The Known Universe....

Ram From Hell said:
That's not accurate. Not every star has orbiting planets, much less being a solar system like ours. Further, we've only discovered about 410 planets to date outside of our own solar system.;)


.
While it's true, it's somewhat out of context. "410 planets" within spitting range of our system. If our telescopes were eyes, we couldn't even see past our eyelashes. :D In short, we ain't seen jack shit LOL. OK, maybe not "all" of them but for every grain of sand on this earth, they have calculated that there is 100 stars for that 1 grain. While not "all" of them have orbiting planets, even if 60% of the suns had JUST 1 orbiting planet, well, you do the math......;)


NASA and Nerds said:
So how many grains of sand are there in the world? You could start
off by trying to guess how many grains of sand there are in a spoon of
sand. Use a magnifying glass to count how many grains fit in a small
section. Then, count how many of those sections fit in your spoon.
Multiply the two numbers together to get an estimate.
"Using this same principle, plus some additional information,
mathematicians at the University of Hawaii tried to guess how many
grains of sand are on the world's beaches. They came up with
7,500,000,000,000,000,000, or seven quintillion five quadrillion
grains of sand."
How many grains of sand are in the world?
http://www.miamisci.org/tripod/whysand.html

The calculation is detailed here:
http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/jsand.html

That number is 7.5 x 10^18 or 7.5 billion billion.

How many stars, galaxies, clusters, QSO's etc. in the Universe?
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part8/section-3.html
"To get the total stellar population in the Milky Way [that is, in our
galaxy alone], we must take the number of luminous stars that we can
see at large distances and assume that we know how many fainter stars
go along with them. Recent numbers give about 400,000,000,000 (400
billion) stars, but a 50% error either way is quite plausible."

So in our galaxy alone, there might be between 2 x 10^11 and 6 x 10^11 stars

How many galaxies in the Universe?
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part8/section-4.html
"the Hubble telescope is capable of detecting about 80 billion
galaxies (although not all of these within the foreseeable future!).
In fact, there must be many more than this, even within the observable
Universe, since the most
common kind of galaxy in our own neighborhood is the faint dwarfs
which are difficult enough to see nearby, much less at large
cosmological distances. For example, in our own local group, there are
3 or 4 giant galaxies which would be detectable at a billion
light-years or more (Andromeda, the Milky Way, the Pinwheel in
Triangulum, and maybe the Large Magellanic Cloud). However, there are
at least another 20 faint members, which would be difficult to find at
100 million light-years, much less the billions of light years to
which the brightest galaxies can be seen."

So the lower end estimate for the number of galaxies is 8 x 10^10

If we accept even the lower end of these Hubble figures, and if our
Milky Way has a typical number of stars in it, that puts the number of
stars in the universe to be at least
(2 x 10^11) x (8 x 10^10) = 16 x 10^ 21

So if we round the number of sand grains to, say, 10^20
and round the number of stars to, say 10^22
then there are at least 100 stars in the universe for every grain of sand on earth.
 
Carlwalski said:
While it's true, it's somewhat out of context. "410 planets" within spitting range of our system. If our telescopes were eyes, we couldn't even see past our eyelashes. :D In short, we ain't seen jack shit LOL. OK, maybe not "all" of them but for every grain of sand on this earth, they have calculated that there is 100 stars for that 1 grain. While not "all" of them have orbiting planets, even if 60% of the suns had JUST 1 orbiting planet, well, you do the math......;)

Lots of if's, but it's of little consequence to us in the end.

Unless/until we achieve faster-than-light travel, we'll never see a one of them.
 
I didn't even know "Quadrillion" was a numerical value, until now. :dontknow: :eek: :D :rock:

However... I do know what a Yottaflop is.... so, I still retain my geek status. ;) :p
 
Black1 said:
I didn't even know "Quadrillion" was a numerical value, until now. :dontknow: :eek: :D :rock:

:p

Sure you did, Jake.....:

Quadrillion, quintillion, sextillion, septillion, octillion........... etc :dontknow:

D
 
Im gonna be the asshole here and say "Damn that video would have been a lot cooler with Captain Kirk driving a SRT-10 thru the whole thing while banging some blue alien chick while throwing beer cans in the bed"! VTCOA FOR LIFE!
 
BlackMamba50 said:
Im gonna be the asshole here and say "Damn that video would have been a lot cooler with Captain Kirk driving a SRT-10 thru the whole thing while banging some blue alien chick while throwing beer cans in the bed"! VTCOA FOR LIFE!

....YOU'VE.... got issues dude.:D

Has anyone other than Josh even took time to LOOK at the video?

Carl Sagan was a fantastic teacher Josh. I could listen to him talking all day.
 
Last edited:
BlackMamba50 said:
Im gonna be the asshole here and say "Damn that video would have been a lot cooler with Captain Kirk driving a SRT-10 thru the whole thing while banging some blue alien chick while throwing beer cans in the bed"! VTCOA FOR LIFE!

i would buy the vid of that one:elefant: :elefant: :rock:
 
Carlwalski said:
The human mind wasn't "designed" to handle such gargantuan numbers, hence the reason terms and calculations such as "light years" were made up so it was easier on the human brain to fathom. To be perfectly blunt, I think you're ignorant to think we're the only ones living in the mass of a universe lol that train of thought is laughable at best. Go outside on the next clear night, every star you see at is a solar system similar to ours, with a sun (star), planets and it's own gravity pull, that's an extensive amount of planets. We definitely aren't the only ones, we are probably such back country in terms of space, who wants to come see us!! Our solar system is very new so why would an advanced civilisation come visit us?

Why haven't we seen them here? We have nothing to offer them. It'd be like someone from Beverly Hills ("them") traveling to a Botswana shanty town to check out their tin huts ("Us"). Like us, we fly over places like that but never touch down. Occasionally some random adventurer might, like them and the reason we see "UFOs" every now and then. Maybe the planets close to us (being around the same birth-dates) haven't got the technology to do so yet, like us. They're probably looking out at us asking the same questions lol. The universe is immeasurable and sooner or later we will find something. IMO, the sooner, the better. It'll change the way we think. We fight amongst ourselves like animals, it will take something outer world to unite the people on this planet and hopefully then, the small and pathetic differences they fight over will be put aside for good.



2c


N11_Ken_M_Milky_Way_2.jpg


Yes a star trek like society of pacifism and socialism would be great.....
but then communism is great in theory too.



.... Just because the math says there is a remote chance, something from nothing is not possible. We can't even prove today how WE came about on our perfect planet. Science can't answer it. It may have 100 theory's, but they all have major issues. in fact we don't even know why we have mass, or gravity. That's what LCERN is about, they want to ask why. They just don't know. Although they will never pick up a rock and it will have a sticker that says "Made by God" it at some point will be undeniable.

Science could never work God into an equation. Look at dinosaur bones. they have found soft tissue inside the bones, in fact they didn't even think they were bones, but rather fossils. Something this major should turn the entire field of science on its ear, but they tend to ignore things. Radio carbon dating has been found to be completely flawed. Nothing works out the way they want and its because of prospective. If you go into something with a presumption, that will skew what you see.

can you not look at your own body? the very fragile nature of things. every system in your body works together, and without them we would die. do you think this is the result of 3 billion years of chance? do you think all that you see is the result of a accident? do you think that we evolved this way? to be perfectly suited to our environment? even with 3 billion years everything you see could not have come about by chance.

cause and effect.
and faith:

Hebrews 11:6 (New International Version)

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
 
What Scoob is saying can't be denied. After 4.5 billion years the other planets in our own solar system couldn't sustain life as we know it. The finest Quartz watch couldn't in 10 billion years suddenly come to being from sand by nature or without a hand making it. Meanwhile our very bodies are more complex than any Quartz watch made.
 
scoobert said:
Science could never work God into an equation.


I beg to differ. Most scientists (although my wife is not one) do believe in God. Many are willing to accept that there is a spiritual entity that drives the processes.

While there is no rock that says "Made by God"...there are a lot of scientists that have faith and are willing to acknowledge that there are huge gaps between our current knowledge base and the absolute truth.


On the topic of probability...Richard Dawkins (biologist) is fond of saying that "in the world of quantum theory, every glass of water we drink has to have at least one molecule that actually passed through Oliver Cromwell's bladder...because the quantity of molecules in that glass of water is so huge"...


Grasping the immensity of the universe:

http://blog.ted.com/2007/04/richard_dawkins_2.php

About 21 minutes...
 
Last edited:
I dont want to change the vibe of this thread but to dispute dating technology to the point of refuting the fact that dinosaurs are MILLIONS of years old is laughable. As with any technology improvements are continuous and become better over time. The point I am trying to make is that whether dinosaurs bones are 300 million or 325 million years old is more of the difference we are talking about, not whether dinosaurs were hiding in grandpas back yard
 
Most of what Schoob says is laughable...I am now beginning to think that he does it on purpose...no one could be so wrong on so many things...I think he sits back and laughs at our objections to his claims.

I used to try to prod him back on the straight and narrow...but now think he is just playing games with us...no one could be as off base as he seems to be on so many things.
 
Prof said:
Most of what Schoob says is laughable...I am now beginning to think that he does it on purpose...no one could be so wrong on so many things...I think he sits back and laughs at our objections to his claims.

I used to try to prod him back on the straight and narrow...but now think he is just playing games with us...no one could be as off base as he seems to be on so many things.

That is a bet I would be willing to take.

You have seen the pictures of him, and how he lives, right? I still personally believe he is a 100% certified village idiot.
 
scoobert said:
We can't even prove today how WE came about on our perfect planet.

An interesting thing for someone of faith to say.;)


scoobert said:
Science can't answer it.

Beg your pardon? I believe they have, although it may not be to your satisfaction (or liking).

Maybe Prof's right about you.:D
.
 
Demon 8 said:
I dont want to change the vibe of this thread but to dispute dating technology to the point of refuting the fact that dinosaurs are MILLIONS of years old is laughable. As with any technology improvements are continuous and become better over time. The point I am trying to make is that whether dinosaurs bones are 300 million or 325 million years old is more of the difference we are talking about, not whether dinosaurs were hiding in grandpas back yard

If a dino was 300 million years old it would not have soft tissue. End of story.
Where do you think legends of dragons come from? because people in recant time saw them, quite possible they were here only a few thousand years ago.

Thou highly unlikely, they could be here today. Science has found many things it thought extinct.
"living fossil's"

I beg to differ. Most scientists (although my wife is not one) do believe in God. Many are willing to accept that there is a spiritual entity that drives the processes.

While there is no rock that says "Made by God"...there are a lot of scientists that have faith and are willing to acknowledge that there are huge gaps between our current knowledge base and the absolute truth.

well that's whats missing in today's world roy. most don't believe in absolute truth anymore. (did most ever?)
like one person said to me on facebook, "there is no right and wrong" i bet her view would change if someone were trying to kill her. i doubt she would say, "its ok, what your doing, thou i don't like it, is not wrong".
 
The search for absolute truth is what drives most scientists...and it is that drive that keeps altering our perception of what things really are...not that our current beliefs should always be considered wrong...but we have to work with what we have at the present time.

There is always more to learn...and would it not be terrible if that were not the case!!
 
Prof said:
Most of what Schoob says is laughable...I am now beginning to think that he does it on purpose...no one could be so wrong on so many things...I think he sits back and laughs at our objections to his claims.

I used to try to prod him back on the straight and narrow...but now think he is just playing games with us...no one could be as off base as he seems to be on so many things.

"Crazy like a fox"??....;)
 

Latest posts

Support Us

Become A Supporting Member Today!

Click Here For Details

Back
Top