Inverse square law explains Olbers' paradox?

In summary, the conversation discusses Olbers' paradox and whether two images accurately represent it. The paradox states that if the universe is infinite and filled with an infinite number of stars, the night sky should be infinitely bright. However, this is not the case, and the conversation explains that this is due to the way light spreads out in space and the limitations of human eyesight. The two images accurately represent the paradox, with the second image appearing dimmer overall due to the light being spread out more. The inverse square law, which explains the decrease in brightness with distance, also plays a role in the paradox. Ultimately, the conversation concludes that the two images do represent the paradox correctly and that human eyesight does not affect the validity of
  • #106
Ok, that's enough. These are the same issues that were covered -- many of which were then ignored instead of resolved -- exactly 24 hours ago. Since this thread is going in ever tightening circles, it is locked.
 

Similar threads

I Questions about the inverse square law
Replies
3
Views
2K
Inverse square law resolves Olbers' paradox
2
Replies
58
Views
13K
Intensity of Stars and the Inverse Square Law Problem
Replies
10
Views
3K
I Sound pressure and inverse distance law
Replies
5
Views
2K
I Mathematical disagreement with inverse square law?
Replies
33
Views
954
I How does the inverse square law apply to a focused detector?
Replies
18
Views
7K
B Exploring Olbers' Paradox in Matt Roots' Introduction to Cosmology
Replies
2
Views
1K
I Solving the Basel problem using Gauss's law
Replies
4
Views
2K
B Is the inverse square law exact near a spherical body?
Replies
6
Views
2K
I Inverse square law and ensembles of photons
Replies
25
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top