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

Groups > sci.physics > #601305 > unrolled thread

Two Trillion Galaxies,

Started byThe Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
First post2016-10-17 11:02 -0700
Last post2016-10-22 06:42 +0200
Articles 20 on this page of 43 — 14 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-17 11:02 -0700
    two trillion meters per wave noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 18:56 -0700
      Re: two trillion meters per wave Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 18:19 +0200
        meters per period noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 10:52 -0700
      Re: two trillion meters per wave edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-10-19 11:55 -0700
        Re: two trillion meters per wave noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 15:00 -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, john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 12:30 -0700
          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, john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 09:01 -0700
              Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-10-21 13:52 -0700
                Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 14:00 -0700
                  Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-10-21 14:23 -0700
                Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 17:26 -0700
              Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-10-21 14:24 -0700
                Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 14:27 -0700
                  Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-10-21 14:47 -0700
            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, edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-10-22 17:02 -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, noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 12:33 -0700
              Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 17:24 -0700
            Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> - 2016-10-22 09:03 -0400
              Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-10-22 16:58 -0700
        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, "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 19:18 -0700
            Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-10-19 19:58 -0700
    Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 10:32 -0700
      Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 10:47 -0700
    Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-22 06:42 +0200

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#601305 — Two Trillion Galaxies,

FromThe Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date2016-10-17 11:02 -0700
SubjectTwo Trillion Galaxies,
Message-ID<58051241.369A@ix.netcom.com>
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]

#601426 — two trillion meters per wave

FromnoTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com>
Date2016-10-17 18:56 -0700
Subjecttwo trillion meters per wave
Message-ID<b603a93e-503d-4942-8850-978efd07e6df@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#601305
first of all,
the redshift is just way t00 purple ... I mean,
magenta ... I mean, infrared, goes to microwave goe to radio goes
to audio, I guess

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

#601479 — Re: two trillion meters per wave

FromPoutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>
Date2016-10-18 18:19 +0200
SubjectRe: two trillion meters per wave
Message-ID<nu5i1o$kd9$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#601426
On 10/18/2016 03:56 AM, noTthaTguY wrote:
> first of all,
> the redshift is just way t00 purple ... I mean,
> magenta ... I mean, infrared, goes to microwave goe to radio goes
> to audio, I guess
>

Purple/magenta is not a light spectrum colour,
it is perception of mixed red and violet/blue light.

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

#601499 — meters per period

FromnoTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com>
Date2016-10-18 10:52 -0700
Subjectmeters per period
Message-ID<62cc79a8-c285-4030-bfc9-287cdd59e4af@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#601479
yes!...  that is the uncovery of Ed lanD,
misteR Polaroid ... but,
violet is another term for purple,
in hte canonical octaval interval of light perception

> Purple/magenta is not a light spectrum colour,
> it is perception of mixed red and violet/blue light.

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

#601676 — Re: two trillion meters per wave

Fromedprochak@gmail.com
Date2016-10-19 11:55 -0700
SubjectRe: two trillion meters per wave
Message-ID<30de9bd1-dd53-4651-bf4f-a103ce46cee7@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#601426
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 9:56:11 PM UTC-4, noTthaTguY wrote:
> first of all,
> the redshift is just way t00 purple ... I mean,
> magenta ... I mean, infrared, goes to microwave goe to radio goes
> to audio, I guess

You do realize that it is a false color image, Right?

BTW Radio is as low as it gets. It just gets longer adjectives.
LF - Low Frequency
VLF - Very Low Frequency  in the range of 3 kHz to 30 kHz 
ELF - Extremely Low Frequency

 The ELF frequencies, 3 to 30 Hz, start to fall below even audio.

Presumably the bottom is a radio wave with wavelength as long
as the diameter of the universe.

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

#601723 — Re: two trillion meters per wave

FromnoTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com>
Date2016-10-19 15:00 -0700
SubjectRe: two trillion meters per wave
Message-ID<850055a4-e5c3-41af-9dd1-ce3484cd0937@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#601676
ah, what is a false-colored image?

yeah 20 cycles per second is as low as most hearing, goes, but
there is no indication that Universe is finite, even if it is

>  The ELF frequencies, 3 to 30 Hz, start to fall below even audio.
> 
> Presumably the bottom is a radio wave with wavelength as long
> as the diameter of the universe.

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

#601439

FromThe Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date2016-10-17 21:25 -0700
Message-ID<5805A41C.8C9@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to#601305
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]

#601477

FromThe Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date2016-10-18 09:10 -0700
Message-ID<58064977.648F@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to#601305
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]

#601667

FromThe Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date2016-10-19 10:42 -0700
Message-ID<5807B06D.66CC@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to#601477
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]

#601679

FromSteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net>
Date2016-10-19 15:07 -0400
Message-ID<vogf0cdkq80ibh567rcbhd0javjs1i4o9b@4ax.com>
In reply to#601667
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]

#601682

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-10-19 12:30 -0700
Message-ID<4bf1a22c-53be-495b-b662-da6f13dde004@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#601679
SteveGG
Is
Sensible

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

#601770

FromThomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date2016-10-20 10:20 +0100
Message-ID<2354916.mvXUDI8C0e@PointedEars.de>
In reply to#601679
SteveGG wrote:

> The unverse obviously has no limits.

That is not at all obvious.

> It doesn't take much sense to realize this.

It takes sense to realize that paths of infinite length and a space(time) of 
infinite size are two separate things.  For example, there are paths of 
infinite length on the surface of Earth, and still the Earth’s surface has a 
finite area.

> If this is a supposed bondary, […]
  ^^                    ^^^^^^^
Ex falso quodlibet.

And learn to write proper English.

F'up2 sci.math

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#601883

Fromwdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr)
Date2016-10-21 08:30 -0400
Message-ID<nud1op$f8a$1@panix3.panix.com>
In reply to#601679
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]

#601909

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-10-21 09:01 -0700
Message-ID<dc8572b1-2a5c-4e56-92f4-d94c09c8aeb2@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#601883
William said
"
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? "
No.
The Universe is Infinite.

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

#601971

FromDouble-A <double-a3@hush.com>
Date2016-10-21 13:52 -0700
Message-ID<d9e1a278-d27b-445e-8f74-a1fdf00483a1@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#601909
On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 9:01:57 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> William said
> "
> 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? "
> No.
> The Universe is Infinite.


Yes, infinite.  Isn't that what I've been saying?

Double-A

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

#601975

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-10-21 14:00 -0700
Message-ID<d4aee8e5-15d2-40f7-93a4-acb782bb2c4a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#601971
"
Yes- isn't that what I've been saying
Double-A "

Me, too, AA.
But apparently, I'm a schizo with
nothing upstairs.
My 145 IQ maybe slipped a few points
since I've been talking with Odd.
Stupid rubs off

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

#601986

FromDouble-A <double-a3@hush.com>
Date2016-10-21 14:23 -0700
Message-ID<7e31c93e-d5ca-4391-989e-b34bbd258dd3@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#601975
On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 2:00:12 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> "
> Yes- isn't that what I've been saying
> Double-A "
> 
> Me, too, AA.
> But apparently, I'm a schizo with
> nothing upstairs.
> My 145 IQ maybe slipped a few points
> since I've been talking with Odd.
> Stupid rubs off


The minds of these guys are limited, just like their universe!

Double-A

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

#602245

From"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
Date2016-10-23 17:26 -0700
Message-ID<3c7300fd-ff6f-4b9f-810c-154e6eedb8b2@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#601971
On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 1:52:09 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 9:01:57 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> > William said
> > "
> > 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? "
> > No.
> > The Universe is Infinite.
> 
> 
> Yes, infinite.  Isn't that what I've been saying?
> 
> Double-A

In TIME and SPACE  TreBert

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

#601987

Fromedprochak@gmail.com
Date2016-10-21 14:24 -0700
Message-ID<9d3bd9c8-eb73-4fc2-80b4-3a8ab0075abb@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#601909
On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 12:01:57 PM UTC-4, john wrote:
> William said
> "
> 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? "
> No.
> The Universe is Infinite.

That is yet to be proven.
Right now we know there appears to be a limit to the observable universe.
So the size of the universe is still a very open question.

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

#601988

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-10-21 14:27 -0700
Message-ID<d332835e-9d62-43a4-99c4-620554476203@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#601987
Ed
"
That is yet to be proven. 
Right now we know there appears to be a limit to the observable universe. 
So the size of the universe is still a very open question. "
And always will be with logic like that.

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web