'Why is the night sky black?'

[Delta4Embassy]

http://phys.org/news/2015-12-night-sky-black.html

"It sounds obvious. That's what night is. The sun has set and when you look up at the sky, it's black. Except where there's a star, of course. The stars are bright and shiny.

But wait. Imagine you are deep in a forest. All around you there are trees. Wherever you look, you are looking at a tree. Maybe a big tree close up or a bunch of small trees further away. Surely it should be the same with stars. We're deep in the universe and whatever direction we look in, there ought to be stars there – billions and billions and billions of them. You would have thought that they'd fill the whole night sky, with the more distant ones fainter but more numerous.

Olbers' Paradox

This is called "Olbers' Paradox" after a 19th-century astronomer, although the conundrum was around for a couple of centuries before him. And the answer – at least, now – is fairly clear.

The reason the night sky isn't just a blaze of light is because the universe isn't infinite and static. If it were, if the stars went on forever, and if they had been there forever in time, we would see a bright night sky. The fact that we don't tells us something very fundamental about the universe we live in."

rest at link

 

[The Great Goose]

Why are you a complete idiot, with no brains, and you're dumb?

 

[Yarddog]

http://phys.org/news/2015-12-night-sky-black.html

"It sounds obvious. That's what night is. The sun has set and when you look up at the sky, it's black. Except where there's a star, of course. The stars are bright and shiny.

But wait. Imagine you are deep in a forest. All around you there are trees. Wherever you look, you are looking at a tree. Maybe a big tree close up or a bunch of small trees further away. Surely it should be the same with stars. We're deep in the universe and whatever direction we look in, there ought to be stars there – billions and billions and billions of them. You would have thought that they'd fill the whole night sky, with the more distant ones fainter but more numerous.

Olbers' Paradox

This is called "Olbers' Paradox" after a 19th-century astronomer, although the conundrum was around for a couple of centuries before him. And the answer – at least, now – is fairly clear.

The reason the night sky isn't just a blaze of light is because the universe isn't infinite and static. If it were, if the stars went on forever, and if they had been there forever in time, we would see a bright night sky. The fact that we don't tells us something very fundamental about the universe we live in."

rest at link

Maybe our eyes are not able to perceive all of the light that is there? I don't know for sure. Maybe you need to ask an Owl, Ive heard there pretty wise, especially the old ones

 

[The Great Goose]

http://phys.org/news/2015-12-night-sky-black.html

"It sounds obvious. That's what night is. The sun has set and when you look up at the sky, it's black. Except where there's a star, of course. The stars are bright and shiny.

But wait. Imagine you are deep in a forest. All around you there are trees. Wherever you look, you are looking at a tree. Maybe a big tree close up or a bunch of small trees further away. Surely it should be the same with stars. We're deep in the universe and whatever direction we look in, there ought to be stars there – billions and billions and billions of them. You would have thought that they'd fill the whole night sky, with the more distant ones fainter but more numerous.

Olbers' Paradox

This is called "Olbers' Paradox" after a 19th-century astronomer, although the conundrum was around for a couple of centuries before him. And the answer – at least, now – is fairly clear.

The reason the night sky isn't just a blaze of light is because the universe isn't infinite and static. If it were, if the stars went on forever, and if they had been there forever in time, we would see a bright night sky. The fact that we don't tells us something very fundamental about the universe we live in."

rest at link

Maybe our eyes are not able to perceive all of the light that is there? I don't know for sure. Maybe you need to ask an Owl, Ive heard there pretty wise, especially the old ones

You Idiot! You are playing right into his hands.

 

[Wyatt earp]

http://phys.org/news/2015-12-night-sky-black.html

"It sounds obvious. That's what night is. The sun has set and when you look up at the sky, it's black. Except where there's a star, of course. The stars are bright and shiny.

But wait. Imagine you are deep in a forest. All around you there are trees. Wherever you look, you are looking at a tree. Maybe a big tree close up or a bunch of small trees further away. Surely it should be the same with stars. We're deep in the universe and whatever direction we look in, there ought to be stars there – billions and billions and billions of them. You would have thought that they'd fill the whole night sky, with the more distant ones fainter but more numerous.

Olbers' Paradox

This is called "Olbers' Paradox" after a 19th-century astronomer, although the conundrum was around for a couple of centuries before him. And the answer – at least, now – is fairly clear.

The reason the night sky isn't just a blaze of light is because the universe isn't infinite and static. If it were, if the stars went on forever, and if they had been there forever in time, we would see a bright night sky. The fact that we don't tells us something very fundamental about the universe we live in."

rest at link

Maybe our eyes are not able to perceive all of the light that is there? I don't know for sure. Maybe you need to ask an Owl, Ive heard there pretty wise, especially the old ones

Did any of them figure out how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootse roll pop?

I think not, so owls are not as smart as they seem.

 

[frigidweirdo]

http://phys.org/news/2015-12-night-sky-black.html

"It sounds obvious. That's what night is. The sun has set and when you look up at the sky, it's black. Except where there's a star, of course. The stars are bright and shiny.

But wait. Imagine you are deep in a forest. All around you there are trees. Wherever you look, you are looking at a tree. Maybe a big tree close up or a bunch of small trees further away. Surely it should be the same with stars. We're deep in the universe and whatever direction we look in, there ought to be stars there – billions and billions and billions of them. You would have thought that they'd fill the whole night sky, with the more distant ones fainter but more numerous.

Olbers' Paradox

This is called "Olbers' Paradox" after a 19th-century astronomer, although the conundrum was around for a couple of centuries before him. And the answer – at least, now – is fairly clear.

The reason the night sky isn't just a blaze of light is because the universe isn't infinite and static. If it were, if the stars went on forever, and if they had been there forever in time, we would see a bright night sky. The fact that we don't tells us something very fundamental about the universe we live in."

rest at link

Maybe our eyes are not able to perceive all of the light that is there? I don't know for sure. Maybe you need to ask an Owl, Ive heard there pretty wise, especially the old ones

You Idiot! You are playing right into his hands.

We don't want difficult questions getting out and making stupid people feeling stupid, now do we?

 

[The Great Goose]

He's Lying!

 

[Yarddog]

http://phys.org/news/2015-12-night-sky-black.html

"It sounds obvious. That's what night is. The sun has set and when you look up at the sky, it's black. Except where there's a star, of course. The stars are bright and shiny.

But wait. Imagine you are deep in a forest. All around you there are trees. Wherever you look, you are looking at a tree. Maybe a big tree close up or a bunch of small trees further away. Surely it should be the same with stars. We're deep in the universe and whatever direction we look in, there ought to be stars there – billions and billions and billions of them. You would have thought that they'd fill the whole night sky, with the more distant ones fainter but more numerous.

Olbers' Paradox

This is called "Olbers' Paradox" after a 19th-century astronomer, although the conundrum was around for a couple of centuries before him. And the answer – at least, now – is fairly clear.

The reason the night sky isn't just a blaze of light is because the universe isn't infinite and static. If it were, if the stars went on forever, and if they had been there forever in time, we would see a bright night sky. The fact that we don't tells us something very fundamental about the universe we live in."

rest at link

Maybe our eyes are not able to perceive all of the light that is there? I don't know for sure. Maybe you need to ask an Owl, Ive heard there pretty wise, especially the old ones

Did any of them figure out how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootse roll pop?

I think not, so owls are not as smart as they seem.

The owls always snapped off the Tootsie roll pop before they reached the center, so I guess they never found out. But that only proves they are impatient, not unwise

 

[Wyatt earp]

http://phys.org/news/2015-12-night-sky-black.html

"It sounds obvious. That's what night is. The sun has set and when you look up at the sky, it's black. Except where there's a star, of course. The stars are bright and shiny.

But wait. Imagine you are deep in a forest. All around you there are trees. Wherever you look, you are looking at a tree. Maybe a big tree close up or a bunch of small trees further away. Surely it should be the same with stars. We're deep in the universe and whatever direction we look in, there ought to be stars there – billions and billions and billions of them. You would have thought that they'd fill the whole night sky, with the more distant ones fainter but more numerous.

Olbers' Paradox

This is called "Olbers' Paradox" after a 19th-century astronomer, although the conundrum was around for a couple of centuries before him. And the answer – at least, now – is fairly clear.

The reason the night sky isn't just a blaze of light is because the universe isn't infinite and static. If it were, if the stars went on forever, and if they had been there forever in time, we would see a bright night sky. The fact that we don't tells us something very fundamental about the universe we live in."

rest at link

Maybe our eyes are not able to perceive all of the light that is there? I don't know for sure. Maybe you need to ask an Owl, Ive heard there pretty wise, especially the old ones

Did any of them figure out how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootse roll pop?

I think not, so owls are not as smart as they seem.

The owls always snapped off the Tootsie roll pop before they reached the center, so I guess they never found out. But that only proves they are impatient, not unwise

PATIENCE YOU MUST HAVE my young padawan”. – Yoda ...


Its also in the book of proverbs, A wise man has patience..

 

[Muhammed]

http://phys.org/news/2015-12-night-sky-black.html

"It sounds obvious. That's what night is. The sun has set and when you look up at the sky, it's black. Except where there's a star, of course. The stars are bright and shiny.

But wait. Imagine you are deep in a forest. All around you there are trees. Wherever you look, you are looking at a tree. Maybe a big tree close up or a bunch of small trees further away. Surely it should be the same with stars. We're deep in the universe and whatever direction we look in, there ought to be stars there – billions and billions and billions of them. You would have thought that they'd fill the whole night sky, with the more distant ones fainter but more numerous.

Olbers' Paradox

This is called "Olbers' Paradox" after a 19th-century astronomer, although the conundrum was around for a couple of centuries before him. And the answer – at least, now – is fairly clear.

The reason the night sky isn't just a blaze of light is because the universe isn't infinite and static. If it were, if the stars went on forever, and if they had been there forever in time, we would see a bright night sky. The fact that we don't tells us something very fundamental about the universe we live in."

rest at link

That makes no logical sense whatsoever.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

http://phys.org/news/2015-12-night-sky-black.html

"It sounds obvious. That's what night is. The sun has set and when you look up at the sky, it's black. Except where there's a star, of course. The stars are bright and shiny.

But wait. Imagine you are deep in a forest. All around you there are trees. Wherever you look, you are looking at a tree. Maybe a big tree close up or a bunch of small trees further away. Surely it should be the same with stars. We're deep in the universe and whatever direction we look in, there ought to be stars there – billions and billions and billions of them. You would have thought that they'd fill the whole night sky, with the more distant ones fainter but more numerous.

Olbers' Paradox

This is called "Olbers' Paradox" after a 19th-century astronomer, although the conundrum was around for a couple of centuries before him. And the answer – at least, now – is fairly clear.

The reason the night sky isn't just a blaze of light is because the universe isn't infinite and static. If it were, if the stars went on forever, and if they had been there forever in time, we would see a bright night sky. The fact that we don't tells us something very fundamental about the universe we live in."

rest at link

That makes no logical sense whatsoever.

It does. You just haven't wrapped your head around it yet.

 

[Muhammed]

http://phys.org/news/2015-12-night-sky-black.html

"It sounds obvious. That's what night is. The sun has set and when you look up at the sky, it's black. Except where there's a star, of course. The stars are bright and shiny.

But wait. Imagine you are deep in a forest. All around you there are trees. Wherever you look, you are looking at a tree. Maybe a big tree close up or a bunch of small trees further away. Surely it should be the same with stars. We're deep in the universe and whatever direction we look in, there ought to be stars there – billions and billions and billions of them. You would have thought that they'd fill the whole night sky, with the more distant ones fainter but more numerous.

Olbers' Paradox

This is called "Olbers' Paradox" after a 19th-century astronomer, although the conundrum was around for a couple of centuries before him. And the answer – at least, now – is fairly clear.

The reason the night sky isn't just a blaze of light is because the universe isn't infinite and static. If it were, if the stars went on forever, and if they had been there forever in time, we would see a bright night sky. The fact that we don't tells us something very fundamental about the universe we live in."

rest at link

That makes no logical sense whatsoever.

It does. You just haven't wrapped your head around it yet.

Feel free to explain the train of logic that you used to come to that ridiculous conclusion.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

http://phys.org/news/2015-12-night-sky-black.html

"It sounds obvious. That's what night is. The sun has set and when you look up at the sky, it's black. Except where there's a star, of course. The stars are bright and shiny.

But wait. Imagine you are deep in a forest. All around you there are trees. Wherever you look, you are looking at a tree. Maybe a big tree close up or a bunch of small trees further away. Surely it should be the same with stars. We're deep in the universe and whatever direction we look in, there ought to be stars there – billions and billions and billions of them. You would have thought that they'd fill the whole night sky, with the more distant ones fainter but more numerous.

Olbers' Paradox

This is called "Olbers' Paradox" after a 19th-century astronomer, although the conundrum was around for a couple of centuries before him. And the answer – at least, now – is fairly clear.

The reason the night sky isn't just a blaze of light is because the universe isn't infinite and static. If it were, if the stars went on forever, and if they had been there forever in time, we would see a bright night sky. The fact that we don't tells us something very fundamental about the universe we live in."

rest at link

That makes no logical sense whatsoever.

It does. You just haven't wrapped your head around it yet.

Feel free to explain the train of logic that you used to come to that ridiculous conclusion.

Light from stars travels infinitely. Can see the light from stars 13 billion lightyears away. If the universe were infinitely old, and infinitely vast, there should be light everywhere instead of just 3000 or so stars visible from Earth. Reason we only see some and not all is because the universe isn't infinitely old or vast. It had a beginning so all the stars' light is still 'in transit' to the rest fo the universe.

To put it another way, when the universe is twice as old, we should see twice as many stars from Earth (assuming it were still here which it wont be.) If the universe were already infinitely old we'd see every star's light.

 

[Muhammed]

http://phys.org/news/2015-12-night-sky-black.html

"It sounds obvious. That's what night is. The sun has set and when you look up at the sky, it's black. Except where there's a star, of course. The stars are bright and shiny.

But wait. Imagine you are deep in a forest. All around you there are trees. Wherever you look, you are looking at a tree. Maybe a big tree close up or a bunch of small trees further away. Surely it should be the same with stars. We're deep in the universe and whatever direction we look in, there ought to be stars there – billions and billions and billions of them. You would have thought that they'd fill the whole night sky, with the more distant ones fainter but more numerous.

Olbers' Paradox

This is called "Olbers' Paradox" after a 19th-century astronomer, although the conundrum was around for a couple of centuries before him. And the answer – at least, now – is fairly clear.

The reason the night sky isn't just a blaze of light is because the universe isn't infinite and static. If it were, if the stars went on forever, and if they had been there forever in time, we would see a bright night sky. The fact that we don't tells us something very fundamental about the universe we live in."

rest at link

That makes no logical sense whatsoever.

It does. You just haven't wrapped your head around it yet.

Feel free to explain the train of logic that you used to come to that ridiculous conclusion.

Light from stars travels infinitely. Can see the light from stars 13 billion lightyears away. If the universe were infinitely old, and infinitely vast, there should be light everywhere instead of just 3000 or so stars visible from Earth. Reason we only see some and not all is because the universe isn't infinitely old or vast. It had a beginning so all the stars' light is still 'in transit' to the rest fo the universe.

To put it another way, when the universe is twice as old, we should see twice as many stars from Earth (assuming it were still here which it wont be.) If the universe were already infinitely old we'd see every star's light.

That's ignorant.

You are leaping to a series of conclusions that make no logical sense.