Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 13:07:33 -0500
Message-ID: <580A5965.7CF@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:07:33 -0700
From: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.astronomy,sci.math
Subject: Re: Two Trillion Galaxies,
References: <58051241.369A@ix.netcom.com> <2e5bda71-c0c9-4d54-9e92-f100079f8ee8@googlegroups.com> <5807B06D.66CC@ix.netcom.com> <vogf0cdkq80ibh567rcbhd0javjs1i4o9b@4ax.com> <nud1op$f8a$1@panix3.panix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 49
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 108.219.229.47
X-Trace: sv3-qqvkP3SE8DZM+IJMJofSW4sZoOZpYkM3Xw80QN+ty++ayTgC/TF7Ihi/SCBa42DLHFgp3vqd7S86Vwt!+N19bkloJn6MXoPnHA3BkztB2V56ULHONIVFQDb8LGCmtg+I5VJ9Oz9aYB2/NXXLUUrW+H5F7Z7n!Yi5IBTvzdw==
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2535
Xref: csiph.com rec.arts.sf.written:454813 sci.physics:601929 sci.physics.relativity:396343 alt.astronomy:286970 sci.math:349111

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?