Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 00:58:09 -0500 Message-ID: <580C51AE.35BF@ix.netcom.com> Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 22:59:10 -0700 From: The Starmaker 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> <580A5965.7CF@ix.netcom.com> <580BB904.2EF5@ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 84 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 108.219.229.47 X-Trace: sv3-LViTMne5I7kDOrA6VQ1ec0iWYZe0+hXcWx0ICHZ9xd5q6RqQtYaYIWF4wTYoxO/CD09Jn4/iDAESDbJ!qhcAaY2km+/3zDTbJJGJz/vs0aCqjdwUXBaPGfS5faTKosDooKz3qUa9gPyClNU082nHZCOk0Ea0!sX9EDW4pws0= 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: 3978 Xref: csiph.com rec.arts.sf.written:454935 sci.physics:602141 sci.physics.relativity:396501 alt.astronomy:287003 sci.math:349318 The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > William December Starr wrote: > > > > > > In article , > > > SteveGG 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...