does anyone know this theory? and who made it?

Question

who asked this Q?
If there are so many galaxies and stars then why isn't it light all the time? why isn't the night side of the Earth lit up by this light?

Answer 1

The theory is called Olber's Paradox & was constructed by Heinrich Olber in the 1800's. His idea was if the universe was infinite in size & had an infinite number of stars(suns just like our sun, Sol), then the whole sky should have the brightness of our sun, Sol! In other words, where ever you looked toward the sky (even with a theoretically super super powerful telescope), your line of sight would eventually come to the surface of a star, if the universe was infinite & the number of stars was infinite. That the sky isn't the brightness of Sol's surface must mean there is a limit to the universe as we see it.

Answer 2

We see stars all around, so why doesn't their combined light add up to make our night sky--and surrounding space, for that matter--bright? German physicist Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers put the same puzzle this way in 1823: If the universe is infinite in size, and stars (or galaxies) are distributed throughout this infinite universe, then we are certain to eventually see a star in any direction we look. As a result, the night sky should be aglow. Why isn't it?

In fact, the answer is far more profound than it appears. There have been many attempts at explaining this puzzle, dubbed Olbers' Paradox, over the years. One version implicated dust between stars and perhaps between galaxies. The idea was that the dust would block the light from faraway objects, making the sky dark. In reality, however, the light falling on the dust would eventually heat it up so that it would glow as brightly as the original sources of the light.

Another proposed answer for the paradox held that the tremendous red shift of distant galaxies--the lengthening of the wavelength of light they emit due to the expansion of the universe--would move light out of the visible range into the invisible infrared. But if this explanation were true, shorter, wavelength ultraviolet light would also be shifted into the visible range--which doesn't happen.

The best resolution to Olbers' Paradox at present has two parts. First, even if our universe is infinitely large, it is not infinitely old. This point is critical because light travels at the finite (though very fast!) speed of about 300,000 kilometers per second. We can see something only after the light it emits has had time to reach us. In our everyday experience that time delay is minuscule: even seated in the balcony of the concert hall, you will see the conductor of the symphony raise her baton less than a millionth of a second after she actually does.

When distances increase, though, so does the time delay. For instance, astronauts on the moon experience a 1.5-second time delay in their communications with Mission Control due to the time it takes the radio signals (which are a form of light) to travel round-trip between Earth and the moon. Most astronomers agree that the universe is between 10 and 15 billion years old. And that means that the maximum distance from which we can receive light is between 10 and 15 billion light-years away. So even if there are more distant galaxies, their light will not yet have had time to reach us.

The second part of the answer lies in the fact that stars and galaxies are not infinitely long-lived. Eventually, they will dim. We will see this effect sooner in nearby galaxies, thanks to the shorter light-travel time. The sum of these effects is that at no time are all of the conditions for creating a bright sky fulfilled. We can never see light from stars or galaxies at all distances at once; either the light from the most distant objects hasn't reached us yet, or if it has, then so much time would have had to pass that nearby objects would be burned out and dark.

Answer 3

The amplitude (brightness) of light decreases according to what's called an inverse square law, which looks like 1/r^2 where r is the distance from the source.

Basically, if you move twice as far away from a point of light, it doesn't get half as bright, it get A LOT less bright.

The light from the stars and galaxies is not bright enough nor plentiful enough to light up the night sky, and often, the light pollution from right here on Earth is enough to drown out most of the stars.

I hope this helps.

Answer 4

Well for one the sun is much closer to the earth then most stars. Most stars you see are several light years away. A light year is the distance a light source can travel in a year, which is around 10 trillion Killiometers. The closest star besides the sun is around 4.2 light years from the earth, so we dont get much light from the other stars mainly because the light cant reach us from the difference in the distances.

Answer 5

organic techniques (consisting of guy-made ones) paintings for motives that we may be able to comprehend and they have been shown to definately paintings. Supernatural procedure are supernatural because no one can truly comprehend how they paintings, and besides they have not been shown to definately paintings. overlook about your anecdotes and strong vibes, i'm searching for consistent effects. i might want to particularly take a pill than a prayer any day.

Answer 6

They do light up the sky but not enough light since the space ia vast and much bigger than the stars.

Answer 7

A) too much dark matter B) The sun reflects on the moon making the stars less bright C) THE RIGHT ANSWER : Because space expands, stars travel and die but not together, and their lights die with them

Answer 8

Dark Matter

The sky is all lit up at night it's just in the IR band that you can't see.

Answer 9

Stars are too far away. Light's intensity decreases as a factor of the square of the radius.

Stars are very, very, very, very, very, very, very far apart. Billions and Trillions of miles.

Most of space is empty and desolate.

Answer 10

Stars are to far away from the earth.