Ok, this is a bold question, I know. But, let me explain: After first hearing about Olbers' paradox, I found that something seemed 'off' about it, so I looked into the subject as much as my skills (and time!) would allow. And I came to the conclusion that the paradox was probably kind of like Zeno's paradox: That is, something that 1., would not correspond to physical reality, 2., would not because some concept(s) was/were 'left out' during its formulation, in Zeno's case, the concepts of basic calculus.
Now, of course, I'm well aware of the fact that many of the best ideas in physics are counter-intuitive: General Relativity (and Special Relativity to a lesser degree, in my view), Quantum Physics, The Big Bang, even certain Elements of Thermodynamics, etc... However, Olbers' paradox doesn't seem problematic because of its counter-intuitiveness; but instead because it does not seem to me that it would happen in a steady-state, infinite, infinitely old version of our universe. Here are the reasons why:
1. Logical / Mathematical:
Lets invent the universe, lol. Well, a universe with an observer, and a light $D_1$ distance away such that the light source appears as a Small Disk of light. Now imagine adding another light source at twice $D_1$ away (retaining the same x, and z), $D_2$, and then 3 times as far away (retaining the same x, and z), $D_3$: And, so on, $D_1, D_2, D_3, D_4....$, and so on forever. Given the inverse square law, the observer would not see a field of view filled with light. They'd see the sum of the ever fainter lights, (The answer to which, not the sum itself) would be finite and pretty faint. And this shouldn't change, as far as I can tell, if they waited forever, or if 'god' copied and revolved these light sources around a range of axes, so long as there were a finite (not too big) number of near-by light sources.
A lot of the light would become unseen for many reasons everyone here knows.
Alright, Olbers' paradox is unimportant today, as the universe isn't static or infinitely old. However, I think it shouldn't be presented as a sound idea if it is invalid.
So, I'd like for someone to explain to me, 1. Why I'm wrong, or 2. if I'm not wrong, why the paradox hasn't been examined more carefully.
Notes For Answerers:
Please note that people tend to answer questions like this by 'adding' stars of some brightness to the sky until the sky is super bright. This doesn't make sense as a star far enough away would be invisible to the naked eye due to: 1. The brightness of nearer stars. 2. The fact that if far enough away it would simply be impossible to see. In an "Olber Universe,' it seems that the sky 'around' the visible stars would seem dark to the human eye, but with tek you could 'find' a star anywhere you chose to look.