Article by Eric Bandini, ericbandini.com

November, 2, 2025

The sky is dark at night. Even children know that. But why is it dark “at night”?

This topic, although well known and trivial, originates from a question raised by a German physician and astronomer, Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers (1758–1840), who hypothesised: ‘In an infinite and static universe, the most distant stars should “fill” the luminous gap of the nearest stars, but since the night sky is dark, this assumption is either false or unprovably true.’

The question is not without complicated possible versions, nor without complicated possible answers, and it poses ‘possible’ assumptions that are still awaiting “proof”, which will not be mentioned here. However, some ‘basic’ points are raised.

1. Regardless of “what matter is”, matter in the Universe is extremely rarefied; it is assumed that the emptiest spaces in the Universe have a density, relative to “matter”, of about one atom per cubic metre; this is without taking cosmic distances into account.

2. Now, in direct dependence on “matter”, it can be stated without fear of contradiction that “light” is the relationship of matter with itself; “light” is itself matter as an emission from matter in action upon and with itself.

3. That being said, it is reasonable to deduce, without fear of contradiction, that there cannot be more light than there is matter in the Universe. But certainly much, much less than matter itself, which does not fill any space for the simple reason that matter is not “material”, but an immediate relationship with itself. That is, subatomic reality (what we do not see) and macroscopic reality (what we “see”) leads to the statement that there is nothing that our “individual” fingertips can touch more than our “individual” eyes can (this statement can be proven with the scientific knowledge of a middle school student). This lead to the assumption (which is presumed not to require proof) that ‘matter’ at cosmic distances behaves in a manner that is understandable and relatable to the behaviour of matter within terrestrial distances, or reasonably understandable in relation to the relationship of matter with itself, is valid. And this is true and current science.

Before proceeding, it should be noted that the author of this article (Eric Bandini – ericbandini.com) is merely a writer, and that the basic data for the calculations cited below were found on the web without any “scientific” pretensions, and that the results are merely the outcome of a spreadsheet.

In order to demonstrate the title of this essay, all of this requires dimensionality, since “thinking” means placing the concept in a context, starting from the assumption that thought is contained within the Universe; the opposite is unthinkable. This proposition requires creativity which, in an absolute sense (being [subjectively] is being in Being [absolute]), is true creation; existence (being in Being) is real and inevitable. We are what we are in what we are: this is not space-time “placement”, but existence without space and without time: the immediacy of what is, as well as what is not.

To return to the subject, namely the “solution” to Olbers’ paradox, we can begin by placing in dimension (i.e. speculative existential relation of thought that thinks itself) relations already acquired by science proper, which ‘here’ in this case is basic astrophysics, or rather, very elementary (given that the author of this writing does not possess adequate knowledge to expand on the subject [and this writing itself, for the author, is already far beyond his personal ‘scientific’ capabilities in the strict sense]).

Now, given that the distance between the Earth and the Sun (i.e. the Astronomical Unit) is approximately 150 million kilometres, or (approximately…) more precisely =149,597,870= (bearing in mind that the Earth’s orbit is not exactly circular, so an approximation is inevitable), adding the radius of the Sun to this distance, =695,450= kilometres, we obtain the height of the cone of light that radiates from the Sun towards the Earth, a cone of light that has the diameter of the Earth as its base and, as its apex angle, the meeting point at the centre of the Sun of the parallax relative to the diameter of the Earth. It should be noted that the term “parallax” is used here in a different way from its usual context, i.e. the measurement of astronomical distances outside the solar system based on the diameter of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, whereas here, the diameter of the planet (of/in the solar system) considered in each case is used as the “base”.

Now, placing this ‘cone of light’ towards the Earth, we can determine the percentage of light radiation simply by calculating the volume of the cone ‘within the solar radius’ in relation to the total volume of the Sun, from which we can deduce that the percentage of light radiation towards the Earth (ratio of the cone of radiation within the total volume of the Sun) is 4. 49179E-16% (4.49179 x 10-16 %), based on a parallax between the Earth’s diameter and the centre of the Sun of “0° 16” 43″“, which is a rather small angle, although not yet ‘small” in astronomical terms. (See Figure 3)

To understand this explanation, simply think of a sea urchin with spines pointing in all directions (see Figure 2), where longer spines correspond to a greater rarefaction of the spines in relation to the volume occupied in length, as they “radiate” from the same “centre”.

At this point, it becomes clear that, in relation to the distance from the Sun, the light radiation will be proportional to the ratio between the diameter of the illuminated celestial body and the distance from the centre of the Sun. For example, Venus, which is 108,740,000 kilometres from the Sun and has a parallax angle on the diameter of the planet itself of “0° 21” 47″ (it is closer to the Sun), receives from the Sun a percentage illumination (cone of light towards Venus within the volume of the Sun, in relation to the volume of the Sun) of 7.62751E-16% (7.62751 x 10-16 %).

Therefore, for a very distant planet, Uranus, for example, the distance from the Sun is =2,842,359,543 kilometres, and the parallax angle (on Uranus’ diameter) is “0° 3” 31″‘, from which we obtain a percentage of illumination from the Sun towards Uranus (cone of radiated light) of 1.98484E-17% (1.98484 x 10-17%).

Now, considering the above, we can take into account the parallax of a well-known and very close star, e.g. Proxima Centauri, which is located at a distance of 4.25 light years from Earth, whose parallax, calculated plausibly on the diameter of the Earth’s orbit, is 0° 0′ 0.76″, so that, by comparing this parallax to the cone of light in proportion to the diameter of the Earth, rather than to its orbit, it is clear that the amount of light reaching the Earth from that star is insignificant, and this is only the closest star.

Putting this into practice, a person who decides to walk in an open area far from light sources on a moonless night will gradually adapt his/her vision to a level of brightness sufficient to distinguish vague shapes, but will not perceive absolute darkness. This is because the Earth’s atmosphere envelops the planet evenly, generating, even on the dark side of the night, a glare derived from sunlight that “enters” the atmosphere from the atmospheric thickness that envelops the Earth, generating a minimum of light, which is not starlight, which is insignificant. This process is the same one that makes the sky blue during the day, because without reverberation within the atmosphere, the sky would be black, and starlight, in the absence of the Sun, would not illuminate anything.

Relating this to a cosmic scale, it is clear that the sky is dark not only at night, but simply because outside the Earth’s atmosphere there are no conditions for the diffusion of light as we normally perceive it, and if an astronaut in orbit receives illumination from the Sun, this is possible only and exclusively because of the proximity of this star and its direct light emission. Out there in the cosmos, there cannot be more light than matter can produce, and matter, which is not “that solid stuff” but a relationship of itself within and with itself, in “quantitative” proportion to the Cosmos, is extremely rarefied, even though it is in absolute relation to itself, even at very astronomical distances.

A philosophical assumption can be made: infinity is that which relates to itself continuously: the present that is always present, or rather, ends and begins infinitely in and of itself. Hence, the idea, or assumption, that “starlight” (which, as mentioned above, is only insignificantly detectable directly and visually) can pervade the entire Cosmos “infinitely” in a light that is “infinitely” diffused everywhere, is to be considered irrational.

For what it’s worth…

Eric Bandini

November, 2, 2025