If the universe were infinite, and light and that could travel through a vacuum without an aether, would an infinite amount of starlight and heat not be overwhelming us? Could one not argue for either some form of aether or a finite universe from such a reasoning standpoint.
Someone else offered a comment with a link to Olber's paradox.
I suggest looking at it a different way, like nested spheres.
When look out a light year, we see all the objects at that range but we are seeing only a portion of their light radiated in all directions. Out 2 light years we see a smaller portion of objects at that distance.
When we look further we see a diminishing amount of light from all objects at that distance. This continues with increasing distances.
Dimming with distance is well known. We see less and less of the light output from the object over distance.
If we take ever longer time exposures we can still detect the light which dimmed over distance but is still present, but only a trivial amount of the object's original light. The time exposure repeatedly captures that trivial amount of light in that specific direction, making it detectable.
Essentially Olber's paradox ignores light dims over distance.
With an infinite universe one could say there is an undetectably faint light in all directions.
Hit back to go to previous page in history.
Here is the list of topics in this Cosmology Topic Group .
Ctrl + for zoom in; Ctrl - for zoom out ; Ctrl 0 for no zoom;
triple-tap for zoom to fit; pinch for zoom change; pinched for no zoom