Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #454243 > unrolled thread

Two Trillion Galaxies,

Back to article view | Back to rec.arts.sf.written

Contents

  Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-17 11:02 -0700
    Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, tsbrueni@gmail.com - 2016-10-17 15:06 -0700
      Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Moriarty <blues95@ivillage.com> - 2016-10-17 15:16 -0700
        Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, TB <tsbrueni@dcn.davis.ca.us> - 2016-10-17 18:33 -0700
          Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Moriarty <blues95@ivillage.com> - 2016-10-17 19:23 -0700
            Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, tsbrueni@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 00:18 -0700
              Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-10-18 09:06 -0700
                Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, tsbrueni@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 09:46 -0700
              Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Moriarty <blues95@ivillage.com> - 2016-10-18 14:28 -0700
            Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, tsbrueni@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 00:19 -0700
            Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Chrysi Cat <chrysicat@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 16:26 -0600
              Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-19 21:58 -0700
      Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-17 21:25 -0700
        Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, tsbrueni@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 00:20 -0700
    Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-18 09:10 -0700
      Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, TB <tsbrueni@dcn.davis.ca.us> - 2016-10-18 10:29 -0700
        Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-19 10:42 -0700
          Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> - 2016-10-19 15:07 -0400
            Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-20 10:20 +0100
            Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-10-21 08:30 -0400
              Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 06:11 -0700
                Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2016-10-22 00:29 -0500
                  Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@sometimes.sessile.org> - 2016-10-22 09:26 +0100
                  Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2016-10-24 21:17 +0000
                    Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2016-10-25 04:15 -0500
                      Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Adamastor Glace Mortimer <nospam@no.invalid> - 2016-11-08 01:19 +0000
                        Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2016-11-08 04:25 -0600
              Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-21 16:59 +0100
              Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-21 11:07 -0700
                Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-22 12:07 -0700
                  Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-22 22:59 -0700
                    Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-23 11:32 -0700
                      Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-23 12:22 -0700
              Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> - 2016-10-22 09:03 -0400
          Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, SPQR <SPQR@SPQR.org> - 2016-10-19 13:36 -0600
            Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-19 13:19 -0700
              Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-19 14:35 -0700
                Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, SPQR <SPQR@SPQR.org> - 2016-10-19 16:52 -0600
                  Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-19 16:15 -0700
          Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-19 17:30 -0700
          Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2016-10-20 10:02 +0800
    Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-22 06:42 +0200

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#454798

On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 8:30:20 AM UTC-4, William December Starr wrote:
> In article <vogf0cdkq80ibh567rcbhd0javjs1i4o9b@4ax.com>,
> SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> said:
> 
> > The unverse obviously has no limits. It doesn't take much sense to
> > realize this. If this is a supposed bondary, then what's that over
> > there on the other side ?!
> 
> A really loud party.
> 
> > So there's probably no limit at all to the number of galaxies.
> > Trillions ? Sure why not ? And probably much more or infinite !
> 
> It'd be limited by how many stars can be built from the finite
> and unchanging (I believe) amount of mass-energy in the universe,
> wouldn't it?

Though still finite, I wonder what we could do with Dark Matter and
Dark Energy to give us more working material...

pt

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454861

On 2016-10-21, Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 8:30:20 AM UTC-4, William December Starr wrote:
>> It'd be limited by how many stars can be built from the finite
>> and unchanging (I believe) amount of mass-energy in the universe,
>> wouldn't it?
>
> Though still finite, I wonder what we could do with Dark Matter and
> Dark Energy to give us more working material...

Remember that technically, the 13.6 billion lightyear radius of the universe
is only how far we can SEE, due to the speed of light. We have no real clue
how far beyond that, if any, the actual universe extends. So don't think we're
strictly and forever limited to what's in the visible-right-now portion.

Dave, tl:dr - big bang may be BIG
-- 
\/David	DeLaney	posting	thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that	grows the flower
It's not the clock that	slows the hour 	The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is	all it takes to	make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE	HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
website on VIC is down,	probably for good - oh well/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454864

On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 00:29:30 -0500, David DeLaney
<daviddelaney@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 2016-10-21, Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 8:30:20 AM UTC-4, William December Starr wrote:
>>> It'd be limited by how many stars can be built from the finite
>>> and unchanging (I believe) amount of mass-energy in the universe,
>>> wouldn't it?
>>
>> Though still finite, I wonder what we could do with Dark Matter and
>> Dark Energy to give us more working material...
>
>Remember that technically, the 13.6 billion lightyear radius of the universe
>is only how far we can SEE, due to the speed of light. We have no real clue
>how far beyond that, if any, the actual universe extends. So don't think we're
>strictly and forever limited to what's in the visible-right-now portion.

Well, we're limited to our own lightsphere unless you posit FTL IRL.
Fingers crossed on that one.

>Dave, tl:dr - big bang may be BIG

Wash inside out with similar colours; vacuum energy may go up as well as
down; do not look into singularities without eye protection.

	Cheers - Jaimie
-- 
The square root of rope is string. -- Core 3, Valve

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#455188

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

In article <cM-dnX1dpOGnZJfFnZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> On 2016-10-21, Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 8:30:20 AM UTC-4, William December Starr wrote:
> >> It'd be limited by how many stars can be built from the finite
> >> and unchanging (I believe) amount of mass-energy in the universe,
> >> wouldn't it?
> >
> > Though still finite, I wonder what we could do with Dark Matter and
> > Dark Energy to give us more working material...
>
> Remember that technically, the 13.6 billion lightyear radius of the universe
> is only how far we can SEE, due to the speed of light. ....

The universe is much larger than that. One figure I keep seeing is
92 +/- billion light years across, and so about a 46 billion light
year radius. Depending on what theory or hypothesis you want to
talk about it may be larger, but that 92 +/- billion light year
figure is the minimum.


Adamastor Glace Mortimer

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iEYEAREKAAYFAlgOJWEACgkQ1vVH2r/FDv0clQCghfXBkgMsUeEILc+fqHvAPLba
LvkAn3NVvZ7VWS/yUYBZa6YcXZQfc7+O
=7kXV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#455274

On 2016-10-24, Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> wrote:
> David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Remember that technically, the 13.6 billion lightyear radius of the universe
>> is only how far we can SEE, due to the speed of light. ....
>
> The universe is much larger than that. One figure I keep seeing is
> 92 +/- billion light years across, and so about a 46 billion light
> year radius. Depending on what theory or hypothesis you want to
> talk about it may be larger, but that 92 +/- billion light year
> figure is the minimum.

Well, that's just it - we don't KNOW that. We can't SEE or detect that far,
cuz there's this annoying temperature-and-geodesics singularity about 13.6 bly
from us that isn't letting anything past.

We can theorize, and fit our theories to what we CAN see... but even to see
_to_ that distance we have to use something other than electromagnetic
radiation, because all of that gets stopped about 300 kly beforehand.

So that 92 bly figure is someone's theory, and figuring out how to test such
theories is Hard, says Astronomer Barbie. Now wih new Dark Matter Seashore
Resort!

Dave
-- 
\/David	DeLaney	posting	thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that	grows the flower
It's not the clock that	slows the hour 	The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is	all it takes to	make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE	HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
website on VIC is down,	probably for good - oh well/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#456481

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

In article <aKWdnRodVfJav5LFnZ2dnUU7-KWdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> On 2016-10-24, Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> wrote:
> > David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> Remember that technically, the 13.6 billion lightyear radius of the universe
> >> is only how far we can SEE, due to the speed of light. ....
> >
> > The universe is much larger than that. One figure I keep seeing is
> > 92 +/- billion light years across, and so about a 46 billion light
> > year radius. Depending on what theory or hypothesis you want to
> > talk about it may be larger, but that 92 +/- billion light year
> > figure is the minimum.
>
> Well, that's just it - we don't KNOW that. We can't SEE or detect that far,
> cuz there's this annoying temperature-and-geodesics singularity about 13.6 bly
> from us that isn't letting anything past.
>
> We can theorize, and fit our theories to what we CAN see... but even to see
> _to_ that distance we have to use something other than electromagnetic
> radiation, because all of that gets stopped about 300 kly beforehand.
>
> So that 92 bly figure is someone's theory, and figuring out how to test such
> theories is Hard, says Astronomer Barbie. Now wih new Dark Matter Seashore
> Resort!

I wonder how much you'll have to deny in order to really have a
good argument against that 92 +/- billion light year theory. And
let's not get hung up on the word "theory." Remember, universal
gravitation is also a theory.

If you accept the 13.x billion year time period since the Big Bang
then insisting on the radius of the universe being only 13.x
billion light years is going to require some interesting theories
from you. Has the farthest stuff we can see been stationary for all
this time? If not, then calculating the ~92 +/- billion light year
diameter of the universe is simple geometry.



Adamastor Glace Mortimer

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iEYEAREKAAYFAlghATYACgkQ1vVH2r/FDv1U2gCfVgYwZkS5UCY6vL+Ku1MaUdub
IEUAoM7GoWV8N1GYpAgszody5SXhYmBD
=fUci
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#456499

On 2016-11-08, Adamastor Glace Mortimer <nospam@no.invalid> wrote:
> David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Well, that's just it - we don't KNOW that. We can't SEE or detect that far,
>> cuz there's this annoying temperature-and-geodesics singularity about 13.6
>> bly from us that isn't letting anything past.
>>
>> We can theorize, and fit our theories to what we CAN see... but even to see
>> _to_ that distance we have to use something other than electromagnetic
>> radiation, because all of that gets stopped about 300 kly beforehand.
>>
>> So that 92 bly figure is someone's theory, and figuring out how to test such
>> theories is Hard, says Astronomer Barbie. Now wih new Dark Matter Seashore
>> Resort!
>
> I wonder how much you'll have to deny in order to really have a
> good argument against that 92 +/- billion light year theory. And
> let's not get hung up on the word "theory." Remember, universal
> gravitation is also a theory.

Um, degrees in math and physics here, I know theory v hypothesis v guess v
wishful thinking thx. The whole point is that someone talking about stuff out
to 92 bly is talking about stuff that we _can't see or test_; and yes, I should
have said "someone's hypothesis", my bad. They've built a castle, much like the
superstring folks have, and it may be pretty but without testable bits it's
math at best.

Where did you "keep seeing" this figure, by the way? Nature? Phys.Rev.D?
Scientific American? A peer-reviewed astronomy journal? ... Facebook?

> If you accept the 13.x billion year time period since the Big Bang
> then insisting on the radius of the universe being only 13.x
> billion light years is going to require some interesting theories
> from you.

Never said that. Go back up and read. I said we don't KNOW how large it is
outside of the parts we can detect, and at present we don't have any way to
actually find out. And I said the furthest we can PERCEIVE runs up against
that singularity 13.6 bly ago/away. The _visible_ radius is 13.6 bly; needs
that extra word in there to be what I said.

Now if the stuff we CAN see on the edges ended up interacting with stuff that
is now outside our view, whether visible matter or gravity waves or whatever,
that would give us some way to indirectly reconstruct what's further away. And
that might be involved in whatever your source is hypothesizing - but a firm
"It's 92 bly, plus or minus" is rather beyond us at present, so that's a
feature of his hypothesis that can't actually be checked. If you see what I
mean here?

We don't have good arguments for OR against that figure.

Dave
-- 
\/David	DeLaney	posting	thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that	grows the flower
It's not the clock that	slows the hour 	The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is	all it takes to	make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE	HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
website on VIC is down,	probably for good - oh well/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454803

William December Starr wrote:

> SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> said:
>> So there's probably no limit at all to the number of galaxies.
>> Trillions ? Sure why not ? And probably much more or infinite !
> 
> It'd be limited by how many stars can be built from the finite
> and unchanging (I believe) amount of mass-energy in the universe,
> wouldn't it?

Insufficient.  There is a lot more to a galaxy than just a large 
accumulation of stars (consisting of electromagnetically interacting 
matter).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy>

Please stop this mindless crossposting across 5 newsgroups, 3 top-level 
hierarchies, one of them (alt.ALL) even outside of the Big 8, without 
Followup-To.

F'up2 sci.astro

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454813

William December Starr wrote:
> 
> In article <vogf0cdkq80ibh567rcbhd0javjs1i4o9b@4ax.com>,
> SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> said:
> 
> > The unverse obviously has no limits. It doesn't take much sense to
> > realize this. If this is a supposed bondary, then what's that over
> > there on the other side ?!
> 
> A really loud party.
> 
> > So there's probably no limit at all to the number of galaxies.
> > Trillions ? Sure why not ? And probably much more or infinite !
> 
> It'd be limited by how many stars can be built from the finite
> and unchanging (I believe) amount of mass-energy in the universe,
> wouldn't it?
> 
> -- wds



Before the big bang there were no galaxies
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg


all the stars (green stars) 
got too overcrowded
and that caused the
universe to get too hot..
and it exploded.

Galaxies were formed to
prevent stars from gettin
too over crowded.

This is what the universe looked like
moments before and after the big bang
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg


The red stars formed the new galaxies..
the new universe...
at least that's what Nature intended.

It fixed it.


Any questions?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454880

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> William December Starr wrote:
> >
> > In article <vogf0cdkq80ibh567rcbhd0javjs1i4o9b@4ax.com>,
> > SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> said:
> >
> > > The unverse obviously has no limits. It doesn't take much sense to
> > > realize this. If this is a supposed bondary, then what's that over
> > > there on the other side ?!
> >
> > A really loud party.
> >
> > > So there's probably no limit at all to the number of galaxies.
> > > Trillions ? Sure why not ? And probably much more or infinite !
> >
> > It'd be limited by how many stars can be built from the finite
> > and unchanging (I believe) amount of mass-energy in the universe,
> > wouldn't it?
> >
> > -- wds
> 
> Before the big bang there were no galaxies
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> all the stars (green stars)
> got too overcrowded
> and that caused the
> universe to get too hot..
> and it exploded.
> 
> Galaxies were formed to
> prevent stars from gettin
> too over crowded.
> 
> This is what the universe looked like
> moments before and after the big bang
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> The red stars formed the new galaxies..
> the new universe...
> at least that's what Nature intended.
> 
> It fixed it.
> 
> Any questions?


I don't understand why the 'scientific community' has not
announced what caused the big bang? I know what caused it.
How could I be the only one??
I know I'm a fuckin genuis but this is gone too far.
You guys are taking too long to catch up.

Before the big bang there was a limit amount of space in
which stars can be born, as there is a limit amount of space today.

Before the big bang...
the universe got so crowded with stars that all it
took is for one more baby star to set off a big bang.

Today the universe might be bigger than it was before the big bang..
but it is still has a bottom, a side, a top..and everything it in.

How big is the ocean to a guppie?

Even the stupid little fish knows the ocean has a bottom.



...and for you math girls...Albert Einstein once said:

"...mathematics, a product of human thought.."

not a discovery.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454935

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > William December Starr wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <vogf0cdkq80ibh567rcbhd0javjs1i4o9b@4ax.com>,
> > > SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> said:
> > >
> > > > The unverse obviously has no limits. It doesn't take much sense to
> > > > realize this. If this is a supposed bondary, then what's that over
> > > > there on the other side ?!
> > >
> > > A really loud party.
> > >
> > > > So there's probably no limit at all to the number of galaxies.
> > > > Trillions ? Sure why not ? And probably much more or infinite !
> > >
> > > It'd be limited by how many stars can be built from the finite
> > > and unchanging (I believe) amount of mass-energy in the universe,
> > > wouldn't it?
> > >
> > > -- wds
> >
> > Before the big bang there were no galaxies
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >
> > all the stars (green stars)
> > got too overcrowded
> > and that caused the
> > universe to get too hot..
> > and it exploded.
> >
> > Galaxies were formed to
> > prevent stars from gettin
> > too over crowded.
> >
> > This is what the universe looked like
> > moments before and after the big bang
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >
> > The red stars formed the new galaxies..
> > the new universe...
> > at least that's what Nature intended.
> >
> > It fixed it.
> >
> > Any questions?
> 
> I don't understand why the 'scientific community' has not
> announced what caused the big bang? I know what caused it.
> How could I be the only one??
> I know I'm a fuckin genuis but this is gone too far.
> You guys are taking too long to catch up.
> 
> Before the big bang there was a limit amount of space in
> which stars can be born, as there is a limit amount of space today.
> 
> Before the big bang...
> the universe got so crowded with stars that all it
> took is for one more baby star to set off a big bang.
> 
> Today the universe might be bigger than it was before the big bang..
> but it is still has a bottom, a side, a top..and everything it in.
> 
> How big is the ocean to a guppie?
> 
> Even the stupid little fish knows the ocean has a bottom.


Now, why do fishes eat other fishes?



If you do a search for the answer you'll find stupid answers like Nature made them that way, or they like fish food.


But the answer they don't give is....the big bang made them that way.


In the big bang ...process, it made sure there isn't a over population of...Stars.


Otherwise, there would be a big bang in the ocean...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454983

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > William December Starr wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <vogf0cdkq80ibh567rcbhd0javjs1i4o9b@4ax.com>,
> > > > SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> said:
> > > >
> > > > > The unverse obviously has no limits. It doesn't take much sense to
> > > > > realize this. If this is a supposed bondary, then what's that over
> > > > > there on the other side ?!
> > > >
> > > > A really loud party.
> > > >
> > > > > So there's probably no limit at all to the number of galaxies.
> > > > > Trillions ? Sure why not ? And probably much more or infinite !
> > > >
> > > > It'd be limited by how many stars can be built from the finite
> > > > and unchanging (I believe) amount of mass-energy in the universe,
> > > > wouldn't it?
> > > >
> > > > -- wds
> > >
> > > Before the big bang there were no galaxies
> > > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> > >
> > > all the stars (green stars)
> > > got too overcrowded
> > > and that caused the
> > > universe to get too hot..
> > > and it exploded.
> > >
> > > Galaxies were formed to
> > > prevent stars from gettin
> > > too over crowded.
> > >
> > > This is what the universe looked like
> > > moments before and after the big bang
> > > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> > >
> > > The red stars formed the new galaxies..
> > > the new universe...
> > > at least that's what Nature intended.
> > >
> > > It fixed it.
> > >
> > > Any questions?
> >
> > I don't understand why the 'scientific community' has not
> > announced what caused the big bang? I know what caused it.
> > How could I be the only one??
> > I know I'm a fuckin genuis but this is gone too far.
> > You guys are taking too long to catch up.
> >
> > Before the big bang there was a limit amount of space in
> > which stars can be born, as there is a limit amount of space today.
> >
> > Before the big bang...
> > the universe got so crowded with stars that all it
> > took is for one more baby star to set off a big bang.
> >
> > Today the universe might be bigger than it was before the big bang..
> > but it is still has a bottom, a side, a top..and everything it in.
> >
> > How big is the ocean to a guppie?
> >
> > Even the stupid little fish knows the ocean has a bottom.
> 
> Now, why do fishes eat other fishes?
> 
> If you do a search for the answer you'll find stupid answers like Nature made them that way, or they like fish food.
> 
> But the answer they don't give is....the big bang made them that way.
> 
> In the big bang ...process, it made sure there isn't a over population of...Stars.
> 
> Otherwise, there would be a big bang in the ocean...



The problem is is 'these peope' ask The Wrong Questions.

The wrong question they ask is..."What caused the Big Bang?"

The Right question is..."WHY did the Big Bang happen?"


Once you know Why, then what difference does What caused it?????


It's like the detectives are trying to find the motive for the murder, and the 
'scientific community' wants to know What caused the bullet to go from the gun to the body?

I know Why there was a big bang...too mamy fishes in the ocean.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454995

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > William December Starr wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <vogf0cdkq80ibh567rcbhd0javjs1i4o9b@4ax.com>,
> > > > > SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> said:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The unverse obviously has no limits. It doesn't take much sense to
> > > > > > realize this. If this is a supposed bondary, then what's that over
> > > > > > there on the other side ?!
> > > > >
> > > > > A really loud party.
> > > > >
> > > > > > So there's probably no limit at all to the number of galaxies.
> > > > > > Trillions ? Sure why not ? And probably much more or infinite !
> > > > >
> > > > > It'd be limited by how many stars can be built from the finite
> > > > > and unchanging (I believe) amount of mass-energy in the universe,
> > > > > wouldn't it?
> > > > >
> > > > > -- wds
> > > >
> > > > Before the big bang there were no galaxies
> > > > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> > > >
> > > > all the stars (green stars)
> > > > got too overcrowded
> > > > and that caused the
> > > > universe to get too hot..
> > > > and it exploded.
> > > >
> > > > Galaxies were formed to
> > > > prevent stars from gettin
> > > > too over crowded.
> > > >
> > > > This is what the universe looked like
> > > > moments before and after the big bang
> > > > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> > > >
> > > > The red stars formed the new galaxies..
> > > > the new universe...
> > > > at least that's what Nature intended.
> > > >
> > > > It fixed it.
> > > >
> > > > Any questions?
> > >
> > > I don't understand why the 'scientific community' has not
> > > announced what caused the big bang? I know what caused it.
> > > How could I be the only one??
> > > I know I'm a fuckin genuis but this is gone too far.
> > > You guys are taking too long to catch up.
> > >
> > > Before the big bang there was a limit amount of space in
> > > which stars can be born, as there is a limit amount of space today.
> > >
> > > Before the big bang...
> > > the universe got so crowded with stars that all it
> > > took is for one more baby star to set off a big bang.
> > >
> > > Today the universe might be bigger than it was before the big bang..
> > > but it is still has a bottom, a side, a top..and everything it in.
> > >
> > > How big is the ocean to a guppie?
> > >
> > > Even the stupid little fish knows the ocean has a bottom.
> >
> > Now, why do fishes eat other fishes?
> >
> > If you do a search for the answer you'll find stupid answers like Nature made them that way, or they like fish food.
> >
> > But the answer they don't give is....the big bang made them that way.
> >
> > In the big bang ...process, it made sure there isn't a over population of...Stars.
> >
> > Otherwise, there would be a big bang in the ocean...
> 
> The problem is is 'these peope' ask The Wrong Questions.
> 
> The wrong question they ask is..."What caused the Big Bang?"
> 
> The Right question is..."WHY did the Big Bang happen?"
> 
> Once you know Why, then what difference does What caused it?????



...as someone once said...."...the rest are just details."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454867

>
>> So there's probably no limit at all to the number of galaxies.
>> Trillions ? Sure why not ? And probably much more or infinite !
>
>It'd be limited by how many stars can be built from the finite
>and unchanging (I believe) amount of mass-energy in the universe,
>wouldn't it?
>
Since the universe is obviously infinite, then total matter is likely
to also be infinite.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454566

In article <5807B06D.66CC@ix.netcom.com>,
 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Only i can...i'm a fuckin genuis.

But not a genius of any sort!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454570

SPQR wrote:
> 
> In article <5807B06D.66CC@ix.netcom.com>,
>  The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 
> > Only i can...i'm a fuckin genuis.
> 
> But not a genius of any sort!


well i certaintly don't fit any of your...categories, and i wouldn't want too.




Three roads diverged in a wood, 
and I— I took the one not traveled by, 
And that has made all the difference.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454576

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> SPQR wrote:
> >
> > In article <5807B06D.66CC@ix.netcom.com>,
> >  The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Only i can...i'm a fuckin genuis.
> >
> > But not a genius of any sort!
> 
> well i certaintly don't fit any of your...categories, and i wouldn't want too.
> 
> Three roads diverged in a wood,
> and I— I took the one not traveled by,
> And that has made all the difference.


You might have to wait another ten years for this information to hit the News media...


There are Two Quadrillion Galaxies.


but the real number might be Centillions and Centillions galaxies.


i would have come up with a bigger number..but, i have to invent the word for it first.



Don't forget, there are Centillions and Centillions earth-like planets too...

(if you follow 'these people')


Truth is, there are no "earth-like" planets in existences...


there are none...


But if you want one, you just...'infect' any planet.


in·fect

        contaminate (air, water, planets etc.) with earth organisms.



Put a bunch of you guys on Mars and you'll probably try to FUCK the planet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454581

In article <5807E722.3D52@ix.netcom.com>,
 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Truth is, there are no "earth-like" planets in existences...

There is at least one, this one!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454582

SPQR wrote:
> 
> In article <5807E722.3D52@ix.netcom.com>,
>  The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 
> > Truth is, there are no "earth-like" planets in existences...
> 
> There is at least one, this one!


That's true, it appears ...similar to Earth.

Composed of the same materials as Earth....


What's "this one!" called?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#454584

pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 10:40:52 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> >...i'm a fuckin genuis.
> 
> Yeah... one who can't even spell 'genius'... LOL!

I'm 1.75% of the population...



 Other users have misspelled genius as:

    jenis - 26.64%
    genious - 9.83%
    genilce - 1.97%
    genuis - 1.75%
    jenish - 1.31%
    genice - 1.09%
    Other - 57.41%




and I don't use words like "can't" in my vocabulary because ...I can.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | rec.arts.sf.written

csiph-web