🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Aug.3.15.34.40.1992.22219@ruhets.rutgers.edu> bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
>2.  Damnit, the redshift is NOT, NOT, NOT the solution to Olbers'
>Paradox!  As Scott Chase would say, "Read the FAQ." 

I became aware of this after I posted the Olber's stuff to sci.philosophy.meta,
and didn't want to significantly alter the content, since I posted it in
sci.physics essentially as a prediction of what physicists will say.

On the other hand, the "finite age effect" is just as cosmologically involved
as the expansion of the universe.

Now you claim it's OK to ignore this question when explaining the blue sky.
Not really, it isn't. In physics, you're justified in ignoring things which
have a _small_ influence on the phenomenon at hand. In this case, the part
of the phenomenon, (darkness at night) is _not_ a small effect. It is as
_large_ as the effect (blue sky in the day) itself.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt