I&#x27;ve always been puzzled by this paradox.  More particularly, I&#x27;m baffled that apparently the mainstream explanation involves cosmological arguments such that the expansion of the Universe.  Is it really that complicated?<p>Take Hubble&#x27;s deep field image, for instance.  It was shot in a tiny area of the sky that looks completely black.  But with enough exposure, Hubble found that it&#x27;s actually full of galaxies.  Can&#x27;t I just conclude that if this part of the sky if completely black, it&#x27;s not because space is expending, but just because our eyes are not sensitive enough?<p>Olber&#x27;s Paradox points out that wherever we look at, at some distance our line of sight will meet the surface of a star.  But that does not mean that this point will register as a light for our eyes.  Our eyes would have to be sensitive enough.