When I said "at present", I was operating in the context of your previous post, i.e. assuming a universe with static space-time geometry. In this context, the present empty coldness of the universe is relevant and the past crowded hotness is not. Certainly, when a full modern understanding of cosmology is brought into play, Olbers' paradox is quickly downgraded from paradoxical to merely non-intuitive.
As noted previously, I was mixing temporally diverse conceptions of physics. Obviously, at any point in time there is a physics representing the current scientific consensus. I meant that my construction of an argument using ideas sampled from non-contemporary points in the stream of evolving understandings of physics was potentially dubious. Or, metaphorically, I was mixing metaphors.
After I first put the focus on naked-human-eye-visible light, it was meant to be assumed that any use of the term "light", as opposed to, say, "electromagnetic radiation", was also intended to invoke the concept "naked-human-eye-visible light", and likewise for dark as the absence of "light".
I'm aware of the basic process underlying the emission/absorption of photons via orbital jumping. My precise point was that the incident energy required to invoke a jump of sufficient size to produce "light" may be greater than that which would be omnipresent in a homogeneously energetic universe with a space-time geometry equivalent to that of the universe in which we currently reside. Certainly, as you mentioned, the relative amounts of energy stored in mass versus motion would play an important role.
Anyhow, my entire line of argument was all just an exercise in Devil's advocacy, seeing as how satisfactory resolution of Olbers' paradox is readily available within our current best understanding of physical law.
> When I said "at present", I was operating in the context of your previous post, i.e. assuming a universe with static space-time geometry.
Yes, but for a static universe, we wouldn't have anything remotely like present temperatures, which is why Olbers' Paradox ultimately leads to universal expansion apart from any other issues.
> it was meant to be assumed that any use of the term "light", as opposed to, say, "electromagnetic radiation"
But they can't be opposed -- all light is electromagnetic radiation, and vice versa for a sufficiently large time frame. What was gamma rays at the time of the big Bang is now visible light. What was visible light at the time of the Big Bang is now microwaves. There's no reasonable way to talk about these issues without describing the electromagnetic field.
> seeing as how satisfactory resolution of Olbers' paradox is readily available within our current best understanding of physical law.
Yes, but not for a static universe, which was my point -- for a static universe, the assumption until 1929, Olbers' Paradox remained unresolved -- and without cosmological expansion, the issues are not "available within our current best understanding of physical law". Not remotely.
As noted previously, I was mixing temporally diverse conceptions of physics. Obviously, at any point in time there is a physics representing the current scientific consensus. I meant that my construction of an argument using ideas sampled from non-contemporary points in the stream of evolving understandings of physics was potentially dubious. Or, metaphorically, I was mixing metaphors.
After I first put the focus on naked-human-eye-visible light, it was meant to be assumed that any use of the term "light", as opposed to, say, "electromagnetic radiation", was also intended to invoke the concept "naked-human-eye-visible light", and likewise for dark as the absence of "light".
I'm aware of the basic process underlying the emission/absorption of photons via orbital jumping. My precise point was that the incident energy required to invoke a jump of sufficient size to produce "light" may be greater than that which would be omnipresent in a homogeneously energetic universe with a space-time geometry equivalent to that of the universe in which we currently reside. Certainly, as you mentioned, the relative amounts of energy stored in mass versus motion would play an important role.
Anyhow, my entire line of argument was all just an exercise in Devil's advocacy, seeing as how satisfactory resolution of Olbers' paradox is readily available within our current best understanding of physical law.