probe telescope you can see a distant star is there?
You discounted space dust. But there has to be a near infinite amount of asteroids out there. If I wanted to see 1m lightyears into a specific spot, like the odds of not hitting an astroid would be pretty hard.
Like if you had a Lite Brite globe with each Lite Brite peg representing a sun. In the middle of the globe it would be completely lit up. However, if you started throwing around astroids around inside the globe, you'd start blocking pegs. Suns, pegs, are still behind the astroid. It's just blocking the light. A tiny astroid could cast a huge shadow. Even tiny space dust.
No I didn't
it would thermalize and radiate.
This is not my paradox, and it's not really a paradox at all, as the big bang model explains it nicely. There are many nice articles on the topic of you'd like to read more about it.
I'm not trying to disprove you or anything, I know it's not your paradox. Apologies that it came off that way.
But like a tiny flake of space dust is enough to eclipse a sun for us a near infinite distance away. Matter is not going to let light through it. Even if some space dust thermalizes and radiates. The chances something like an asteroid, planet, moon, etc. Is high. Space seems mostly void, but an infinite amount of mostly void is still a lot of stuff.
I'll check then out!