Proof:

Consider a shell of stars/galaxies around a sphere. With distance r from the centre of the sphere and a thickness of the shell t. Now the total luminosity of the shell is equal to the luminosity per star/galaxy times the number of them in the shell. Now let x = the number of stars/galaxies per unit volume and v = be the surface area of a sphere times the thickness of the shell t. So v=4Pir^2t. So N is the number of stars/galaxy in the shell and it equals xv. Now get the apparent brightness of each star/galaxy. L (r)= Lo times (ro/r)^2 where Lo is the brightness for a chosen distance ro. So the total luminosity is (4PixLo(ro)^2)t. Now you find the total lumnoisty for all the shells in the universe. So the luminosity of the sky, Lsky=(4PixLo(ro)^2)Tuniverse where Tuniverse is the thickness of the universe ie. add up all the shells.

So you either have a finite universe in which case L sky would be very large or the universe is infinite in which case L sky is infinite.

Now since we observe that the sky is dark at night our assumptions are not true. So either the universe is not infinite or the univerese is not unchanging or both.

Therefore the reason the sky is dark at night is because either the universe is finite or is changing in time or both.

looks like the sun teeds to rise on you to be honest looks like your in the dark

-------
something always happens for a reason, unless of course its a mistake

as light spreads out, it dims, because it has a finite amount of energy. the brightness of something is measured in "candles" or lumen's. basically it is a density of light-wave energy per unit volume. as the unit-volume increases [as it would exponentially as one moves from point A [close to a star] to point B [far from the star] to point C [hundreds of light-years away from the star]; and it does so exponentially [as i stated before].

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that as the unit-volume increases, conversely -then, and exponentially- does the "density" of light-wave energy decrease.

It is silly to think that with the amount of space between stars and the limited amount of objects to refract the light [thus creating points of lumination] that the stars could put out enough light-wave energy so as to illuminate the ENTIRE universe.

The sky is dark at night because of the simple reason that the only star near enough to us to actually illuminate our atmosphere is the sun. [no other, all others fade out of any noticible illumination FAR before the light reaches us] and when the sun's light is blocked by something, then the light in the sky is thus blocked.

your little equation works if [ro] is a workable number, but it is not, ro must be the taken as the total number of luminous objects within the ENTIRE universe [finite or not]. since NEITHER can be computed, nor can your luminosity equation, thus the system, and therefore your argument, falls apart.

Furthermore, take into consideration the expansion of the universe.
With an ever-expanding universe, the time it takes for light from star A -so many light years away- to get to us is never a finite length, and so in essence, the light [however dim] never truly reaches us.

Lastly
Take into consideration solar eclipses.
Even with the sun and the moon -which under the circumstances of something else blocking the sun, would refract light onto earth, albeit only a small amount- completely without lumination, there is still a slight amount of brightness [at least, we can still see a bit]. this is due to, partially, four things.

1) the minimal amount of refraction that houses, buildings, cities put out. though let us put ourselves in the middle of the ocean. [note, the light from the aforementioned structures would still create some lumination that would be experienced by said person in the middle of the ocean.]

2) the other planets refract a small amount of light onto earth, depending on their orientation at the time.

3) the nucleus of our own galaxy produces some light that provides illumination [however, it is most likely not really noticeable to the human eye]

4) and stars from distant galaxies and solar-systems. these provide the most minute illumination and in all likelihood are not even measurable -that is how tiny they contribute, the number is likely as close to zero as to basically be considered zero.

the reason the sky is dark is because of the FINITE amount of energy in the universe. it is dark because stars can only give off a certain amount of light-wave energy --remember, alot of its energy is given off as heat as well. It is dark because as the light travels away from the star, it becomes less and less luminous, as the energy per unit space decreases.

trust me on this, it may make sense to you after leaving 11th grade physics class, but for those who understand such things in depth, these notions, or supposed proofs, are just silly ramblings.

-------
            ...life is good...
...mai ho oni i ka wai lana malie...

---

Quote: from ImSoHappy at 6:26 pm on Mar. 31, 2008

---

Quote: from me llamo at 11:25 pm on Mar. 31, 2008

---

because the sun goes down

---

Then how do we see stars? (or d they make their own light?)

---

yes you moron. they're suns!

---

lulz

-------
Shakespeare

---

Quote: from i who have nothing at 6:29 am on April 1, 2008

---

Quote: from ImSoHappy at 6:26 pm on Mar. 31, 2008

---

Quote: from me llamo at 11:25 pm on Mar. 31, 2008

---

because the sun goes down

---

Then how do we see stars? (or d they make their own light?)

---

 

 yes you moron.  they're suns!

---

lulz

---

lool

-------
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]

---

Quote: from me llamo at 11:25 pm on Mar. 31, 2008

---

because the sun goes down

---

Then how do we see stars? (or d they make their own light?)

---

Stars ARE suns.

-------
.:Faut souffrir pour etre belle:.
He makes me feel like the luckiest girl in the world
[06.07.07] ♥
Rest in Peace Nana Terry [12.05.08]

---

the theory SOUNDS ok, but think about what it implies.
that a star 400,000,000 light years away will give off light that will not defract enough so that we can perceive it as being bright.

as light spreads out, it dims, because it has a finite amount of energy. the brightness of something is measured in "candles" or lumen's. basically it is a density of light-wave energy per unit volume. as the unit-volume increases [as it would exponentially as one moves from point A [close to a star] to point B [far from the star] to point C [hundreds of light-years away from the star]; and it does so exponentially [as i stated before].

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that as the unit-volume increases, conversely -then, and exponentially- does the "density" of light-wave energy decrease.

It is silly to think that with the amount of space between stars and the limited amount of objects to refract the light [thus creating points of lumination] that the stars could put out enough light-wave energy so as to illuminate the ENTIRE universe.  

The sky is dark at night because of the simple reason that the only star near enough to us to actually illuminate our atmosphere is the sun. [no other, all others fade out of any noticible illumination FAR before the light reaches us] and when the sun's light is blocked by something, then the light in the sky is thus blocked.  

your little equation works if [ro] is a workable number, but it is not, ro must be the taken as the total number of luminous objects within the ENTIRE universe [finite or not]. since NEITHER can be computed, nor can your luminosity equation, thus the system, and therefore your argument, falls apart.  

Furthermore, take into consideration the expansion of the universe.  
With an ever-expanding universe, the time it takes for light from star A -so many light years away- to get to us is never a finite length, and so in essence, the light [however dim] never truly reaches us.  

Lastly  
Take into consideration solar eclipses.  
Even with the sun and the moon -which under the circumstances of something else blocking the sun, would refract light onto earth, albeit only a small amount- completely without lumination, there is still a slight amount of brightness [at least, we can still see a bit]. this is due to, partially, four things.

1) the minimal amount of refraction that houses, buildings, cities put out. though let us put ourselves in the middle of the ocean. [note, the light from the aforementioned structures would still create some lumination that would be experienced by said person in the middle of the ocean.]

2) the other planets refract a small amount of light onto earth, depending on their orientation at the time.

3) the nucleus of our own galaxy produces some light that provides illumination [however, it is most likely not really noticeable to the human eye]

4) and stars from distant galaxies and solar-systems. these provide the most minute illumination and in all likelihood are not even measurable -that is how tiny they contribute, the number is likely as close to zero as to basically be considered zero.  

 

the reason the sky is dark is because of the FINITE amount of energy in the universe. it is dark because stars can only give off a certain amount of light-wave energy --remember, alot of its energy is given off as heat as well. It is dark because as the light travels away from the star, it becomes less and less luminous, as the energy per unit space decreases.  

trust me on this, it may make sense to you after leaving 11th grade physics class, but for those who understand such things in depth, these notions, or supposed proofs, are just silly ramblings.

---

---

the theory SOUNDS ok, but think about what it implies.
that a star 400,000,000 light years away will give off light that will not defract enough so that we can perceive it as being bright.

as light spreads out, it dims, because it has a finite amount of energy. the brightness of something is measured in "candles" or lumen's. basically it is a density of light-wave energy per unit volume. as the unit-volume increases [as it would exponentially as one moves from point A [close to a star] to point B [far from the star] to point C [hundreds of light-years away from the star]; and it does so exponentially [as i stated before].

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that as the unit-volume increases, conversely -then, and exponentially- does the "density" of light-wave energy decrease.

It is silly to think that with the amount of space between stars and the limited amount of objects to refract the light [thus creating points of lumination] that the stars could put out enough light-wave energy so as to illuminate the ENTIRE universe.  

The sky is dark at night because of the simple reason that the only star near enough to us to actually illuminate our atmosphere is the sun. [no other, all others fade out of any noticible illumination FAR before the light reaches us] and when the sun's light is blocked by something, then the light in the sky is thus blocked.  

your little equation works if [ro] is a workable number, but it is not, ro must be the taken as the total number of luminous objects within the ENTIRE universe [finite or not]. since NEITHER can be computed, nor can your luminosity equation, thus the system, and therefore your argument, falls apart.  

Furthermore, take into consideration the expansion of the universe.  
With an ever-expanding universe, the time it takes for light from star A -so many light years away- to get to us is never a finite length, and so in essence, the light [however dim] never truly reaches us.  

Lastly  
Take into consideration solar eclipses.  
Even with the sun and the moon -which under the circumstances of something else blocking the sun, would refract light onto earth, albeit only a small amount- completely without lumination, there is still a slight amount of brightness [at least, we can still see a bit]. this is due to, partially, four things.

1) the minimal amount of refraction that houses, buildings, cities put out. though let us put ourselves in the middle of the ocean. [note, the light from the aforementioned structures would still create some lumination that would be experienced by said person in the middle of the ocean.]

2) the other planets refract a small amount of light onto earth, depending on their orientation at the time.

3) the nucleus of our own galaxy produces some light that provides illumination [however, it is most likely not really noticeable to the human eye]

4) and stars from distant galaxies and solar-systems. these provide the most minute illumination and in all likelihood are not even measurable -that is how tiny they contribute, the number is likely as close to zero as to basically be considered zero.  

 

the reason the sky is dark is because of the FINITE amount of energy in the universe. it is dark because stars can only give off a certain amount of light-wave energy --remember, alot of its energy is given off as heat as well. It is dark because as the light travels away from the star, it becomes less and less luminous, as the energy per unit space decreases.  

trust me on this, it may make sense to you after leaving 11th grade physics class, but for those who understand such things in depth, these notions, or supposed proofs, are just silly ramblings.

---

First of all it is not my theory its Olber's Paradox. And second it is not a 11th grade physics class its a first year university class called Astronomy: The Universe. ro is a chosen distance. Each star/galaxy has apparent brightness and you use this equation L(r)=Lox(ro/r)^2 to find it. Where Lo is the brightness for a chosen distance ro and you would chose ro to be 10pc since the absolute magnitude is the magnitude a star would have if it was 10pc away since this allows for a meaningful comparison of different stars at different distances.

---

Anyone can make a theory, ESPECIALLY an apparent paradox.
As i explained, the theory --excuse my patronizing expression-- looks good mathematically, but it is practically and physically insignificant.

---

It had great implications when it was first put forward back in the 1800's. People once thought that the universe was infinite and unchanging but Olber's Paradox proves that this is not the case. Also Olber's Paradox is evidence for a non-static universe which is a big part of the Big Bang model.

---

Quote: from norock at 5:18 pm on April 5, 2008

---

Anyone can make a theory, ESPECIALLY an apparent paradox.  
 As i explained, the theory --excuse my patronizing expression-- looks good mathematically, but it is practically and physically insignificant.

---

It had great implications when it was first put forward back in the 1800's. People once thought that the universe was infinite and unchanging but Olber's Paradox proves that this is not the case. Also Olber's Paradox is evidence for a non-static universe which is a big part of the Big Bang model.

---

that doesn't mean that it is correct...
I didn't say that it wasn't something worth knowing, simply that the way it goes about proving its point is, to put it simply, not entirely correct.

-------
            ...life is good...
...mai ho oni i ka wai lana malie...