 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Olbers' paradox
editI am unclear how this differs from Olbers' paradox.—RJH (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- One might consider a merge, but I'd like to see sources identifying the two first. Or any sources for this one. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- The one source given lists paradoxes, but does not include Olber's paradox. I suspect he just renamed it; i.e. it really is Olber's paradox. --Michael C. Price talk 23:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Source
editWhere does this "paradox" come from? Especially, I'm interested in why the following is considered true: "Infinite size" <==> "Infinite age" Also what kind of "size" are we talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.129.111.203 (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's a stub that needs references, so the statement can already be considered challenged. Re "size": Hm? The article talks of "infinite in extent". In GRT speak, that would be an "open" universe. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. Only by the viewpoint of an infinite old and size universe could this be considered a paradox, but as our current understanding of the universe rejects either there's no contradiction in it as well it leads to the (not disproved) cosmological heat death hypothesis. Wcris (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Disproves steady state?
editSurely it disproves a static infinitely old universe only? An eternally expanding steady state universe can have hot stars and cold dust and be infinitely old. --Michael C. Price talk 23:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- It need not even disprove that much. A paradox can be solved in several ways. One of them is to show that its argument is invalid. I wouldn't worry too much about what the article says right now, because there are no sources we can refer to. ;)
- On your comment about the Cucić paper: Olbers' paradox is about the appearance of the night sky, and predates the very concept of entropy by roughly a century. Paradoctor (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Nevertheless this article is just Olbers' paradox recast in thermodynamic guise, AFAICS. --Michael C. Price talk 01:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, as long as there are sources saying so, I have no problem with finding this statement in the article. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Argument from ignorance for finite extent of universe
editThe author of this seems to jump to the conclusion that the universe must necessarily not be infinite in extent if it is not infinitely old. There is no reason provided as to how this logical leap was made, it seems as if the author simply assumes that it must follow as a consequence because he has a failure of imagination as to how the universe might be infinite in size and finite in age. He is personally incredulous as to how the universe could be infinite in extent if it was finite in size and so does not consider the possibility of it, much as how a creationist does not consider that evolution might be real because he cannot see how eyeballs could possibly evolve. Argument from personal incredulity. Tell me I'm wrong.