Path: csiph.com!xmission!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: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 14:06:49 -0500
Message-ID: <580BB904.2EF5@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 12:07:48 -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> <580A5965.7CF@ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 75
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 108.219.229.47
X-Trace: sv3-JFTSvYgrQ2F0y53PXfbDnV2JJpm+8KR3V7NEf4U+4xWnXX+VMc+8itVmwsAz7ZpxGBQI9D7GoRmaW/w!7JkQZOScm5KYcD/IIuiBQyD3TUVQxzNdf9kROn8eMkV6ZqS566xoz9fIlqoJIccZmbwXln9UchVg!A/5Ql+v4gmM=
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: 3546
Xref: csiph.com rec.arts.sf.written:454880 sci.physics:602068 sci.physics.relativity:396445 alt.astronomy:286994 sci.math:349258

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.