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

Groups > sci.physics > #601305 > unrolled thread

Two Trillion Galaxies,

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 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#601992

On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 5:27:32 PM UTC-4, john wrote:
> 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.

Not necessarily. It is just that we do not have the data to
answer the question YET.
There are three possible results:
Finite and Bounded
Infinite and Unbounded
Finite and Unbounded

The new galaxy count did not find new galaxies beyond previous known limits.
These are smaller galaxies that we just could not see before, but within
the limits of the observable portion of the universe.

So even this does not imply the universe is larger then before.
It only shows it is a little more crowded than we thought.

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

#601929

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]

#602068

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]

#602121

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 3:06:57 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
[]
> 
> 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.
[]

Such cute fairy tales.

If you were here, I'd give you a cookie and pat you on the head,
saying that's a good little boy, now run along and play with the
other kids. Let the grownups talk.

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

#602141

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]

#602180

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]

#602194

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]

#602587

high redshift is fuzzy-definitional

> > Once you know Why, then what difference does What caused it?????
> 
> 
> 
> ...as someone once said...."...the rest are just details."

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

#602244

On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 11:07:41 AM UTC-7, 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?

Now that so much matter in space has been found do you think my age 22 B years is to conservative?  Trebert

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

#602038

>
>> 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]

#602120

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 9:03:53 AM UTC-4, SteveGG wrote:
[]
> Since the universe is obviously infinite, then total matter is likely
> to also be infinite.

Still no proof of that yet Steve.
ed

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

#601684

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]

#601696

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]

#601713

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]

#601734

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]

#601737

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]

#601746

pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 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!

I'm 1.75% of the population...



 Other users have misspelled genius as:

    jenis - 26.64%
    genious - 9.83%
    genilce - 1.97%
    genuis - 1.75%
    jenish - 1.31%
    genice - 1.09%
    Other - 57.41%




and I don't use words like "can't" in my vocabulary because ...I can.

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

#601755

On 20/10/16 1:42 am, The Starmaker wrote:
> 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
>
Well, sua generis, thank goodness.

-- 
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

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

#601756

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 7:02:07 PM UTC-7, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 20/10/16 1:42 am, The Starmaker wrote:
> > 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
> >
> Well, sua generis, thank goodness.
> 
> -- 
> Robert B. born England a long time ago;
> Western Australia since 1972
What if we are counting galaxies that are only virtual?  TreBert

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

#601761

"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote:
> What if we are counting galaxies that are only virtual?
> 
Glazier, "virtual galaxies" are made of Glazierola, but in
reality you posted: ***"hanson made me famous"****.
>
So, Glazier, since you haven't posted 1 single objection,
I shall continue with making you, Glazier, famous. You
must like & love being the Face Shitter & the criminal 
Graveyard vandal reber g=emc^2" Glazier who does this: 
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg> [1]
being the <http://tinyurl.com/Recalcitrant-Swine-Glazier> [2]
who always is <http://tinyurl.com/Glazier-the-Lying-Swine>
>
>
Right?.... 

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web