's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the known universe(13 posts)

70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the known universeJS Haiku Shop
Jul 22, 2003 10:09 AM
seventy sixtillion stars estimated so far...

this is awesome.

Star survey reaches 70 sextillion
Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Posted: 9:12 AM EDT (1312 GMT)

SYDNEY, Australia (CNN) -- Ever wanted to wish upon a star? Well, you have 70,000 million million million to choose from.

That's the total number of stars in the known universe, according to a study by Australian astronomers.

It's also about 10 times as many stars as grains of sand on all the world's beaches and deserts.

The figure -- 7 followed by 22 zeros or, more accurately, 70 sextillion -- was calculated by a team of stargazers based at the Australian National University.

Speaking at the General Assembly of the International Astronomical Union meeting in Sydney, Dr Simon Driver said the number was drawn up based on a survey of one strip of sky, rather than trying to count every individual star.

The team used two of the world's most powerful telescopes, one at the Anglo-Australian Observatory in northern New South Wales state and one in the Canary Islands, to carry out their survey.

Within the strip of sky some 10,000 galaxies were pinpointed and detailed measurements of their brightness taken to calculate how many stars they contained.

Astronomers say there are more stars than grains of sand in all of Earth's deserts and beaches.
That number was then multiplied by the number of similar sized strips needed to cover the entire sky, Driver said, and then multiplied again out to the edge of the visible universe.

He said there were likely many million more stars in the universe but the 70 sextillion figure was the number visible within range of modern telescopes.

The actual number of stars could be infinite he said.

The universe is so big light from the other side of the universe "hasn't reached us yet," The Age newspaper quoted him as saying.

Asked if he believed the huge scale of the universe meant there was intelligent life out there somewhere, he told the paper.

"Seventy thousand million million million is a big number ... it's inevitable."
Jul 22, 2003 10:29 AM
I was with them until they suggested "infinite" number of stars. How would that be possible?

The "known" universe? I'd guess we "know" less than about 1% of what's out there.

To put this in perspetive...bicyclerepairman
Jul 22, 2003 12:04 PM
pay attention to the fact that the astronomers are not counting anything in the tachyon universe, nor are they referencing possible parallel universes....
Also, this number will only grow with the passage of time...nmbicyclerepairman
Jul 22, 2003 12:05 PM
Yes, "Unknown Universe" would be more correct. nmMike P
Jul 22, 2003 11:08 AM
70 sextillion not a big number, ET life not inevitable.Continental
Jul 22, 2003 11:28 AM
I don't think that extra terrestrial life is inevitablejust because 70 sextillion stars is a big number of items. The possible outcomes of a relatively simple random event is a much much larger number than 70 sextillion. If life begins as the random assembly of atoms or small molecules, the probability of life beginning could be infinitesimally small. For example, consider 25 cubic dice, each of a different color. Shake the 25 dice up in a bag and then dump them out 1 at a time. There are 4.4 x 10 E 44 possible outcomes of this event. If you specify an outcome for this event (red 6, green 2, amber 3, purple 5...) and if each of the 70 sextillion stars had a planet, and if on each planet you shook a bag of these 25 colored dice every second for the 15 billion years that the universe may have existed , there is only an 0.3% chance of getting the specified outcome. Perhaps the beginning of life is even less probable than rolling 25 colored dice out of a bag in a specified order of colors and numbers. There are many, many more probabilistic outcomes for random events than there are discreet items in the universe. Maybe we are alone. So, appreciate your consciousness.
then again, maybe it has nothing to do with chance nmDougSloan
Jul 22, 2003 12:20 PM
And people say its foolish to believe in GodKristin
Jul 22, 2003 4:00 PM
I say, its a whole lot more rational than believing "this" all just happened.
But God would be even more complexContinental
Jul 22, 2003 6:33 PM
I can't see how the existence of God can be rationalized by saying that life and the universe is too complex to happen by accident. I can believe that space, time, and the laws of physics always existed and that we are a result of random events within the framework of those laws. Believing that an omnipotent and omniscient God always existed seems like a much bigger stretch of intellect. I think that if you believe in God, it is by strong faith or by weak intellect. I have deep respect for those who believe by strong faith. I don't like the intellectualization (is that a word?)of religious faith.
So do you believe thatKristin
Jul 23, 2003 5:31 AM
People with strong faith have a weak intellect?
No, not at allContinental
Jul 23, 2003 6:11 AM
I think that people who believe in God and have a strong intellect understand that their belief in God is based on faith. What bothers me are the religious conservatives who believe such things like God created the earth in 6 days 10,000 years ago and the Great Flood actually occurred and Noah put animals on an ark, then use pseudo-science to support their beliefs. They then proceed to label anyone who challenges their facts and logic as lying, deceitful, demon-possessed souls bound for literal hell.
Never the twain shall meetKristin
Jul 23, 2003 6:50 AM
Those who don't believe in the existence of God, can not believe that God and science can coexist--for obvious reasons. But those who do believe in God also believe that science and God do coexists, and compliment each other. Its a discussion that can not have a resolution.
That's only 3 more than the total number of self-proclaimed "stars" in Hollywood! NMjtolleson
Jul 22, 2003 3:43 PM