Re: Old Stars/Olber's Paradox

[Jim Green <Jim.Green@Snow.edu>]

> Try looking in Mandlebrot's books on Fractals. 

Thanks no.  Benoit used to wander down the hall to visit me in the afternoon
-- I suppose when he was just bored out of his skull and wanted a little
light entertainment.  He is a charming man, but read his books, no thanks.

> > I think the answer is that, if we assume that c has been 
> > constant since the BB, that space has been expanding with 
> > the Universe, and that the expansion of space has been <c 
> > (but what if it hasn't?), then the photons have had more 
> > than enough time to fill the Universe no matter what the
> > mechanism of the BB.
>
> I would change the last sentence above so that the phrase 
> "fill >the Universe" reads "fill the *observable* Universe".  
> It is only the photons from the part of the universe which 
> is within the light-travel-time horizon of us which have
> had more than sufficient time to reach us.  Light from the 
> more distant reaches of the universe hasn't got here yet.  
> This is essentially because the farther away the source, 
> the faster its separation in space is growing between
> the source and us.  

David, we are talking about background photons here -- from the photon
period -- when the Universe was something like the size of a basketball.
How could it be that those photons haven't "filled the Universe"???  I don't
understand you here.

> The most distant sources have been receding from us faster
> than c, but because the overall cosmic expansion is slowing 
> down with time, their recession rate is also slowing down, 
> thus allowing the light from them to eventually reach us.

Faster than c?!!!  Now I really need help.  Of course the stuff doesn't move
at >c, but how is it that space expands >c?  Is this what you are saying?
What is the evidence for this?


Jim.Green@Snow.edu