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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #395931 > unrolled thread

Two Trillion Galaxies,

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-17 11:02 -0700
    Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-17 21:25 -0700
    Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-18 09:10 -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, wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-10-21 08:30 -0400
            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, Dwain Foster <dwainbwe@tyrellysite.org> - 2016-10-22 13:44 +0000
        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, pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-19 16:31 -0700
          Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-19 17:30 -0700
          Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-10-19 20:16 -0400
        Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2016-10-20 10:02 +0800
    Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-18 10:56 -0700
    Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-22 06:42 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#395931 — Two Trillion Galaxies,

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/science/two-trillion-galaxies-at-the-very-least.html?_r=0




How long do you think it will take for 'these people' to change the age
of the universe to a trillion years????



first 'they' have to learn how to say the word...trillion.


they might have to look it up on the internet first...


of course the rest of yous are just going to ...wait.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#395983

tsbrueni@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 11:01:46 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/science/two-trillion-galaxies-at-the-very-least.html?_r=0
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > How long do you think it will take for 'these people' to change the age
> > of the universe to a trillion years????
> >
> >
> >
> > first 'they' have to learn how to say the word...trillion.
> >
> >
> > they might have to look it up on the internet first...
> >
> >
> > of course the rest of yous are just going to ...wait.
> 
> The Universe has a lot more living space than we thought!


The Earth has a lot more living space than you are ...told.



Just because you cannot find an apartment in New York City doesn't mean we need to go to Mars...

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

#396032

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/science/two-trillion-galaxies-at-the-very-least.html?_r=0
> 
> How long do you think it will take for 'these people' to change the age
> of the universe to a trillion years????
> 
> first 'they' have to learn how to say the word...trillion.
> 
> they might have to look it up on the internet first...
> 
> of course the rest of yous are just going to ...wait.



i mean really..the bottom line is,
the only reason 'these people' come up
with an extra "trillion gallaxies" is because
they want to upgrade their telescopes and
astronomy software...gettin more funding.

Cocaine money. A trip to Hawaii. Disneylad tickets for the stupid kids. Honey money.

These people spend everyday How to get more money/funding from the government.

What comes after ...trillion?

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

#396141

TB wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 9:09:41 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/science/two-trillion-galaxies-at-the-very-least.html?_r=0
> > >
> > > How long do you think it will take for 'these people' to change the age
> > > of the universe to a trillion years????
> > >
> > > first 'they' have to learn how to say the word...trillion.
> > >
> > > they might have to look it up on the internet first...
> > >
> > > of course the rest of yous are just going to ...wait.
> >
> >
> >
> > i mean really..the bottom line is,
> > the only reason 'these people' come up
> > with an extra "trillion gallaxies" is because
> > they want to upgrade their telescopes and
> > astronomy software...gettin more funding.
> 
> What evidence do you have that astronomers are lying about their beliefs that there might be 2 trillion galaxies?

Come on....it's common sense with 'these people'.

They used to say "billions and billions of galaxies", now it's Two trillion????


Did their math get better??


Or did someone fall asleep on their calculator? and woke up and exclaim, "Look! Theres 2 trillion galaxies!!!"



Doesn't that mean there are two trillion Earth-Like planets??? Hasn't reached the news yet...who can think that far ahead today?


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



The Starmaker

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

#396147

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 ?!

So there's probably no limit at all to the number of galaxies.
Trillions ? Sure why not ? And probably much more or infinite !

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

#396289

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

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

#396327

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]

#396343

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]

#396445

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]

#396501

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]

#396537

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]

#396541

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]

#396400

>
>> 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]

#396406

Il giorno martedì 11 ottobre 2016 09:46:59 UTC+-4, SteveGG ha scritto:

>>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.

You pulled that "obviously" out of your arse. References please.

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

#396150

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]

#396158

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]

#396164

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]

#396165

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]

#396167

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]

#396168

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!

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web