Question about stars light, speed of light and optics?

Axiom 1) : "This formation and deformation should be visible by the naked eye on a dark night at all times". Vastness of Cosmos has no role in it. The vastness makes it a big task to observe the whole sky at a time, simultaneously. That is 'our' problem.

Axiom 2) : on Rate. Normal Astronomical processes occupy millions of years (at the least) that we Humans, have no way of tracking or saying with confidence "Yes process #$*@ is going on". Most probably we are in the midst & witness to many such processes but don't know that these (processes) are going on.

Creation of star light & its variation is the "information" we receive sequentially, with a fixed 'delay' or 'latency' for a given star. Formation of light is a physical process that you can experiment in a college laboratory (there is nothing specifically 'Astronomical' about it). Deformation is about the object & not (the) light per se. You can't conclude that the light is deformed, you can only say the object is 'deformed' (if that is the word you prefer). Light is only a 'messenger'. Don't shoot the messenger.

For these (above) no knowledge of Cosmos specifically, may be needed.

Just as light takes 13.7 billion years from a certain galaxy, it takes a billionth of a second from the palm of your outstretched hand - to reach your eyes. So nothing is instantaneous (I am getting rather tired of using or citing this analogy repeatedly here, to demonstrate that the same 'magic' associated with a star light from a distant galaxy is there for an outstretched palm too).

<[I'm] not quite convinced the star light in the sky is from the death of stars that has long pass away [sic] billions of years ago.> That's good, because nobody is saying that. Where did you get that idea? While it may be that the most distant objects have seen their day, the vast majority of objects we observe exist today.

.

<I have created a list of axioms> Thinking methodically is only good when your basic assumptions are well founded. Since they are not, there's not much point in evaluating whatever else you say.

.

Because of the vastness of the cosmos, one should be able to witness the formation of starlight> We can see stars in various staages of formation--is that what you're trying to say? Every photon that strikes your eye represents the formation of starlight, since that is where they come from.

<and likewise the deformation of starlight> What do you mean? We know that gravitational lensing occurs, but only in the presence of strong gravitational fields. Is this what you mean, or are you making another unfounded assumption?

.

<This formation and deformation should be visible by the naked eye on a dark night at all times> Why? What makes you think this? The naked eye can see at best less than 2,000 nearby stars, and a small handful of galaxies. What makes you think youshould see formation and deformation, whatever that means. If you think that the word 'deformation' is the opposite of 'formation', then you're misusing the term.

.

The rest of what you're saying is gobbldygook, because it's a house of cards built on a flawed foundation.

.

.

Well, young man you really need to get education.

An axiom is something that you believe to be true without any proof. It should not contain the word "because" because this word implies an argument and there is no point arguing about something that you are already convinced.

Dilemma is a choice between options when you do not like any of them.

If I understand your "Axiom 1" correctly, you are saying that we should be able to see the appearance of new stars in the sky. The formation of stars is a very slow process, it takes billions of years of gradual increase in luminosity. Sudden changes sometimes happen and are called nova and supernova.

You have made up some rules that have no basis in fact. You might as well say:

Axiom: Moon is made of cheese

Here is some information that can help you:

1: Size of what we can see in the universe (with telescopes)

"The size of the Universe is unknown; it may be infinite. The region visible from Earth (the observable universe) is a sphere with a radius of about 46 billion light years, based on where the expansion of space has taken the most distant objects observed."

2: Stars that we can see with our eyes only is limited to our galaxy

"Everything that appears as a point like star is in the Milky Way. The most nearby stars outside of the Milky Way are in the dwarf galaxies that are Milky Way satellites, such as the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds. These appear as fuzzy little blobs to the naked eye, just as Andromeda does. "

3: Stars have finite lives

"Most stars are between 1 billion and 10 billion years old. Some stars may even be close to 13.8 billion years old—the observed age of the universe. The oldest star yet discovered, HE 1523-0901, is an estimated 13.2 billion years old."

You put these three things together, and it is obvious that a star that lived and died a few billion years ago, and is in a galaxy that is closer than a billion light years, is visible (through telescope) and yet no longer exists.

I should add that many stars contain material that has been in stars that lived and died before the current star came into existence. This is ascertained by the composition of the stars. If a star contains elements that are only created in a supernova, then it is certain that there was at least one star that existed and then went supernova before the new star ever existed.

The more massive the star, the shorter its lifespan, primarily because massive stars have greater pressure on their cores, causing them to burn hydrogen more rapidly. The most massive stars last an average of a few million years, while stars of minimum mass (red dwarfs) burn their fuel very slowly and last tens to hundreds of billions of years

Axiom 1 - gibberish, unreasoned, what is the "formation of starlight"? The Sun is a star - what deformation are you talking about?

Axiom 2 - still gibberish.

You are correct, the stars we see are only a few light years to a few thousand light years away, not millions or billions, so they are all pretty much still there, as they exist on the main sequence for typically billions of years.

Your thesis does not describe any known phenomenon, so the logic does not apply. There are some problems with what we know of the universe, but there just isn't anything called formation and deformation of light.

I fail to see any question here. All I see is some assumptions from someone who really has no education in the matter. Read the rules. Post a question or don't post. We care less about your flawed assumptions.

Well the light of stars is not all from those that expired, but many from stars that we assume are still in existence. If they were billions of light years away then they might be extinct today, otherwise probably not.