The Ealing Interpretation

[Will Bouwman]

Just out of CURIOSITY "will bouwman" how do you know, ABSOLUTELY, that there is NOT any proof AT ALL that the Universe was NEVER EVER smaller than atom?

Well you can prove all sorts of things in logic and maths, once you accept certain premises or axioms and a set of rules. In classical logic, for example, you can prove that Age is a bachelor. If you accept a couple of premises and the rules of syllogism, the following argument is proven:

All bachelors are unmarried men.
Age is an unmarried man.
Therefore Age is a bachelor.

It doesn't matter, unlikely though it is, that it may not be true; it is still a proof. You can even prove gibberish:

All fromps are chugnent.
Age is a fromp.
Therefore Age is chugnent.

So there you have it, Age; you are a proven chugnent bachelor. At best, whatever "proof" you have that the universe was never smaller than an atom will be some similar word salad. So you can have any number of proofs that the universe was never ever smaller than an atom, none of which will mean it is true.

[Age]

Just out of CURIOSITY "will bouwman" how do you know, ABSOLUTELY, that there is NOT any proof AT ALL that the Universe was NEVER EVER smaller than atom?

Well you can prove all sorts of things in logic and maths, once you accept certain premises or axioms and a set of rules. In classical logic, for example, you can prove that Age is a bachelor. If you accept a couple of premises and the rules of syllogism, the following argument is proven:

All bachelors are unmarried men.
Age is an unmarried man.
Therefore Age is a bachelor.

It doesn't matter, unlikely though it is, that it may not be true; it is still a proof. You can even prove gibberish:

All fromps are chugnent.
Age is a fromp.
Therefore Age is chugnent.

BUT, and OBVIOUSLY, you would have have to prove that what some so-called "age" is a some so-called 'fromp'. And, to do this you would have to, first, define what a 'fromp' is exactly, and then proceed from 'there'. So, what is a 'fromp', exactly?

So there you have it, Age; you are a proven chugnent bachelor.

LOL This how absolutely CLOSED these people were back then. This one, actually, BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that it can say and claim that 'you' are a 'fromp' and/or a 'chugnent', and there 'you' are, a 'fromp' and/or 'chugnent'.

Were you not aware that to be able to 'prove' your claims True, you have to, FIRST, define 'the words' that you are USING in 'your claim'.

At best, whatever "proof" you have that the universe was never smaller than an atom will be some similar word salad.

Here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of when one is holding a pre-existing BELIEF, and HOW they are ABSOLUTELY CLOSED to anything opposing.

This one has PROVED ABSOLUTELY that it is NOT open AT ALL to absolutely ANY thing other than what it 'currently' BELIEVES is true.

So you can have any number of proofs that the universe was never ever smaller than an atom, none of which will mean it is true.

LOL
LOL
LOL

This one is SO ABSOLUTELY COMPLETELY CLOSED, ,and BLIND, here that it, literally, could NOT SEE that it is an ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTION that is 'PROOF', itself, which establishes the fact or the truth of a statement.

Having 'proof', literally, means 'it' is true.

What does the 'proof' word actually even mean to you "will bouwman"?

[Age]

OBVIOUSLY the question, 'How do you, "will bouwman", know, FOR ABSOLUTELY SURE, that there is NOT any proof AT ALL that the Universe was NEVER EVER smaller than atom?' will NOT be answered and clarified here.

So, ONCE AGAIN, 'we' have ANOTHER ONE who CLAIMS some thing, but can NOT back up and support the claim, AT ALL.

[Will Bouwman]

OBVIOUSLY the question, 'How do you, "will bouwman", know, FOR ABSOLUTELY SURE, that there is NOT any proof AT ALL that the Universe was NEVER EVER smaller than atom?' will NOT be answered and clarified here.

So, ONCE AGAIN, 'we' have ANOTHER ONE who CLAIMS some thing, but can NOT back up and support the claim, AT ALL.

As I have mentioned many times, there are always alternative explanations for any evidence; this is true of whatever you think of as proof. I have also worn out the record saying that the only thing that can be proven about the universe is that something exists. That statement is proven even if it is the only thing that exists. So yes Age, I do know absolutely that you cannot prove the universe was never smaller than an atom.
For anyone who missed it, the main reasons why cosmologists think the universe probably was once smaller than an atom are explained here: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html
As a bonus you can find out how steam engines, internal combustion engines, clocks, telephones, nuclear power plants, electricity and a bunch of other stuff works.
Here are some reviews:

nice presentation - dark endings are best...

-Imp

Excellent work, Will.

The sun is not enormous

[Age]

OBVIOUSLY the question, 'How do you, "will bouwman", know, FOR ABSOLUTELY SURE, that there is NOT any proof AT ALL that the Universe was NEVER EVER smaller than atom?' will NOT be answered and clarified here.

So, ONCE AGAIN, 'we' have ANOTHER ONE who CLAIMS some thing, but can NOT back up and support the claim, AT ALL.

As I have mentioned many times, there are always alternative explanations for any evidence; this is true of whatever you think of as proof. [/quote]

And, there are always misinterpreted explanations for any, so-called, evidence; and this is true of whatever you think of as, or not as, proof.

So, let 'us' not forget, that what "will bouwman" considers and/or thinks of as 'evidence' might well not be 'evidence' AT ALL; this is true of whatever "will bouwman" thinks.

I have also worn out the record saying that the only thing that can be proven about the universe is that something exists.

you have also 'worn out the record', as some would say, saying that the Universe was once smaller than an atom. you have also, so-called, 'worn out the record', saying and 'trying to' claim that there is no proof that the Universe was NOT once smaller than an atom.

See, you have this very strange belief "will bouwman" that what you 'currently' believe is true, is true.

ONCE MORE, for the very slow of learning and understanding, the Universe was NEVER smaller than an atom.

And, this is backed up and support, IRREFUTABLY, by PROOF. Therefore, that is Fact, which NO one could refute.

Now, I have QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED you on YOUR CLAIM, and BELIEF, here "will bouwman", but as some would say, 'you just keep running away' from the QUESTIONING and CHALLENGING, and obviously so because you are NOT able clarify without contradiction and also because you have no actual facts' nor proof for your claim and belief, here.

And, considering NO one has QUESTIONED nor CHALLENGED me over what I have said and claimed here, this just reaffirms that NO one could refute nor counter my claim, here.

That statement is proven even if it is the only thing that exists.

But, according to 'your logic' here, you can NOT prove that statement is True.

OBVIOUSLY, you are 'grasping at straws' here, as some would say, BECAUSE you have absolutely nothing that backs up and supports your OWN little misinterpretations here, in your OWN interpretation of the Universe here.

ONCE MORE, the Universe could NEVER EVER be smaller than an atom. And, to keep feeding this LIE to others, and especially to children, is a PRIME EXAMPLE of one DECEIVING, unknowingly.

So yes Age, I do know absolutely that you cannot prove the universe was never smaller than an atom.

LOL

This one will 'try' just absolutely ANY thing to have its OWN misinterpretation of 'How the Universe works' accepted, and agreed with.

AGAIN, this one BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that the Universe was once smaller than an atom, even though there is NOT a single thing that proves this.

And, to 'try to' 'justify' its OWN BELIEF here, the ONLY thing that it can rely on and use here is the word, 'evidence'.

Although it ADMITS that there is 'evidence' for just about ANY thing in and of the Universe, because all it takes is 'an interpretation' of ANY thing, to be called 'evidence'. But, if "will bouwman" ever became a True so-called "scientist", then it would REALIZE that what it and others call 'evidence', for what it and others BELIEVE is true here, was NEVER EVER 'actual evidence' AT ALL. And, all along it was their OWN MISINTERPRETATIONS of 'things', which was the ONLY thing 'making up' the so-called 'evidence'.

The so-called 'ealing interpretation' is nothing more than one human beings MISINTERPRETATION of the actual Universe, Itself, and a MISINTERPRETATION of 'how the Universe, Itself, works'.

And, the Fact is that some of what the 'writer' of the 'ealing interpretation' CLAIMS is 'evidence' is NOT 'evidence' AT ALL for what the 'writer' CLAIMS 'the evidence' is for. AGAIN, as can be PROVED, absolutely, True.

For anyone who missed it, the main reasons why cosmologists think the universe probably was once smaller than an atom are explained here:

LOL
LOL
LOL

Now, this one FINALLY changes its OWN words so that they are now CLOSER to the actual and irrefutable Truth of things.

Also, the main reasons why just some human beings with the misnomer label "cosmologists" 'think' that the WHOLE Universe was, 'probably', once smaller than an atom is BECAUSE 'those human beings' were, ALSO, indoctrinated to 'view' and 'see' things from a Truly VERY NARROWED perspective, and from an ALREADY HELD set of BELIEFS, and PRESUMPTIONS, which and of themselves were False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, from 'the beginning'.

So, ONCE MORE, when the False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect BELIEFS, and ASSUMPTIONS, are GOTTEN RID and REMOVED, ENTIRELY, then, and ONLY THEN, what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY, can be, and will, be VIEWED, and SEEN, when It is EXPLAINED to you human beings.

But, until THEN you older human beings WILL ONLY keep 'viewing' and 'seeing' things, based upon your ALREADY OBTAINED and HELD ONTO BELIEFS, and ASSUMPTIONS,

https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html
As a bonus you can find out how steam engines, internal combustion engines, clocks, telephones, nuclear power plants, electricity and a bunch of other stuff works.

But, let 'us' NOT forget that how 'this one' CLAIMS the 'other stuff' works is ONLY its INTERPRETATION, which, AGAIN, could be absolutely or partly false, wrong, inaccurate, and/or incorrect, AS WELL.

Here are some reviews:

nice presentation - dark endings are best...

-Imp

Excellent work, Will.

The sun is not enormous

Well, OBVIOUSLY, ONLY a VERY NARROWED VIEWING and SEEING human being would consider the sun to be enormous, like you do. As you say and claim you do, in your OWN interpretation of 'How the Universe works', here.

Also, if that was 'my review', then let 'us' NOT forget that I also said in 'my review', bold below here:


To say or claim that the sun is enormous, is just a False and very shallow or narrow perspective of things.


And, that it is not at all hard to believe what you personally claim to believe, [that is; that the moon and the sun look like the same size].

So, this is just another Falsehood of 'yours', which only persist in 'your stories' because you refuse to remove the very small and narrowed perspective of things, and instead just look at things from the Truly open perspective only.

When, and if, you do decide to remove and refrain from the very limited human being perspective, then, and only then, 'you' also, will be able to recognize and see what the actual Truth is, exactly.

Absolutely every thing is absolutely simple here. you, human beings, were just conflating and making complex what is fundamentally, and essentially, not, at all.

And, I was only a tiny way in your own personal interpretation of things here.

Once again 'I' will suggest to 'you' that you learn how to 'look at' and 'see' things properly, and Correctly, first, and then begin to write 'your story and/or interpretation'. That way you will not be so Wrong, so often. you will also stop 'trying to' spread Falsehoods, among the unsuspecting.

[Age]

Look "will bouwman" if you just want to keep 'trying to' spread Falsehoods and/or Wrong things, then I will just keep POINTING OUT some of them, while also USING 'you' to SHOW, and REVEAL, HOW the human brain works, and HOW through the human brain you human beings were DECEIVED, and are continuing to DECEIVE each other, and the younger ones, UNKNOWINGLY. I will also be POINTING OUT and REVEALING HOW the DECEPTION, and DECEIVING, began, continued, and can be, and was, ended.

Also, what WILL become VERY CLEAR, and PROVED here Factually as well, is HOW 'the Universe' actually does work, exactly.

So, the MORE you keep 'trying to' INSIST that your OWN interpretation is true, right, accurate, and correct, then the BETTER what I am doing here WILL work out, for 'us' ALL.

[Will Bouwman]

Now, I have QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED you on YOUR CLAIM, and BELIEF, here "will bouwman", but as some would say, 'you just keep running away' from the QUESTIONING and CHALLENGING, and obviously so because you are NOT able clarify without contradiction and also because you have no actual facts' nor proof for your claim and belief, here.

First off, let me thank you for keeping alive a thread that without your stellar involvement would now be mouldering in the Philosophy Now forum graveyard. Good work, buddy!
That said, it seems to have slipped your mind that I have presented some of the facts that make the big bang a tenable hypothesis here: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html

[Age]

Now, I have QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED you on YOUR CLAIM, and BELIEF, here "will bouwman", but as some would say, 'you just keep running away' from the QUESTIONING and CHALLENGING, and obviously so because you are NOT able clarify without contradiction and also because you have no actual facts' nor proof for your claim and belief, here.

First off, let me thank you for keeping alive a thread that without your stellar involvement would now be mouldering in the Philosophy Now forum graveyard. Good work, buddy!

The MORE your own personal interpretation of how the Universe, supposedly, works, is kept alive here, then the MORE 'we' have to 'LOOK AT', and 'DISCUSS'.

That said, it seems to have slipped your mind that I have presented some of the facts that make the big bang a tenable hypothesis here: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html

HAHAHA

OBVIOUSLY, one cannot present A Fact that does NOT exist.

There is not a shred of 'actual evidence' NOR 'any fact' AT ALL that the so-called 'big bang' was the beginning of the whole Universe, Itself.

And, if you IMAGINE that you presented some ACTUAL FACTS that make the 'big bang' the beginning of the Universe, then you are FAR, FAR MORE DELUDED than I first SAW.

Therefore, you, OBVIOUSLY, have FORGOTTEN that you actually did NOT present ANY fact at all that the 'big bang' was the cause or the beginning of the Universe.

Oh, and by the way, there is absolutely NO such thing as 'your mind'. As the ACTUAL FACTS in Life have ALREADY PROVED True.

[Will Bouwman]

That said, it seems to have slipped your mind that I have presented some of the facts that make the big bang a tenable hypothesis here: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html

HAHAHA

OBVIOUSLY, one cannot present A Fact that does NOT exist.

Spectroscopy is a fact. The Doppler Effect is a fact. Galactic red shift is a fact. The cosmic microwave background radiation is a fact. When those facts are combined, the conclusion that most people who understand them reach is that the universe is expanding. That being so, it is also a fact that the universe was smaller in the past. The big bang accounts for those facts. That is not to say that alternative interpretations of the facts are not possible, but any theory about the universe that doesn't account for those facts, yours I suspect, is not even wrong.

[Age]

That said, it seems to have slipped your mind that I have presented some of the facts that make the big bang a tenable hypothesis here: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html

HAHAHA

OBVIOUSLY, one cannot present A Fact that does NOT exist.

Spectroscopy is a fact. The Doppler Effect is a fact. Galactic red shift is a fact. The cosmic microwave background radiation is a fact. When those facts are combined, the conclusion that most people who understand them reach is that the universe is expanding.

ONCE AGAIN LOL

And, once upon a time, in the 'olden days', as well, the conclusion that most people who 'understood' the 'current' facts', to them, reached was that the sun revolved around the earth.

you, STILL, do not get it "will bouwman". Just because a group of you human beings reach 'a conclusion' does not necessarily make 'the conclusion True, Right, Accurate, NOR Correct.

The Universe IS NOT expanding, and COULD NOT expand. And, this Fact is not just aligned with, but is also backed up and supported by, 'spectroscopy', 'the doppler effect', 'galactic red shift', AND 'the cosmic microwave background radiation. And, if absolutely ANY one here would like to CHALLENGE this, QUESTION this, and/or just DISCUSS, then let 'us' PLEASE DO.

The facts' presented here by "will bouwman" OBVIOUSLY exist. BUT, ONCE MORE, for the SLOW OF LEARNING, 'the conclusion/s' reached from 'current facts' can be MISINTERPRETED, and thus BE False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

The human beings, in the 'olden days', who had CONCLUDED, and/or BELIEVED and PRESUMED, that the earth was flat, a geocentric universe, and/or the Universe began, and was expanding, were ALL OBVIOUSLY Wrong.

Now, OBVIOUSLY, the facts, which they all USED to CLAIM was 'evidence' for 'the conclusions' existed, BUT, as I just POINTED OUT, (and which I KNEW how some would respond to), one cannot present A Fact that does NOT exist. So, "will bouwman" presented some Facts that do exist, and as I have kept REMINDING "will bouwman", and others, here, those Facts REMAIN, alone with the Fact that it was these human beings MISINTERPRETATIONS of the Facts that led them all to CONCLUDE, and/or BELIEF or PRESUME, FAULTY and/or False, and Wrong, CONCLUSIONS.

And, ONLY WHEN people can ADMIT that they could have MISINTERPRET, or could be MISINTERPRETING, the Facts, then ONLY THEN this is WHEN the ACTUAL Truth can come-to-light.

That being so, it is also a fact that the universe was smaller in the past.

LOL
LOL
LOL

This is how ABSOLUTELY Truly CLOSED and STUPID people WITH BELIEFS and/or PRESUMPTIONS can REALLY BE.

This one is LIVING PROOF of this Fact.

This one is DOING, and thus PROVING, EXACTLY, what predecessors of it USED TO DO, as well. Like this one here they also BELIEVED things, like, for example, the earth is flat, and, the sun revolves around the earth, and so NOT be OPEN to ANY thing opposing their 'current' BELIEF. They would ALSO CLAIM that what they BELIEVED, as well, was also A FACT.

LOL

I even explained, partly, HOW and WHY, EXACTLY, the Universe, Itself, could NEVER have been 'smaller', in the past. YET, because this one is ABSOLUTELY BLIND and DEAF, because of its 'current' BELIEF what I SAID, SHOWED, and PROVED went COMPLETELY and UTTERLY UNNOTICED by this one. So, it just SKIPPED ALL OF IT, COMPLETELY, and then went on to just express its 'current' BELIEF, and did so by calling it A FACT.

AGAIN, and ABSOLUTELY LAUGHINGLY SO, EXACTLY like those who BELIEVED that the sun revolved around the earth DID.

If "will bouwman" was around in those 'olden days', then it would be DOING EXACTLY what it is 'now', except it would be saying and CLAIMING that it is a fact that the sun revolves around the earth. Just like MOST of the 'other people' DID, back in those 'olden days' before this was being written.

"will bouwman" is ILLUSTRATING, FIRST HAND, and thus PROVING ABSOLUTELY, here, EXACTLY what happens to human beings when they have and hold a 'current' BELIEF.

The big bang accounts for those facts.

ONCE AGAIN, this is A PRIME EXAMPLE, and thus A GREAT ILLUSTRATION, of one who is HOLDING a 'current' BELIEF, and then just 'TRYING' its HARDEST to FIT IN 'current' facts, and knowledge, with their OWN, personal, VIEW and/or BELIEF of things.

The so-called 'big bang' accounts for 'those facts' has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH your OWN PERSONAL INTERPRETATION that the Universe BEGAN.

you KEEP MISSING THE MARK, and THE POINT, here BECAUSE you ARE ABSOLUTELY CLOSED here.

And AGAIN, EXACTLY like the OTHER BELIEVERS, BEFORE you.

That is not to say that alternative interpretations of the facts are not possible, but any theory about the universe that doesn't account for those facts, yours I suspect, is not even wrong.

Here, AGAIN, is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of one will 'TRY' to use just about any set of words, in the HOPE that they will, somehow, help back up and support their 'currently' HELD ONTO BELIEF/S.

Now, ONCE MORE, I can back up and support what I have SAID and CLAIMED here, in this forum, with ACTUAL Facts, and PROOF, which can NOT be REFUTED by ANY one.

And, AGAIN, to PROVE this True, Right, Accurate, and Correct I AWAIT to be QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED, OVER THIS.

REMEMBER, I have ALREADY PROVED that people like "will bouwman" here are NOT ABLE TO back up and support some of their BELIEFS and CLAIMS here. I ALSO look forward to back up and support what I have SAID and CLAIMED here, when ANY one of you becomes Truly INTERESTED ENOUGH TO and/or OBTAINS ENOUGH COURAGE TO.

[Will Bouwman]

REMEMBER, I have ALREADY PROVED that people like "will bouwman" here are NOT ABLE TO back up and support some of their BELIEFS and CLAIMS here.

I refer you again to my book, where I do precisely that: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html

[Age]

REMEMBER, I have ALREADY PROVED that people like "will bouwman" here are NOT ABLE TO back up and support some of their BELIEFS and CLAIMS here.

I refer you again to my book, where I do precisely that: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com/2024/ ... ation.html

LOL
LOL
LOL

AGAIN, this is how Truly BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID this one, REALLY, IS.

This one BELIEVES, and CLAIMS, that the WHOLE Universe was once smaller than what it is 'now', although it has absolutely NOTHING that actually backs up and supports this BELIEF, and CLAIM, of it.

ONCE MORE, what it is that little book and interpretation does NOT back up and support its CLAIM, and BELIEF, here.

[Will Bouwman]

AGAIN, this is how Truly BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID this one, REALLY, IS.

Age, one of us is saying they know the truth and that anyone who disagrees with them is "Truly BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID". The other is saying that there are different interpretations of the existing evidence, and who knows what evidence the future will uncover?
Perhaps I am stupid, but as I understand, your argument is that

The visible universe is located somewhere in infinite space.
The universe is everything that exists.
Therefore the universe is infinite.

All you have done is proven that the universe is infinite in the same way that I have proven that you are a

chugnent bachelor.

It's just word salad.

[Age]

AGAIN, this is how Truly BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID this one, REALLY, IS.

Age, one of us is saying they know the truth and that anyone who disagrees with them is "Truly BLIND, CLOSED, and STUPID".

ONCE MORE this one is Wrong and Incorrect. And, AGAIN, this is because it is 'looking' and 'seeing' from a Truly BLIND and STUPID perspective, here.

LOL ONCE AGAIN, what this one says and claims here is ABSOLUTELY False, and Inaccurate.

The other is saying that there are different interpretations of the existing evidence, and who knows what evidence the future will uncover?

I am not sure how many times this one has to be informed that what it claims is evidence, for what it claims is true here, that is; the Universe began and is expanding, is, EXACTLY, like the ones who claimed that the sun revolves around the earth, and there is existing evidence for this

AGAIN for those who are NOT absolutely BLIND, DEAF, CLOSED, and STUPID here, the Universe did not and could not have begun, BECAUSE OF THE IRREFUTABLE PROOF.

Perhaps I am stupid, but as I understand, your argument is that

The visible universe is located somewhere in infinite space.
The universe is everything that exists.
Therefore the universe is infinite.

What an ABSOLUTE Incorrect understanding.

Just out of CURIOSITY, what, exactly, led you to te first premise, as the one you presented here?

All you have done is proven that the universe is infinite in the same way that I have proven that you are a

chugnent bachelor.

It's just word salad.

What an ABSOLUTE DISTORTION.

BUT, considering what you 'understand' above here, there is no wonder how and why you are SO DISTORTED here.

OBVIOUSLY if one STARTS from A DISTORTED view, then they will END UP with DISTORTED premises and/or DISTORTED conclusions. EXACTLY like this one keeps making here.

Even your saying, 'who knows what evidence the future will uncover' is A DISTORTION, in and of itself.

[Will Bouwman]

Perhaps I am stupid, but as I understand, your argument is that

The visible universe is located somewhere in infinite space.
The universe is everything that exists.
Therefore the universe is infinite.

What an ABSOLUTE Incorrect understanding.

Just out of CURIOSITY, what, exactly, led you to te first premise, as the one you presented here?

Well, the visible universe is all the stuff we can see. Because we can't see what we can't see, we have no way of telling what is there. But whatever it is, you think you have proof it is infinite.

Now, it is possible that beyond the visible universe, there is an infinity of empty space; there is however an issue with any hypothesis that the universe is infinite and is filled with an infinite number of stars. If it is also infinite in age, then every line of sight will end at a star and given an infinity of time, the light from that star will have reached Earth, and the night sky should be as light as day. So either the universe is not full of infinitely many stars, it isn't infinitely old, or we have to make up some other hypothesis like 'tired light'. Another possibility is that beyond the visible universe, space is expanding faster than the speed of light, so light from the infinity of stars will never reach us, but that means expanding space, which is precisely what you are arguing against.
For more on this, check out wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27s_paradox