Oblers's Paradox

In the last century, the German astronomer Wilhelm Oblers posed this classic question: If there are infinitely many stars, in every direction you look, you would see a star. If so, the sky should be as bright at night as it is in the day. Then why is the sky dark at night?

Oblers realized that only a few logical answers were possible.

One answer was that the number of stars was not infinite. The amount of stars in the universe, though large, was not unlimited.

Another possibility was that the universe was expanding. This was rejected as absurd, because any 19th century astronomer could see and feel that the earth, and the stars around us, were not rushing anywhere.

The final possibility considered interstellar dust was present, which would block and absorb the starlight.

(There is the unstated possibility that events elsewhere in the universe are simply not identical to events near the earth. This was not even thought-of, much less, considered.)

Oblers chose the final explanation, and concluded that too much dust existed in the universe. This dust prevented some of the light from far-away stars from reaching us.

Modern astronomers have rejected Oblers's conclusion. The second law of thermodynamics1 states: If the interstellar dust absorbs all of the excess starlight, it will get hot, and radiate. Even if a huge amount of dust existed, that dust would eventually become warm, if not hot, and would itself become a luminous source of measurable radiation.

Modern astronomers have chosen the second option, the expansion of the universe, as the answer to Oblers's paradox. From the available red-shift information, they have concluded that the outer portion of the visible universe is receding by at least 90% of the velocity of light. This rapid recession is supposedly the reason that the sky remains dark outside whenever we turn out the lights at night.

We here at the C-R theory have no quarrel with the assumption that: if the universe is expanding, this expansion would account for the darkness at night. What we may pick to quarrel with are two parts to the assumption the universe is expanding.

First, if the universe was contained inside the Active Zone of a large Black-Hole, we would expect that the timeframe of reference nearer the outer edge of the universe will be slowed down. Therefore, events occurring nearer to the outer edge will be, by the nature of spacetime itself, slowed-down. This real-time slowdown will produce identical appearances, most of the time, to the receding universe option.

Secondly, the C-R theory predicts: Some Black-Holes may indeed absorb excess starlight. By the C-R theory, active Black-Holes must only consume, or store up energy. These (C-R brand) Black-Holes naturally accumulate energy without incurring the same warmup in their "measurable" surface temperature which would be suffered by second-law-bound bits of dust. Black-Holes are forbidden from re-radiating any of their energy diet2.