Welcome to Gaia! ::

THeSLuSH's avatar

Sparkly Lunatic

Mooby the Golden Sock
7. There are 7 stars in the universe.

There are, however, a trillion mirrors, which explains why we see more than 7 lights in the sky.
This answer wins!
Lychee Bae's avatar

Unforgiving Warlord

11,400 Points
  • Senpai's Notice 100
  • Jack-pot 100
  • Love Machine 150
If you were to look in the sky you can only see about...(i forgot the number x_x)

only 30,000 or 300,000 stars.

There is a lot more than that however.
Vannak
Kasumi the Young Princess
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999



by the time you finish counting up to that number your not even half way there XDDD

Your number is quite a bit off. The real number is somewhere in the vicinity of 10^22 and 10^24. The number you used was about 10^205 - 1. We expect to get better refinements over time, however such large changes would show either a systematic misunderstanding of what stars are, or showing that the techniques we use to estimate them (Measuring mass of galaxies, mass of average stars, counting galaxies etc) are simply insufficient. None of which has yet been done.

If you take the uniformity of the really large scale structure of the observable universe to mean that there is no edge of the universe where the stars stop,

and

if you accept our measurements of the matter density of the universe indicating that we have a flat geometry as being sufficiently accurate (or think they err and that the geometry is hyperbolic,)

then

This goofy uninformed star count (big number < half of total number) is technically correct. I get the impression that a majority of astrophysicists think that the observable universe constitutes a fair portion of the actual universe (basically just meaning not an infintessimally small portion,) though I can't seem to pin down why they favor those measures.
Shokushu
Vannak
Kasumi the Young Princess
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999



by the time you finish counting up to that number your not even half way there XDDD

Your number is quite a bit off. The real number is somewhere in the vicinity of 10^22 and 10^24. The number you used was about 10^205 - 1. We expect to get better refinements over time, however such large changes would show either a systematic misunderstanding of what stars are, or showing that the techniques we use to estimate them (Measuring mass of galaxies, mass of average stars, counting galaxies etc) are simply insufficient. None of which has yet been done.

If you take the uniformity of the really large scale structure of the observable universe to mean that there is no edge of the universe where the stars stop,

and

if you accept our measurements of the matter density of the universe indicating that we have a flat geometry as being sufficiently accurate (or think they err and that the geometry is hyperbolic,)

then

This goofy uninformed star count (big number < half of total number) is technically correct. I get the impression that a majority of astrophysicists think that the observable universe constitutes a fair portion of the actual universe (basically just meaning not an infintessimally small portion,) though I can't seem to pin down why they favor those measures.
generally the reason we accept that the universe is flat (or very close to flat) is because we can look at the MCB data and infer that the topology represented there, and how it is now, represents gravity working on a flat surface.

Of course, all star counts are based on the observable universe. Doing dark energy calculations we can estimate the peak width of the observable universe we'll ever really be able to see outwards and we're a not insignificant fraction of that maximum.
bubblesqueak24's avatar

Hygienic Humorist

8,250 Points
  • Trader 100
  • Peoplewatcher 100
  • Contributor 150
the bible compares it to every grain of sand on this planet
If any one can count then he is must be a God. who has created this stars and confused all of us about how many they are.
Nerdologist's avatar

Liberal Citizen

5,200 Points
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Citizen 200
  • Autobiographer 200
Tuah's avatar

Shadowy Rogue

2,350 Points
  • Battle: Rogue 100
  • Signature Look 250
  • Partygoer 500
Here's something interesting.

Several billion years from now, all the galaxies in the universe will have accelerated apart from each other so much that it will be impossible to see any other galaxy.

All the correct science in the world, and yet it would arrive at all the wrong answers: That galaxy is the only one in the universe.
CuAnnan's avatar

Dapper Genius

3,650 Points
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Autobiographer 200
  • Dressed Up 200
Tuah
Several billion years from now, all the galaxies in the universe will have accelerated apart from each other so much that it will be impossible to see any other galaxy.

All the correct science in the world, and yet it would arrive at all the wrong answers: That galaxy is the only one in the universe.

There are some of assumptions to reading that into our current view of BBT.
1) the rate of expansion will continue to increase
2) it will overcome the gravity in local clusters, which I believe it currently does not though it has been a long time since I studied cosmology
I'm not sure if that's all
Spiritual Machine's avatar

Kawaii Kitten

bubblesqueak24
the bible compares it to every grain of sand on this planet


Our current understanding is there are (were) more stars than grains of sand on our dirtball, but stars are constantly created and destroyed, so the actual number will always be changing. There even had to exist a star in this area before our sun in order for elements heavier than carbon to even exist in our solar system.
bubblesqueak24's avatar

Hygienic Humorist

8,250 Points
  • Trader 100
  • Peoplewatcher 100
  • Contributor 150
Spiritual Machine
bubblesqueak24
the bible compares it to every grain of sand on this planet


Our current understanding is there are (were) more stars than grains of sand on our dirtball, but stars are constantly created and destroyed, so the actual number will always be changing. There even had to exist a star in this area before our sun in order for elements heavier than carbon to even exist in our solar system.


You had me at "dirtball" but then you lost me all the way to the end lol
Spiritual Machine's avatar

Kawaii Kitten

bubblesqueak24
Spiritual Machine
bubblesqueak24
the bible compares it to every grain of sand on this planet


Our current understanding is there are (were) more stars than grains of sand on our dirtball, but stars are constantly created and destroyed, so the actual number will always be changing. There even had to exist a star in this area before our sun in order for elements heavier than carbon to even exist in our solar system.


You had me at "dirtball" but then you lost me all the way to the end lol


All elements heavier than hydrogen were made inside a star. Stars can only fuze elements until it creates iron. Iron absorbs energy instead of radiating it out. Without radiation pressure to balance gravity, the star collapses.
The resulting explosion creates all the elements heavier than iron. Our entire solar system is made of material from a primordial giant star's unfortunate demise.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games