70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Stars Out There

nice by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-22 13:38 · Score: 0, Insightful

nice

Re:nice by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-22 19:12 · Score: 0

renice that to negative infinity, jackass
Re:nice by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 06:06 · Score: 0

i modded you overrated because i fear confrontation and i don't know what i'd do if i got metamod'ed, i'd probably kill myself.
Re:nice by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 08:40 · Score: 0

are you sure you didn't mean 'cocksucker' or 'asshole'? i find that 'jackass' tends to be over-used these days. though it is quite a fun word to say...

and all the media seems interested in by Enrico+Pulatzo · 2003-07-22 13:40 · Score: 4, Funny

are J-Lo and Ben Affleck...bummer

Re:and all the media seems interested in by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-22 21:49 · Score: 0

... or otherwise known as the two headed beast called Bennifer
Re:and all the media seems interested in by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 13:06 · Score: 0

Two-headed? Those 2 objects look like jlo's cheeks to me!

perhaps we've found that elusive dark matter...

seti@homing it up by sirmikester · 2003-07-22 13:42 · Score: 3, Funny

[quote]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."[/quote]

Good thing i'm keeping my seti@home client running all the time... we're bound to find something sometime!

--
In linux libertas

Re:seti@homing it up by ThorGod · 2003-07-22 13:53 · Score: 5, Informative

Ahh yes, but the space-time window in which we're viewing is very, very, very, very, very, very (get the picture?) recent and equally narrow.

If you're into this subject, I suggest reading "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku. Good book, and he's got at least a chapter on the statistical analysis of the existance of life in the Universe. Very good book all around :)

--
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
Re:seti@homing it up by i_am_nitrogen · 2003-07-22 14:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

I bought Hyperspace used and it is indeed a very thought provoking reading. There are probably some newer theories that aren't discussed in the book, but it's still pretty decent popular science. One thing I didn't like about it is in some parts the author seems to try to aggressively imply that there is proof that God doesn't exist, when of course, such proof is currently impossible to obtain using current methods and technology, as is proof that God does exist.

It's quite similar to what SCO is trying to do. Some scientists and others apparently believed that if they say it loud enough long enough, eventually it will be accepted as truth. Guess what: in large part, it worked. In reality, there cannot be a proof for everyone that God does or does not exist. The only way to find out is to look for yourself.

--
A solution to the problem with music today
Re:seti@homing it up by c4tp's+friend · 2003-07-22 15:37 · Score: 1

ThorGod makes a great point, in a sense we've only been transmitting radio signals for about 100 years. So, these signals are reaching a few other solar systems near by. I would also recommend Michio Kaku's book, and if you ever see him on TechTV he gives great interviews even though his site lacks somewhat IMO.

--
I dont like it when people think about what I think (say). Rather I try to make them think like I think.
Re:seti@homing it up by confused+one · 2003-07-23 01:47 · Score: 1

Actually, I stopped running seti@home when I checked into their science. Now, before anyone gets defensive it's not the actual method they're using I have problems with. It's the scope. In principle it's a good idea. If it ever found anything, I'd be among the first to applaud them.
However, if one looks closely you'll see that they're only capable of seeing a signal from stars within say, 70-150 light years (I don't remember the exact numbers; but, this is a reasonable assumption). If you look at the stars within this range, first of all, there aren't many; and, second most are not all that interesting. Once they've done a comprehensive search of the area immediately around these stars, for all intensive purposes, the project is complete...
Instead, I'm donating my compute cycles to cancer research (for now).
Re:seti@homing it up by p3d0 · 2003-07-24 14:26 · Score: 1

...for all intensive purposes...
FYI, that's "for all intents and purposes". (Doesn't it make a lot more sense that way?)

--
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Re:seti@homing it up by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-25 02:12 · Score: 0

An omnipotent (christian-style) God is meaningless, from the scientific perspective, not possible to disprove or conditionally prove, actually ill-posed and pointless to consider.

e.g. I am god. I just created the universe and all your memories. You have no way to disprove that I am god. You could try killing me, but that would just be me letting you for reasons of my own, such as not liking your company.

A scientific hypothesis must be testable. Omnipotent, omniscient gods are not testable, so are truly pointless to consider from a scientific perspective. Science is not a belief system, it's a process needing certain inputs, and untestable propositions aren't suitable as inputs.

BTW, A part of the immensely complex and baroque illogic of Roman Catholic theology invented by the Italians, Spanish and Irish (masters of illogic) even goes so far as to define an aspect of their god as that which is untestable.

You can either rationally believe omnipotently theistic religion, or science, not both. Note that humans are irrational and apparently have no problem beleiving mutually incompatible things, so religion's not going away any time soon.
Re:seti@homing it up by mamahuhu · 2003-07-25 07:38 · Score: 1

Yeah but you are not going to be modded higher as there are a huge number of people who 1. either have no interest in religion and are not interested in the consequences of it - or 2. are bigotted religious people who have no interest in your point being advanced.

I myself think your point is pertinent and worthwhile - but don't expect Slashdot to be unbiased and get modded up.

I think Carl Sagan said it best in his works - especially "The Demon Haunted world" when it referred to belief in religion as akin to an invisble dragon that sat in your garage that only you could see.

If you can't prove it through the Scientific Method - then what is the fucking point? (I'm paraphrasing) - the Scientific Method has provided a heap more amazing devices than religion has ever done, reduced poverty and increased well being much more - religion sucks as a way for improving the lot of people - give it up dude.

But this forum is not one that is open to clear thinking so don't expect an up-mod - you'll sit on zero forever...

IPv8? by m0rph3us0 · 2003-07-22 13:49 · Score: 4, Funny

Does this mean within the next few eons we may have to transition to a 256 bit IP space or will IPv6 be enough?

Re:IPv8? by jeffy124 · 2003-07-22 13:58 · Score: 1

one of the comparisons I've heard about IPv6 is "An IP address for every grain of sand"

methinks that a 256 bit address space may still not be enough should an inter-galactic internet become mainstream. then again, latency times in terms of hundreds of years may be a big turnoff for some web surfers.

--
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
Re:IPv8? by atari2600 · 2003-07-22 14:38 · Score: 1

There can actually be an IPv7 - there was also an IPv5 which never got out of the closed rooms and theoritical discussions and papers. There is no reason for naming that suffix in multiples of 2.
Re:IPv8? by Danse · 2003-07-22 15:21 · Score: 3, Funny

then again, latency times in terms of hundreds of years may be a big turnoff for some web surfers.

Yeah, playing Quake MDXXV will be a bitch with that kinda lag.

--
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Re:IPv8? by Captain+Nitpick · 2003-07-22 16:39 · Score: 4, Funny

Does this mean within the next few eons we may have to transition to a 256 bit IP space or will IPv6 be enough?

In the long-standing tradition of dorks, I'm going to take your joke question seriously and answer it.

If I'm counting zeroes correctly, we've got 7e22 stars to deal with. Base 2 log of 7e22 is 75.8898. Since having fractional bits isn't really feasible, that gets rounded up to 76.

IPv6 uses 128 bit addresses, so subtracting off the 76 bits for specifying the star leaves us with 52 bits to play with. 2^52 gives us 4.5e15 addresses, which is roughly a million times more addresses than IPv4's 32 bits allow.

In short, IPv6 does have a big enough address space to cover the visible universe, as long as you're not trying to assign individual IP addresses to trillions of nanobots.

--
But then again, I could be wrong.
Re:IPv8? by capnjack41 · 2003-07-22 18:40 · Score: 1

They can just use NAT, and not have to waste a whole bunch of routable IP's.
Re:IPv8? by jayhawk88 · 2003-07-23 03:08 · Score: 1

No, this won't be an issue thanks to Hyperspace Subnetting.
Re:IPv8? by Merlino · 2003-07-23 04:19 · Score: 1

In "Lain" there is.
Re:IPv8? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 11:32 · Score: 0

But it's a pointless exercise because no one is going to leave their star system open to the Internet. It's going to be behind a firewall and use NAT.

And I won't even get into the ludicrous idea that your galaxy cluster ISP is going to give you billions of static IP addresses....
Re:IPv8? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 14:46 · Score: 1, Insightful

Last time I checked, beings on planets, not stars, required IP addresses.
Re:IPv8? by MrLint · 2003-07-23 15:08 · Score: 1

setup a big ring around the planet.. its one huge global NAT router.

Thing is... would a DDoS attack from the whole universe cause a black hole?

HOw much does a packet weigh?:)
Re:IPv8? by Chmarr · 2003-07-23 15:59 · Score: 1

Just like Linux (and just UNlike Redhat), all the odd numbers are buggy :)
Re:IPv8? by joshuac · 2003-07-24 06:08 · Score: 1

Uggg, just showing there may never be a permanent respite from that horrible concept.
Re:IPv8? by vajcovec · 2003-07-24 08:30 · Score: 0

Yeah, playing Quake MDXXV will be a bitch with that kinda lag.

Damn LPBs playing on the same planet as the server.
Re:IPv8? by Pieroxy · 2003-07-24 11:45 · Score: 1

When did you learn how to read? 76 bits required to describe planets. That means that the first 76 bits will be used as the address of the planet. That still leaves 52 bits for every people on every planet (128-76=52)

But then again, I could be wrong.

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:IPv8? by kneels_bore · 2003-07-24 20:08 · Score: 1

"as long as you're not trying to assign individual IP addresses to trillions of nanobots." Excuse moi, but how else are we expected to fight the invaders from fluidic space ?
Re:IPv8? by Captain+Nitpick · 2003-07-24 21:03 · Score: 1

"as long as you're not trying to assign individual IP addresses to trillions of nanobots."
Excuse moi, but how else are we expected to fight the invaders from fluidic space ?

If our civilization starts facing villains from Voyager, then we've achieved a level of mediocrity that justifies our destruction.

--
But then again, I could be wrong.
Re:IPv8? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-25 10:02 · Score: 0

In short, IPv6 does have a big enough address space to cover the visible universe, as long as you're not trying to assign individual IP addresses to trillions of nanobots.

That's why we have NAT, and bad-ass schemes like IntraIntra.
Re:IPv8? by juhaz · 2003-07-26 05:22 · Score: 1

IPv6 uses 128 bit addresses, so subtracting off the 76 bits for specifying the star

You might want to check again on that reading lesson you think you had...

We don't even have a slightest clue about how many planets there could be in the universe, so grandparent calculation would damn certainly be talking about stars even if it didn't explicitly mention it (which it does)

I've figured out the population of the world. by bons · 2003-07-22 13:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

By calculating the population of my neighborhood and assuming that my neighborhood has average distribution...

From the article:
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.

I wonder if this sort of "science" is how hardware manufacturers get their numbers?

--

No Zen is good zen

Re:I've figured out the population of the world. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-22 14:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

The method is actually fairly accurate - the distribution of galaxies and their density is sufficiently uniform to provide a number that shouldn't be off by more than 7-8%.

A similar approach was used long ago to (quite successfully) estimate the number of galaxies in the universe before we had the technology to measure signals from the farthest ones directly (which was done at first when we had gamma-class radio telescopes).

It's really more clever than it sounds. You just have to take a few mathematical parameters into the equation (for example, Einstein spacetime curvature might distort radiation quantitiy when passing particularly dense areas of space).
Re:I've figured out the population of the world. by Bootsy+Collins · 2003-07-22 15:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

By calculating the population of my neighborhood and assuming that my neighborhood has average distribution...
From the article:
> 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.
I wonder if this sort of "science" is how hardware manufacturers get their numbers?
Be careful. Do you have a reason to believe that your neighborhood is typical? Do you have data indicating such?
The astronomers in question didn't use such an approach because they're idiots; they used such an approach because we already have a heck of a lot of data about the galaxy distribution. The RMS (fractional) fluctuation in galaxy number count in a random volume the size of the one they surveyed is expected to be tiny; and it's expected to be tiny because of surveys we've already done which indicate such a convergence towards homogeneity as scale increases.
Re: I've figured out the population of the world. by Black+Parrot · 2003-07-22 20:02 · Score: 1

> The method is actually fairly accurate - the distribution of galaxies and their density is sufficiently uniform to provide a number that shouldn't be off by more than 7-8%.

And 7-8% of 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 is only 4,900,000,000,000,000,000,000 - 5,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 star systems, so we shouldn't lose too many galactic civilizations in the noise!

I wonder whether the Galactic Republicans and Galactic Democrats are debating the legality of using statistical modelling for the next gazillintinniel census report.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:I've figured out the population of the world. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 04:16 · Score: 0

Yes, but it's always possible that that 7-8% error over the visible universe is actually only part of a much larger structural inconsistency that we simply can't observe (yet).
Re:I've figured out the population of the world. by Bootsy+Collins · 2003-07-23 07:45 · Score: 1

Nobody's reading this thread anymore, but I still feel like responding to this . . .
Yes, but it's always possible that that 7-8% error over the visible universe is actually only part of a much larger structural inconsistency that we simply can't observe (yet).
Sure. It's also possible that tomorrow, someone will do an experiment or observation that overturns the principle of conservation of momentum or energy, or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I doubt it, but it's possible. Nothing you would use to make predictions is ever known to be 100% true in science; that's not how science works. You do experiments/observations, collect data, construct your best theories/models, and compare them to new data. As you collect more data, you either invalidate your theory/model, or you bolster its support.
Right now, the data shows a gradual convergence towards homogeneity at larger and larger scales. We know from microwave background observations that the level of mass inhomogeneity on really huge scales, out to redshifts of 1000 or so, is at less than 1e-5. Furthermore, we've had a lot of success with the relativistic hot Big Bang model; the success of the model makes us feel good about the assumptions upon which it's based, and one of those assumptions is that of homogeneity and isotropy on sufficiently large scales (the so-called "Cosmological Principle"). Maybe in the end, this all turns out to be wrong -- maybe there is some large-scale inhomogeneity out there, on scales so large we haven't yet observed them; but right now, lots of data and ways of looking at things suggest that large-scale homogeneity is a good way to think, so that's what people work with.
Re:I've figured out the population of the world. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 09:49 · Score: 0

Right now, the data shows a gradual convergence towards homogeneity at larger and larger scales.

Dude, you're the homo.
Re:I've figured out the population of the world. by Proudrooster · 2003-07-26 16:10 · Score: 1

This thread reminds me of an old quote:

"Tell someone there are 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the sky and they will believe you but, hang a sign on a park bench which reads 'wet paint' and people will touch the bench to find out.'

We aren't even sure what gravity is or whether or not the concept of space/time and gravity is homgeneous throughout the universe and yet we are ready to number the stars. Arrogant little beings aren't we :)

Maybe someone will compute the dimensions of the Universe next and post that on slashdot. Or better yet maybe some one could post a complete list of subatomic particles or a least and estimate of how many we will eventually find. One of the many questions I have about the "expanding universe" is this: "If the universe is expanding, what's it expanding into?" Is it like a coffee mug that automagically changes size as the volume of liquid poured into it increases such that the mug is never full? And if the size of the Universe is not constant, does that mean the sum of the energy in the Universe is not constant?

Things that make you go hmmmmm.....

I don't believe it... by RALE007 · 2003-07-22 13:51 · Score: 4, Funny

...and intend to disprove this claim.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5...

--
Beware blue cats moving at .99c

Re:I don't believe it... by GayBliss · 2003-07-23 03:11 · Score: 1

Better count a little faster.

If you count 1 billion stars every second,
it will take you over 2 million years to get them all.
Re:I don't believe it... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-24 01:06 · Score: 0

You are so astoundingly humourless
Re: I don't believe it... by FoeNyx · 2003-07-24 19:38 · Score: 1

When you will finish, you should check it again !
Some of the stars could have been switched off :)
Re:I don't believe it... by Openadvocate · 2003-07-25 10:16 · Score: 1

Can you express that in a number?

--
my sig

Re:if it's a million million million, by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-22 14:02 · Score: 0

hey, this is a troll.

one million is 10^6, meaning one million million million is 10^18. 70 000 * 10^18, or 70 * 10^21, or the number we have in the headline

Couldn't it be said as... by TheWanderingHermit · 2003-07-22 14:15 · Score: 2, Informative

70 sextillion? Or did I miscount 000's?

Re:Couldn't it be said as... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-22 14:35 · Score: 0

They have now changed the title of the article. I'm just posting this so you don't look like an idiot.
Re:Couldn't it be said as... by Radish03 · 2003-07-22 17:46 · Score: 1

Wouldn't it be great if it were really 69 Sextillion instead of 70?

My property! by Drakker · 2003-07-22 14:19 · Score: 4, Funny

Star number 65 000 561 002 023 162 and all its surrounding planets, planetoids, asteroids, natural and artificial satellites, gas clouds, neutrinos and dark matter is officialy my sole property according to copyright law #1361. If you dare come into the 235 934 347 238 484 km radius of this solar system, I will sue you to death according to the super duper interstellar DMCA.

You have been warned, I saw it first!

Re:My property! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-22 20:05 · Score: 0

What the hell does copyright have to do with property law? WHEN THE HELL ARE YOU PEOPLE GOING TO LEARN?
Re:My property! by Drakker · 2003-07-23 02:07 · Score: 1

Well, when the big corporations will decide its time to blur the line between copyrights and property laws, it will happen. The super duper DMCA might do just that.

Say, if you listen to this song, the 100 meter radius around your house now belongs to the RIAA. ;)

Just kidding, but well, you get the idea.
Re:My property! by mike_mgo · 2003-07-23 03:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

More importantly, when are people going to learn that these lame copyright jokes aren't funny or clever. Especially in an article that has NOTHING to do with copyright/SCO/RIAA or whtever.
Re:My property! by Alsee · 2003-07-23 21:24 · Score: 1

Exactly. What he should have done is post a fake press release from Microsoft claiming "All your stars are belong to us".

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

huh... by DiSKiLLeR · 2003-07-22 14:24 · Score: 0

70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

or

70,000 million million million

Whats wrong with just saying 70 sextillion? Whats this million million million shit, and why 70,000 of them? May as well say 70 thousand million million million then, but it sstill stupid. 70 sextillion is shorter, and easier to say.

D.

--
You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.

Re:huh... by rritterson · 2003-07-22 15:02 · Score: 0

The fundementalist right has banned the use of sex as a prefix for counting. On top of that, how many people in the US know that sextillion is a valid number?

--
-Ryan
AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
Re:huh... by Jafafa+Hots · 2003-07-22 15:08 · Score: 2, Funny

They probably figure that "million" is about the biggest number people can imagine... start using other terms and you might as well be saying "eleventy hundred gazillion heptavillion loopadillion." Doesnt mean anything to the average person.

--
This space available.
Re:huh... by onomatomania · 2003-07-22 15:50 · Score: 1

Don't be so smug, I bet less than 1 in 100 people knows what the hell a "sextillion" is. But most of them know what a million is, or least have some vague idea.

Personally, I think "60 sextillion" is the worst possible way to express this number. It is neither as short as "7e22" nor is it intuitive. "7e22" is so much easier and quicker, and it expresses the order of magnitude without having to memorize some arcane section of the dictionary under "really big fucking numbers."

ObSagan:

Or we could just leave it at "billions and billions and billions"
Re:huh... by ChopsMIDI · 2003-07-22 18:24 · Score: 1

Those Crazy scientists have a tendancy to express things to the general public in terms of millions.

One thing I noticed while reading a "Brief History of Time" is that Steven Hawking never expressed anything as a "billion" or "trillion", it was always a "thousand million" or a "million million", respectivly. Like this quote from the book : "According to Guth, the radius of the universe increased by a million million million million million (1 with thirty zeros after it) times in only a tiny fraction of a second."

--

How could I say to men: "Speak louder, shout! For I am deaf!"? -Ludwig van Beethoven
Re:huh... by IWannaBeAnAC · 2003-07-25 16:15 · Score: 1

The reason for that is likely that 'billion' means quite different things in the American and English systems. In American, billion is 1000 million. In English, billion is one million million. I'm actually not sure what comes after that, I don't know whether an English trilion is 10^18 or 10^24 though.
Saves publishing two versions of the book, and risk screwing up the number conversions in the middle!
Re:huh... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-26 04:47 · Score: 0

Because you can never be sure whether it is supposed to mean 7e22 or 7e37.
Even billions get routinely mistranslated here. Some 1000 times more or less. Who cares?
Re:huh... by Xilman · 2003-07-29 03:23 · Score: 1

Personally, I think "60 sextillion" is the worst possible way to express this number. It is neither as short as "7e22" nor is it intuitive.
Neither is it the same number. Last time I looked, the most significant digit of 7e22 is 7 and the MSD of 60 sextillion is 6.
Paul

--
Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate

Re:tsarkon reports Oh Fuck I shit myself at work! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-22 14:27 · Score: 0

That sir, was funnier than The Turd Report. I look forward to further musings from you. Please create a throwaway account and log in as I may browse further into your creative literature.

Yes by Alethes · 2003-07-22 14:28 · Score: 2, Funny

According to the article that you didn't read, which has a title of "Star survey reaches 70 sextillion," you could use the term "70 sextillion."

Re:Yes by TheWanderingHermit · 2003-07-22 16:43 · Score: 1

To be honest, I didn't read the article. I figured, "Okay, they say there's x stars in the Universe. So what else are they going to say? Who counted, what part of the sky they sampled (I seriously doubt they counted the entire night sky and each of 70 sextillion stars) and they'll probably try to find a way to bring the figure home."

Seriously, so why read an article when the story is basically all revealed in the headline? Especially when the link is to CNN -- the "news" network that claims to be so important, but had no issue with wasting 8 hours a day for over a year covering something as "news worthy" as the O.J. trial?

Just amazing by Blenderkitty · 2003-07-22 14:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Everyone you know, everything you've touched, all of human history, on one of 70,000,000,000,000etc stars...

The universe is so amazing...there's just so much stuff to see out there...I hate being chained to JUST ONE PLANET!

Re:Just amazing by Drakker · 2003-07-23 02:21 · Score: 1

Just like what the early explorers of the 1400 were thinking. There's so much stuff to see, and yet we cant visit all those places with our galleons.

Today, there's so much stuff to see, and yet our shuttle can't even take us to mars.
Re:Just amazing by JooBYE · 2003-07-23 05:31 · Score: 1

I could give 2 shits about EVERYTHING ever to be discovered on THIS planet. I know we will eventually figure out EVERYTHING on this planet, including ourselves. We're well on our way.
What I really want to know for fact is, what else is possibly out there on other solar systems?
Why haven't we had contact with something if that something has been in existence for millions/billions/trillions/etc. of years? Does that something really want to avoid us, (a very young solar system. Which could be false, considering the sunlight from a solar system just as young, if not younger hasn't reached us yet.) that much? Maybe none of them survive long enough to do so.
WTF is this whole SPACE thing anyways?!? Is there an end? Is there one "thing" controlling this all? There has to be, nothing just happens on it's own with out something/someone controlling/creating it.

The other thing I think about quiet a bit is our solar system, and how it functions. Think about this, Mars is the next Earth. I haven't done much research on this to see if anyone has gone into theories on this or not. But It's very logical. Our Sun has gravitational pull. As Earth gets closer to the Sun (which yes, I understand this will take years. way longer than any of our lives of course.), Mars will evolve more into another Earth. Atmosphere, water, etc. Mercury and Venus are retired Earths.
Which is really f'd up when you start thinking this way. It truly is evolution.

And this folks is one of the most important reasons I take a technically agnostic stand towards religion. Ever wonder why the Bible (or any religion for that matter) never fully explains space? It's all about the Earth, and running our lives. Pretty sick if a one true thing is controlling this all and not letting us know anything about what is happening on that star way over there. Kinda makes it sound like one gigantic ant farm/experiment. But maybe there is a god, or not just one but many, one for each solar system (haha). Or maybe we ARE in the/a Matrix! (had to say it)

My brain hurts now...

sex..! by atari2600 · 2003-07-22 14:41 · Score: 2, Funny

sext...damn another metric cousin...call me back when instr(postonSlashdot,3) returns SEX
*goes back to room*
SHIT ITS 2003!!

I'm sure Lonely Math Geeks love this number by Bishop923 · 2003-07-22 14:59 · Score: 0, Redundant

Forget this million million million crap... It's 70 sexillion

Re:I'm sure Lonely Math Geeks love this number by slothman32 · 2003-07-22 15:48 · Score: 1

Not in England. There it's 70,000 trillion. They only increase from million to billion, etc al, every 1,000,000.

--
Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
Re:I'm sure Lonely Math Geeks love this number by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-22 22:50 · Score: 0

kinky!
Re:I'm sure Lonely Math Geeks love this number by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-22 23:46 · Score: 0

In germany it's 70 'Trilliarden'

Re: bigger ones ambiguous by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-22 15:19 · Score: 1, Informative

Over a million (i.e., billion, trillion ... )
those number-words are ambiguous; British and I
think other Euro usage starts going up by multiples
of 10 ^ 6 instead of Americano 10 ^ 3. I say 7e22.

Total mass by booch · 2003-07-22 15:21 · Score: 1

I find it interesting that they determined an estimate of the total mass of all the matter in the Universe before they figured out how many stars there are. You'd think they'd come up with the number of stars first, and then base the mass estimate on that.

They also said that the number may actually be too small, given that light from some parts of the Universe hasn't had time to reach us yet. So it may be impossible to determine the total size of the Universe.

One question I've always had is: when we look back in time to the creation of the Universe, we see light from that time. So the light has been traveling for 15 billion years to get to us. But if that light has been traveling that whole time toward us, how did we get here first? We would have had to have gone faster than the speed of light to get here. So if our assumptions are valid, it seems that at some point in the history of the Universe, the laws of physics as we know them were different. Was light slower then? Was there a time when the Universe expanded faster than the speed of light? Were the changes abrupt or slow-changing? Are they changing still today?

--
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.

Re:Total mass by schmink182 · 2003-07-22 16:12 · Score: 2, Informative

IANAPhysicist, but I'm pretty sure I can answer some of your questions. It has been theorized that the speed of light has changed in the past, and therefore can continue to change. However, if light used to be slower, then matter could still not travel faster than the slower speed, following all the current known laws. As far as I can tell, if the universe's expansion were to accelerate past the speed of light, then the force of gravity would be unable to slow it back down. Sadly, with regards to the initial question of how we can see light from the beginning of the universe, I unfortunately have no idea.
Re:Total mass by Mattcelt · 2003-07-22 18:48 · Score: 5, Informative

IANAP, at least not professionally, though I think I may be able to shed some light (or at least a few photons) on your questions.

I find it interesting that they determined an estimate of the total mass of all the matter in the Universe before they figured out how many stars there are. You'd think they'd come up with the number of stars first, and then base the mass estimate on that.

You are right in thinking that intuitively, this would be the way to work it. (I know that it would be if I were approaching it, but then these guys are probably smarter than me.) The interesting thing is that as part of the work Einstein did, there was a mathematical shortcut which allows us to calculate the total mass of the objects in the universe based on their collective gravitational effects.
It works like this:
1) The universe has a certain amount of objects, each of which have mass.
2) We know that any object that has mass will have a gravitational effect on all others (in the amount of the inverse of the square of the distance between them).
3) We can calculate with reasonable certainty (with infinite sequences - similar to the Fibonacci spiral, etc.) what the total effect of all the gravity would be in the universe based on any arbitrary amount of mass that exists in the universe.
4) We can tell how much of an effect the total gravitational force is by measuring the effects of gravity on galaxies, namely how fast the galaxies are moving, whether they are moving away from or towards one another (on a large scale), and whether the galaxies farther out are moving more slowly or faster than the ones close by.
5) We know what effect (through the math again) a certain amount of mass (x) would have on the universe as a whole. To be more specific, we know that if the equation with (x) works out to be greater than 1 (i.e., f(x)>1, which was sort of arbitrarily chosen, but bear with me here), the universe will eventually pull itself back together and gravity will cause it to end in a big crunch the opposite of the big bang. If (x) makes the equation *exactly* 1, (i.e., f(x)=1), the universe will reach a point of equilibrium and remain stable for eternity. If the value of (x) makes f(x)Interestingly enough, physicists cannot seem to figure out where more than 10% of the matter they think *should* exists is! Based on the empirical evidence, they know that the value should be something like f(x)=.99999999999999999 or something very close to, but ultimately smaller than, 1. In order to make this equation work, they know they need a certain value for (x). But they can't seem to figure out what more than 10% of (x) is - galaxies, stars, black holes, etc. can only account for a small amount of the overall mass needed to make the universe behave how it does (there is a technical reason for this conclusion, but I don't understand it well enough to explain it here).
The other 90% is something physicists call "dark matter", because they haven't been able to see it yet. They're not even sure it exists - the formula may need to be refined somewhat. Einstein discovered this anomaly when he first devised this theory and the math behind it. So he added a "fudge factor" to his equation which helped it all come out in the end. He gave it a spiffy name to make it sound legit - it's called the Cosmological Constant. Before he died, he called the creation of the CC his biggest mistake, but physicists have been absolutely unable to shake it yet, because they still don't know why there's such a big discrepancy between the matter they know about and the matter they need to make the equation perfect. It's one of the great mysteries of physics still.
As for your second question, "if that light has been traveling that whole time toward us, how did we get here first?", think about this: if you are travelling away from someone at the speed of light, and there is one light second between you when you emit a photon, it will take one second for that photon to reach the other perso
Re:Total mass by Zan+Zu+from+Eridu · 2003-07-22 23:32 · Score: 2, Informative

You can't compare the Hubble constant (the speed of expansion) to the speed of light.
The universe expands by growing empty space everywhere, not just at its edges. This is why you measure the Hubble constant as speed per distance, (ie. kilometers per second per Megaparsec). If you want to compare c (speed of light) to H0 (Hubble constant) you'll have to agree on over which distance you're going to compare them. If you make the distance (the Megaparsecs) big enough; H0 will always win.
Re:Total mass by haz-mat · 2003-07-23 02:29 · Score: 1

well, i like your explanation; quite well written. and here's the but (there is always a but) the esitmation of dark matter is incorrect. the total amount of baryonic matter in the universe (according to WMAP) is about 4% everything else is 'strange'; now dark matter is the matter that is intended to account for the observed disparity between the luminosity of face on galaxies and their total gravity ie mass. this percentage is actually closer to 97% (in recent measurements) per galaxy, however there is matter between the galaxies and in the universe freely (forgive the misrepresentation) and some have proposed that the dark matter is baryonic, like Neutral Hydrogen, HI, this would make 97% of the 4% of the universe dark matter. now, most folks don't believe the dark matter is baryonic and so it can be accounted for in the 96% of the universe that isn't baryonic, however approximately 60% (these off the top of my head, may be incorrect) is dark energy which is seperate and distinct from dark matter, leaving the other 36% (based on my memory) to account for dark matter and every or anything else.
my numbers may be incorrect, but you get the general idea. look up WMAP if you are truly interested.
Re:Total mass by Chase · 2003-07-23 04:12 · Score: 1

The theory of the big crunch is under debate now. Its my understanding that recent observations show the universe expanding at an increasing rate not decreasing. So there will never be a collapse.

> "if that light has been traveling that whole time toward us, how did we get here first?"

The current theory is that the universe expanded at a rate far greater than the speed of light for a short period of time just after the big bang. I think it was called the expansion epoch.

--
-==-
Re:Total mass by Aglassis · 2003-07-23 06:33 · Score: 1

You said:
I find it interesting that they determined an estimate of the total mass of all the matter in the Universe before they figured out how many stars there are. You'd think they'd come up with the number of stars first, and then base the mass estimate on that.
IIRC, the mass of the universe was determined as follows:

1. Since the amount of deuterium formed in the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is directly proportional to the density of matter, the density of the Universe can be determined by looking at very old hydrogen gas clouds (ones where the hydrogen to deuterium ratio is the same as that of the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis) that haven't been burned in stars. In particular, the method used was using a powerful quasar to be able to see such a cloud. The amount of deuterium can be determined by spectral analysis.
2. Experiments have been done that show how cool nucleons have to be to be able to form atoms (in particular helium and deuterium). The universe has been cooling since it formed so the time that the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis occurred after the Big Bang can be determined (for deuterium I think it was about 4 minutes).
3. Assuming that all forces have negligable affect on the distribution of matter during the first few minutes after the Big Bang (due to the incredible temperatures), and that the universe expanded uniformly in a sphere (COBE has shown that this is not entirely true...but it is very close) at the speed of light in all directions (I'm not entirely sure how inflation theory affects this), the volume of the universe at the time of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis can be determined. Now the mass of normal matter can be determined.
4. Since galaxies should follow Kepler's Laws of planetary motion, but don't (i.e. many parts of a galaxy rotate at about the same radial velocity at different radial positions not equidistant from the galactic nucleus) something has to account for the discrepancy. The current theory is that about another 90% of the galactic mass exists in a dark matter halo around the galaxy.

--
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
Re:Total mass by Bootsy+Collins · 2003-07-23 08:23 · Score: 1

IANAPhysicist, but I'm pretty sure I can answer some of your questions. It has been theorized that the speed of light has changed in the past, and therefore can continue to change. However, if light used to be slower, then matter could still not travel faster than the slower speed, following all the current known laws.
And it doesn't really matter anyway, since we have no good evidence at present that the speed of light has changed significantly over the history of the Universe, and (especially) since an appeal to a changing speed of light is not necessary to answer the question (of how we could have gotten so far away from the stars whose light has been travelling to us almost since the Big Bang).
Re:Total mass by Bootsy+Collins · 2003-07-23 08:39 · Score: 1

The one thing I would add to your post . . .
The universe expands by growing empty space everywhere, not just at its edges. This is why you measure the Hubble constant as speed per distance, (ie. kilometers per second per Megaparsec).
. . .is that I would change your description of the Hubble parameter to apparent recession velocity per distance. This is a subtle but important change, because it addresses one of the most common misconceptions about the expansion of the Universe -- namely, that we think the galaxies are flying apart from each other in space, when what's actually going on (as you note in your post) is an expansion of space itself. There are a kajillion analogies people use -- dots on a stretching rubber sheet or inflating balloon, raisins in a loaf of baking (and thus expanding) raisin bread. In all such analogies (which are ultimately bad analogies in full, but still serve to illustrate this point), the dots/raisins/whatever are getting farther apart, but not because they're moving compared to the medium in which they're embedded (the rubber sheet/bread/whatever). Rather, it's simply because of an expansion in the medium.
It's clear from your post that you know this; I just wanted to emphasize it for anyone else who might be reading, because it's such a common misconception, and because some of the questions/comments in this thread have indicated that "galaxies moving apart through space" is what people think is going on.
Re:Total mass by gerf · 2003-07-24 05:18 · Score: 1

Light moves differently than that... it's the same speed no matter where/when/speed of the observer(s). it's really messed up, and even i didn't understand it well in Physics3
Re:Total mass by Mattcelt · 2003-07-24 14:22 · Score: 1

Light moves differently than that... it's the same speed no matter where/when/speed of the observer(s). it's really messed up, and even i didn't understand it well in Physics3

You are correct for the most part. However, there have been recent proposals and studies that there may have been a time in the early universe where the speed of light, c, which was still a constant, had a value different from ~3x10^8 where it is now. (I.e., "the speed of light" was not the same as it is now)

Mattcelt
Re:Total mass by gerf · 2003-07-25 00:31 · Score: 1

True, but i don't think that affects what i had said about how it acts in the short-term.

Sand from every world's beaches? by Tyreth · 2003-07-22 15:30 · Score: 1, Insightful

And here I am, stuck on earth without a single vessel capable of interstellar travel.

Pretty depressing

Re:Sand from every world's beaches? by Atzanteol · 2003-07-22 17:39 · Score: 1

And here I am, stuck on earth without a single vessel capable of interstellar travel.
Aside from the Earth that is...

--
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

- Charles Darwin

That's One Amazing factoid! by GuyMannDude · 2003-07-22 15:42 · Score: 1, Flamebait

I never knew that Australia had astronomers!

--
watch this

Re:That's One Amazing factoid! by Zardoz44 · 2003-07-22 23:41 · Score: 3, Informative

How about this then:
The Dish
I couldn't watch the whole thing myself, but I believe there was at least one Australian astronomer in it.
Better yet, lets get some "real" info about this:
40 Years of the Dish
Now you know.

Some other numbers for comparison by notyou2 · 2003-07-22 15:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

30-60 sextillion: The combined number of cells in every living human being on the planet.

51 sextillion: The number of grains of sand it would take to cover the entire planet once.

-- CALCULATED FROM --
There are 6 billion people on the planet. Web searches yielded varying figures of approximately 50-100 trillion cells per human being. The "average" grain of sand is 100 microns across (and I grossly approximated a sand grain as being square).

--
DiscDividers tabbed plastic CD dividers: divider cards f

Re:if it's a million million million, by shadowbearer · 2003-07-22 15:46 · Score: 1

News, 2010

They've just upped the order of magnitude of known stars in the universe by another 5.

Go out a look at the night sky.

Go out and look at the night sky with a good set of binoculars.

Go out and look at the night sky with a decent telescope (12" plus reflector)

Go out and look at the night sky with a better scope (60" +)

Go out and..... Hubble...Deep Sky......

Ad infinitum.....

Deep Sky 2

Deep Sky 3

So?

SB

--
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.

Approaching Avogadro's number by notyou2 · 2003-07-22 15:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

That's almost spooky... Avogadro's number is approximately 600 sextillion.

What if it turns out that, after taking into account all the dark matter, the universe contains Avogadro's number of "large objects"? (stars, planets, whatever)

Could the universe turn out to be nothing more than one mole of stars? :)

--
DiscDividers tabbed plastic CD dividers: divider cards f

Re:Approaching Avogadro's number by Gyl · 2003-07-23 01:26 · Score: 3, Informative

It would be an interesting, and random conincidence. One mole, is the number of carbon 12 atoms needed to make exaclty 12 grams of carbon 12. (Something in there is defined by that relation, I'm not sure if it's the mole exactly.) Seeing as the gram is an entirely arbitrary unit of mass, this number is entirely arbitrary. I know, I know, that's the boring answer.
If the universe contains an Avogadro's number of stars then the universe has exactly 1 Ug (universe gram) of mass. Where the universe atomic mass unit is one star; 10^33 or 10^34 grams as we know them. :P
Re:Approaching Avogadro's number by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 08:15 · Score: 0

> It would be an interesting, and random coincidence.

I'm thinking of the last few pages of "Contact" and thinking, "..and then again, maybe not.. ;-)"
Re:Approaching Avogadro's number by 73939133 · 2003-07-26 08:19 · Score: 1

this number is entirely arbitrary.

It's not entirely arbitrary. One mole is a visible, manageable amount of matter. It could have been one gram or one kilogram of carbon, but it was going to be somewhere around those orders of magnitude. And the fact that there seem to be, within a few orders of magnitude, as many stars in the universe as there are atoms in, say, a pound of ice cream or a human being is kind of interesting.

Light and time. by Christopher+Thomas · 2003-07-22 16:23 · Score: 1

They also said that the number may actually be too small, given that light from some parts of the Universe hasn't had time to reach us yet. So it may be impossible to determine the total size of the Universe.

The total size of the universe may even be infinite. At any given time, we can only see the parts close enough for light emitted in the past to reach us, but to the best of my knowledge there is no restriction on the dimensions of the universe as a whole (perhaps an astrophysicist can enlighten me if I'm mistaken?).

One question I've always had is: when we look back in time to the creation of the Universe, we see light from that time. So the light has been traveling for 15 billion years to get to us. But if that light has been traveling that whole time toward us, how did we get here first?

It took the long route.

Light that was emitted substantially after the big bang would have been emitted from objects already quite far away from us. This gives more than enough time for it to reach us.

As the universe expands, more space is added between any given points in the universe. Thus, light emitted from an object that was initially quite close to us could find itself traversing a surprisingly large distance before finally reaching us. This is why light from the very early universe took so long to reach us, if I understand correctly.

Re:Light and time. by Bootsy+Collins · 2003-07-23 09:13 · Score: 1

> They also said that the number may actually be too small, given that light > from some parts of the Universe hasn't had time to reach us yet. So it may > be impossible to determine the total size of the Universe.
The total size of the universe may even be infinite. At any given time, we can only see the parts close enough for light emitted in the past to reach us, but to the best of my knowledge there is no restriction on the dimensions of the universe as a whole (perhaps an astrophysicist can enlighten me if I'm mistaken?).
Right now, we have no good data suggesting the Universe has finite volume (there's one group that thinks they may see a signature of finite volume in the microwave background data, but it's a very speculative claim). The most straightforward theoretical model of how a Universe of finite volume could be true -- a closed universe model -- appears to be ruled out by a variety of observations. So, if you want a Universe of finite volume, it appears that you have to appeal to new physics in the early Universe for which we have no current experimental evidence (see, e.g. the work of some particle theorists on so-called "small universe models"). That doesn't make it wrong, of course; but it does make most people lean towards infinite volume.
> One question I've always had is: when we look back in time to the > creation of the Universe, we see light from that time. So the light has > been traveling for 15 billion years to get to us. But if that light > has been traveling that whole time toward us, how did we get here > first?
[ snip ]
As the universe expands, more space is added between any given points in the universe. Thus, light emitted from an object that was initially quite close to us could find itself traversing a surprisingly large distance before finally reaching us. This is why light from the very early universe took so long to reach us, if I understand correctly.
You do understand correctly (yay!). As just one example, it's pretty straightforward to show with some simple algebra that a universe where the expansion is described by
a(t) proportional to t^(2/3),
where "a(t)" is the scale factor of the universe (an increase in "a" by a factor of two means distance scales have doubled) and "t" is time, results in the most distant objects we can theoretically see being three times more distant than the speed of light times the age of the Universe. The functional form of a(t) is expected to be more complicated than that, of course; but data suggests that that power law is a good approximation for most of the history of the Universe. And the reason for such a surprising result, as you say, is that when we observe light from a distant source, its distance away is now larger than it was at the time it emitted.
Re:Light and time. by Christopher+Thomas · 2003-07-23 17:38 · Score: 1

You do understand correctly (yay!).

The only thing that I'm having trouble with is the microwave background radiation. Light and matter decoupled when the universe was extremely compact - the parts emitting the background radiation we see would have been very close indeed to our location. Space must have been growing fast enough for points this close to still be moving apart at or very close to the speed of light.

Inflation stopped long before this, so it doesn't help.

On reflection, the relation you provided does give an expansion velocity between any two points that tends towards infinity as time tends towards zero. It's just a change in how I'd viewed the early universe.
Re:Light and time. by Bootsy+Collins · 2003-07-23 18:22 · Score: 1

The only thing that I'm having trouble with is the microwave background radiation. Light and matter decoupled when the universe was extremely compact - the parts emitting the background radiation we see would have been very close indeed to our location. Space must have been growing fast enough for points this close to still be moving apart at or very close to the speed of light.
Well, not as compact as you might think. The surface of last scattering, and matter-radiation decoupling, are at a redshift of about 1000. That means that distance scales have expanded by a factor of 1000 between decoupling and the present. That seems like it'd make things pretty small. However, for flat universes (which appears close to correct, and more importantly is the only case for which I can remember the equations off the top of my head right now, books not being handy), the coordinate distance out to a redshift of 1000 is basically 97% of the way out to the particle horizon (the edge of the theoretically observable universe). A factor of 1000 is a lot of compression, to be sure; but we're also talking a big distance scale.
On reflection, the relation you provided does give an expansion velocity between any two points that tends towards infinity as time tends towards zero. It's just a change in how I'd viewed the early universe.
Right -- although obviously, in the case of the microwave background, we don't go back to that close to t=0; just something like a factor of 3e-5 of the current age of the universe. The Hubble parameter is basically just (da/dt)/a; for any power law form for a(t), H will scale as 1/t. In terms of the scale factor a, H scales as a^(-3/2) for a matter-dominated universe; a factor of 1000 smaller scale factor makes for a Hubble constant larger by over four orders of magnitude at that time than at present.

Too big by Catskul · 2003-07-22 16:23 · Score: 1

Wow, so there must be more IPv6 addresses out there than stars because ... ...IPv6 address space is : "so big that there's not a word for the number,"

--

Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni

WRONG by Tuxinatorium · 2003-07-22 16:35 · Score: 1

Learn to count before you post your knee-jerk bitching

--
Repeal the DMCA!

Funny Thing by Bloodmoon1 · 2003-07-22 18:19 · Score: 1

I actually calculated this one night a few months ago whenever I was really boarded. I'm not sure where exactly I got the #s from, but they were from NASA and a few other sources I got off of Google searching for things like "Estimated number galaxies". I came up with ~60,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, which I have since dubbed 60 Hexillion. I have no idea what the real name is, but that seems logical based on the billion, trillion progression. My numbers took the approx. numbers of stars in the Milky Way, 200 Billion, assumed this to be about the average size of a galaxy (may or may not be true, I'm not certain, but it seems reasonable) and then multiplied by the total estimated number of galaxies. Seeing as they are professionals, and their numbers are probably based on something better than a few educated guess, a large amount of pepsi, and 30 minutes of free time, I suppose their numbers are probably a little more accurate.

--

Request: ECM unit, 1000 km fullerene cable, 1 tactical nuclear weapon. Reason: Birthday party for foreign dignitary.

Re:Funny Thing by coolmacdude · 2003-07-23 01:13 · Score: 1

That number would be 60 octillion.

--

-You may license this sig for only $6.99.
Re:Funny Thing by wwest4 · 2003-07-23 07:44 · Score: 1

I actually calculated this one night a few months ago whenever I was really boarded

after you were boarded, did you enable the self-destruct so those klingon bastards wouldn't pervert your findings into an incredibly destructive super-weapon?
Re:Funny Thing by p3d0 · 2003-07-24 14:35 · Score: 1

Jeez, I whish people would do some rudimentary work to check their facts before correcting others.
The number is 60e21, which is 60 sextillion, or 60 thousand trillion if you're British, but certainly not 60 octillion no matter where you live.

--
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Re:Funny Thing by p3d0 · 2003-07-24 14:41 · Score: 1

I came up with ~60,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, which I have since dubbed 60 Hexillion. I have no idea what the real name is, but that seems logical based on the billion, trillion progression.
If only there were some way to find out...

--
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Re:Funny Thing by coolmacdude · 2003-07-25 11:25 · Score: 1

For some reason I counted one more set of zeros in his than the number in the article. My bad.

--

-You may license this sig for only $6.99.
Re:Funny Thing by p3d0 · 2003-07-25 13:48 · Score: 1

Sorry to vent on you. I have just seen so many incorrect "corrections" here and elsewhere lately, and yours was the straw that broke the camel's back I guess.
(BTW, you'd need to see two more sets of zeros to make the mistake you made. :-)

--
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....

Are you sure? by StrongGlad · 2003-07-22 19:30 · Score: 1

Aside from the Earth that is... I don't think the Earth is capable of interstellar travel. You must be thinking of the Death Star.

Re:Are you sure? by DigiShaman · 2003-07-22 22:01 · Score: 1

I don't think the Earth is capable of interstellar travel. You must be thinking of the Death Star.

Technically, the Earth is in intersellar travel at any given time. You see, the Earth rotates around the sun. Which in turn rotates around the galaxy. Of course, the galaxy is also in in a state of motion. Now if you fast forward a few billion years into the future, every star will be in a new order relative to the Earth. So at that point, you can kiss good-bye your list of known constallations.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re:Are you sure? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-22 22:45 · Score: 0

no shit
Re:Are you sure? by Ominous+Coward · 2003-07-23 03:20 · Score: 1

The Earth still will not have travelled to another star. Thus, a complete lack of interstellar travel. It does do intrastellar travel, but so do our spaceships.

--
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
Re:Are you sure? by StrongGlad · 2003-07-23 06:06 · Score: 1

I agree with what you're saying, but then, by this reasoning, [I]everything on the earth[/I] is also in interstellar transit.

The earth has no means of independant propulsion, nor is it able to support life without its proximity to the sun. Seen in this light, the earth is no more capable of interstellar travel than the space shuttle.

Re:if it's a million million million, by nomel · 2003-07-22 20:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

Remember, the visible universe is growing by a lightyear every year as light is just hitting us from very distant stars. :)

Molecules of sand by philip_bailey · 2003-07-22 20:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

By my calculations, 7 x 10^22 is the number of molecules in approximately 7 grams of sand. There is certainly "plenty of room at the bottom"...

--
There is no place like ~!

Ponder this by DigiShaman · 2003-07-22 21:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

Throughout an entire human lifetime, the collective count of every neuron transmission in the brain will never reach the total amount of stars in the universe! So even if we had the physical means to travel to all of the stars, our mental capacity would be the limiting factor.

--
Life is not for the lazy.

With numbers that high.... by sofakingl · 2003-07-22 22:05 · Score: 0

... you'd think the RIAA was involved in the counting. :)

Re:With numbers that high.... by Just+Some+Guy · 2003-07-24 07:20 · Score: 1

Actually, there were only 25 sextillion stars, but some of them are hotter than average so the RIAA counts them as 2 or more each.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?

-5 Redundant by sendai2ci · 2003-07-22 23:05 · Score: 0

Shouldn't that be "It's also about 10 times as many stars as grains of sand on all the Earth's beaches and deserts."

so many... by ravenousbugblatter · 2003-07-22 23:27 · Score: 1

with that many stars, how could anyone be so arrogant to think earth has the only intelligent life forms?

Re:so many... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 00:24 · Score: 0

How can anyone be so arrogant as to think Earth has intelligent life forms? :)
Re:so many... by H310iSe · 2003-07-23 04:25 · Score: 1

well, if the odds of carbon forming, grouping into neat proto-protiens and then making some early form of DNA is around 1 in 35 thousand million million and if only one in a million stars has planets that have even remotely life-sustaining (as we know it) properties then odds are we are the only ones in this mess. Those numbers are purely made-up, I'm just saying, you know, I'd like there to be life out there, but I'm not sure that the overwhelming number of stars really makes it more or less likely. It depends on how likely life is.

--
closed minded is as closed minded does
Re:so many... by deornoth8681 · 2003-07-23 05:59 · Score: 1

Who says earth has "intelligent life forms"? 5 years in computer service and customer support leads me to believe that the earth is just as barren, intellectually, as the moon is.

Finally! :) by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-22 23:50 · Score: 4, Funny

Now I can break all these romantic star-watching nights:

She: I wonder how many stars are out there *dreams*
I: 70 sextillion b1tch, OWN3D *walks away*

Huh. What are the odds... by jpsst34 · 2003-07-22 23:55 · Score: 3, Funny

...that it would have turned out to be such an even, round number?

70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Stars Out There

I mean, I would have thought it to be something more like 70,432,268,111,955,196,651,769 Stars Out There

--
How are you going to keep them down on the farm once they've seen Karl Hungus?

Re:Huh. What are the odds... by Tharsis · 2003-07-22 23:58 · Score: 3, Funny

he, you missed one.

What can I say.. by varjag · 2003-07-23 00:20 · Score: 1

That's a lot!

--
Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.

Roughly speaking by Eil · 2003-07-23 00:34 · Score: 1

From headline:

'70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Stars Out There'

That's just a rough estimate, right?

[bada-bing.]

How much sand? by 20goto10 · 2003-07-23 00:39 · Score: 1

OK, so they explained how they calculated the number of stars.

But i'm still waiting for them to explain how they calculated the number of grains of sand...

which is higher by xyloplax · 2003-07-23 02:03 · Score: 1

The number of stars or the number of cells (of any kind) on Earth?

--
-- "You can lead a yak to water, but you can't teach an old dog to make a silk purse out of a pig in a poke" - Opus

oh that is nice. by AssFace · 2003-07-23 02:12 · Score: 1

amazing that it comes out so even like that. so many zeros and only that little 7.

All this time I thought there were 147. I was way off.

--

There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.

wow, bogus science by haz-mat · 2003-07-23 02:19 · Score: 0, Flamebait

so that estimation is highly suspect. let us begin with the most trivial and work out; first of all the scientists who conducted this survey summed the number of stars they saw in a strip and then added the number of stars that were in each of the 10,000 galaxies they saw. however, you can not see all the stars in each in galaxy, nor can you even see all the light emitted from each galaxy due to inclination and extinction. thus they must have estimated the number of stars based on the mass of the galaxy, aside from the fact that massing a galaxy returns a questionable answering, they must have assumed that the stars were of some certain mass probably around a solar mass, which is an inaccurate assumption, to say the least. Next, these so called scientists took the total number of stars (guessed at) in the strip of sky they surveyed and multiplied it by the total number of strips needed to fill the sky, this is essentially the technique one uses to estimate total number of people in a crowd, however the greates flaw in this method is one assumes that the universe is uniformly distributed! and this is a gross misrepresentation. Finally, the survey made use of two ground based telescopes and the fact is that they only counted the total number of 'visible' stars and they're visible stars are stars visible on the ground which means that they have counted nearby and fairly bright objects.

so, i don't know how many stars are out there, the errors that are easily identifiable may have cancelled each other out, but more than likely these folks are way off with either way more or way less stars than the 70 sextillion CNN touts. However, this is all useless, why would you want to know the total number of stars in the universe, what possible value can it have? seems to be just a boondoggle to me...

Imagine.. by WildFire42 · 2003-07-23 02:36 · Score: 1

Imagine a beowulf... *SMACK*

(You owe the Oracle a band-aid and an abacus with a range to 70 sextillion).

Re: Hyperspace by A55M0NKEY · 2003-07-23 03:01 · Score: 1

Definition: Parts of space that have not discoverd ritalin yet

--

Eat at Joe's.

Just means more names... by jbarr · 2003-07-23 03:10 · Score: 2, Funny

...for the International Star Registry to sell!

--
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!

MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 03:25 · Score: 0

HAHA. Gratuitous puerile joke for the day: Check.
Thanks.

70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Stars Out There by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-23 03:49 · Score: 0

And not one can fricking act worth shit!

Dictionary.Com by DigiShaman · 2003-07-23 03:55 · Score: 1

interstellar \In`ter*stel"lar\, a. Between or among the stars; as, interstellar space. --Bacon. Like I said, technically it is *interstellar* as the earth is between stars or rather a cluster of stars all around us.

--
Life is not for the lazy.

Re:Dictionary.Com by Madcapjack · 2003-07-23 21:42 · Score: 1

My basic response to this thread is, "who cares?" sorry folks, isn't there more important things to talk about?

--
Logic, macros, and more

how did they count it? by Stroot · 2003-07-23 04:23 · Score: 1

Rumour goes that because the impossibility of counting all the stars directly, they just counted all the grains of sand on earth and multiplied that number by 10.

Re:how did they count it? by mamahuhu · 2003-07-25 07:47 · Score: 1

ahahahahah - got a guffaw out of me....

In soviet russia, stars count you! by Progman3K · 2003-07-23 05:31 · Score: 1

Sorry...

--
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J

Re:if it's a million million million, by quantaman · 2003-07-23 10:26 · Score: 2, Informative

Remember, the visible universe is growing by a lightyear every year as light is just hitting us from very distant stars. :)

Not quite, remember the universe started from a central point with the big bang including those very distant stars. Also nothing can travel faster than the speed of light therefore we theoretically could see the entire universe given a strong enough telescope though much of what we see at the distant edge will be very young (it's still possible that there are stars currently outside the current radius of what we can see if they're expanding at almost the speed of light but we can watch them or their ancestors drift out there and they won't pop up).

Unless of course the big bang opened massive worm holes and sprouted up universes all over the place, then the light from them could be meeting us eventually and just pop out of nowhere...

--
I stole this Sig

Re:if it's a million million million, by nomel · 2003-07-23 10:56 · Score: 1

Maybe it depends on your personal view of the universe...

Read this to see what I'm talking about. It was featured here on slashdot a while ago.

70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 +-?? by Transcendent · 2003-07-23 12:47 · Score: 1

An interesting fact would be their calculated error... how many million million millions could they (theoretically) be off? How much would that change things... and why?

I guess it's like when you have a couple trillion dollars... crashing your personal 747 carrying a couple SBS HC36ms (of course you have about 10 of them... I mean, your friends want to play MOHAA too) into a field of your own ferrari's while your wife divorces you and takes half your money really doesn't matter much.... you're still a rich bastard.

Re:Huh. What are the odds... by iggymanz · 2003-07-23 14:29 · Score: 1

that's correct, because I calculate 7,043,226,811,195,519,665,176.9 grains of sand on earth. Finding that 0.9 of a grain was a bitch, though

70 Quintillion by mrmeval · 2003-07-23 15:42 · Score: 2, Informative

That's Quintillion I say.

Million
Billion
Trillion
Quadrillion
Qunitil lion
Septillion
Sextillion (boys and girls like this one)
Octillion
Nonillion

--
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty

Re:70 Quintillion by Christopher+Thomas · 2003-07-23 18:04 · Score: 1

Septillion
Sextillion (boys and girls like this one)

You have these two switched (sextillion comes before septillion). Hint: Count to ten in any of a variety of languages.

SCO probably owns 80 of them by VXD_Error · 2003-07-23 17:13 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Im sure out of 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars SCO will claim 80 of them and then try to claim the rights to the universe or better yet, charge us for being on their property.

Re:SCO probably owns 80 of them by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-24 09:05 · Score: 0

Naaah, they'll just claim they own the patents on matter and energy.

Existance by rf0 · 2003-07-23 18:56 · Score: 1

Taking in the distances etc involved you have to wondered how may of these stars still exist as we are just seeing the echos. Then again how many have been created?

Rus

--
Cheap UK and US VPS

Re:if it's a million million million, by Alsee · 2003-07-23 21:41 · Score: 1

Also nothing can travel faster than the speed of light

Actually there are a few peculiar loopholes in that. The prevailing cosmological theory is that the big bang had an "inflationary" phase. Inflation says that for a while space itself expanded faster than the speed of light.

Imagine two ants on the surface of a balloon. The maximum speed an ant can crawl might be one inch per second, but if you blast a cubic mile of air into that balloon in a split second then the ants end up several hundred of feet apart (ignoring the fact that we probably killed them both chuckle).

That means we can't actually see the entire universe even if we did have a magicly powerful telescope.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

Re:70 000 Quintillion by blitz77 · 2003-07-24 00:27 · Score: 1

A quintillion is 10^18. A sextillion is 10^21. Their number is 7 x 10^22, thus 70 sextillion.

We're screwed! by roystgnr · 2003-07-24 03:44 · Score: 1

2^52 gives us 4.5e15 addresses, which is roughly a million times more addresses than IPv4's 32 bits allow.

What, do you think that while we're colonizing every star in the Universe we're going to stop at just one colony planet per star?

Take a look at our own solar system, for example. At the Earth's orbit, the Sun puts out radiant energy over 2.8e17 square kilometers of space, at a density of about a kilowatt per square meter, of which at least 200 watts could be converted into useful work. So, that's about 5.7e22 kilowatts at our disposal. If we give everyone a generous .1 square kilometers (more than 20 acres, and a larger share of area than people on Earth today enjoy) for food production and nature preserves then that takes up 20,000 kW per person; we'll give everyone another enormous 5 MW for personal and industrial use. That gives us a total energy expenditure for which we can support 2.3e18 people around our (fairly average) star.

In other words, once we've fully converted every star in the universe into Dyson spheres, we'll have hundreds of people for every available IP address! You were simply being short-sighted to assume otherwise. ;-)

Re:We're screwed! by keli · 2003-07-24 10:54 · Score: 1

2^52 is the number of IP addresses after dividing by the number of stars.... so yes, he did take that into account... as you would have noticed if you'd actually read his posting. You must feel real silly now... :-)
Re:We're screwed! by keli · 2003-07-24 10:56 · Score: 1

... now it's me who's feeling silly... I posted my answer to the wrong thread...

Sorry!
Re:We're screwed! by Captain+Nitpick · 2003-07-24 20:56 · Score: 1

What, do you think that while we're colonizing every star in the Universe we're going to stop at just one colony planet per star?

Actually, no. I just didn't have a good estimate on hand for the number of colonies per star. Also, 52 bits leaves enough address space to divide up among a reasonable number of colonies, although as you show, it will still fall down for a Dyson Sphere with a habitable surface.

In other words, once we've fully converted every star in the universe into Dyson spheres, we'll have hundreds of people for every available IP address! You were simply being short-sighted to assume otherwise. ;-)

I figured that by the time we conquered the universe, IPv8 would be ready. Perhaps I'm overly optimistic.

--
But then again, I could be wrong.
Re:We're screwed! by cyt0plas · 2003-07-25 10:44 · Score: 1

Well, those millions of nanoprobes for each person on the Dyson sphere will simply have to use NAT.

--
Contact Me (got tired of viruses emailing me).

yeah--and old gets jokes by V_drive · 2003-07-24 07:01 · Score: 1

yeah--and old gets jokes

--
char *mySig;

Qubits? by vajcovec · 2003-07-24 08:35 · Score: 0

...having fractional bits isn't really feasible...

But my quantum computer has an IP address of 192.168.1.3½!

Re:Qubits? by Captain+Nitpick · 2003-07-24 20:59 · Score: 1

But my quantum computer has an IP address of 192.168.1.3½!

You changed the address by reading it!

--
But then again, I could be wrong.

Interesting by forii · 2003-07-24 09:46 · Score: 1

sorry folks, isn't there more important things to talk about?

Personally I found this discussion to be a lot more interesting than the usual non-nerd stuff that gets talked about on slashdot.

My take on the "interstellar travel" issue is that since the Earth is not an intentional means of interstellar transportation, it really shouldn't count as a "spaceship".

googleplex insanity Re:70 Quintillion by mrmeval · 2003-07-24 11:29 · Score: 1

This will teach me not to count after eating potato chips.

That was one right, munch...repeat...

Ok, trivia time!

What is a google?

I got chewed out for using this numbers name by a math teacher.

If you use Google to find the number that is named google you will go blind so here is a ural:
http://newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/math99/ma th99147 .htm

--
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty

Re:googleplex insanity Re:70 Quintillion by Christopher+Thomas · 2003-07-24 13:11 · Score: 1

Ok, trivia time!
What is a google?

One followed by a hundred zeroes, as opposed to a googleplex, which is one followed by a google zeroes.

Ask me what the zeta function is, however, and I'd have to check a textbook...
Re:googleplex insanity Re:70 Quintillion by Stuntmonkey · 2003-07-28 07:01 · Score: 1

What is a google?

It's a search engine. A googol, on the other hand, is 10^100.

Google, Inc. changed the spelling intentionally for the same reason that Apple doesn't use the slogan "Think Differently" -- because they think peoples is stupid.
Re:googleplex insanity Re:70 Quintillion by mrmeval · 2003-07-28 09:24 · Score: 1

Oh, damn, the spelling. Thanks

There is a URL for this.

http://www.googol.com/

--
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty

It's 70 sextillion.. by Nonillion · 2003-07-24 14:12 · Score: 1

According to my records that's 70 sextillion. Now if I could get a 70 sextillionbyte hard drive and I'm good to go =)

--
"I bow to no man" - Riddick

70 sextillion by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-24 16:03 · Score: 0

its just sexier to say

Beach by Cackmobile · 2003-07-25 00:59 · Score: 1

I seem to always end up with that many grains of sand in my car after a trip to the beach!

--
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George

It is still only half the number of... by FauxReal · 2003-07-25 01:23 · Score: 2, Funny

porn sites on the internet.

--
Deltron 3030 - Virus (music video)

Pancake by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-25 03:00 · Score: 0

And here i thought reading about how kansas was flatter than a pancake was interesting...

lets do a calculation

say every star is like the sun
our sun has 9 planets so thats 9 * 70 sextillion
630 sextillion "planets" (shutup im guestimating)

and someplanets have moons
thats a lot of moons man

but the real question is

how big does the pancake have to be to cover all of the stars?

eat your heart out kansas

Repeat after me: by MoxFulder · 2003-07-25 04:59 · Score: 1

Avogadro's number is nothing but a conversion factor between mass units:

One mole of atomic mass units = 6.02 x 10^23 amu = 1 gram

Yeah, it would be pretty weird if the universe had exactly Avogadro's number of whatever, but not nearly as cool as if, say, the exact number of stars turned out to always be prime :-P

--
My bicyles

An even number too! wow. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-25 06:55 · Score: 0

How convenient that the number is so "round". The article makes it sound like 70,000 million million million is the EXACT number, like they actually counted. Speaking of the EXACT number, I want to know it. Please don't publish any more articles like this until you know exactly how many stars there are.

better one. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-26 05:03 · Score: 0

Graham's number:

x+y = x+1+1+1... y times
x*y = x+x+x+x... y times
x^y = x*x*x*x... y times
x^^y = x^(x^(x^(...))) y times
x^^^x = x^^(x^^(x^^(...))) y times ..etc..

Let's define g=3^^...^3 (with 63 ^'s)
And now we'll have: G=3^^...^3 (with g ^'s)

I think that's quite a lot.

History of GC by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-26 05:54 · Score: 0

The Galactic Constant didn't come from an explanation of dark matter. When Einstein first formulated his theories, the steady state theory of the universe was still prevalent and Einstein at least partially subscribed to it. (The SS says that the location of galaxies and such is basically constant, i.e. no big bang, no expansions/contractions.) When he looked at the math, or someone pointed it out, he realized that the steady state theory was not in his mathematics. So, he added in a Galactic Constant which sort of represented an anti-gravity, keeping everything in check, everything stable. He later realized, from redshifts and whatnot, that he was wrong and struck the GC from his mathematics.

naw... by binarie · 2003-07-26 11:31 · Score: 0

Lier,

I've counted them yesterday and there were 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,001

Re:if it's a million million million, by StikyPad · 2003-07-27 22:56 · Score: 1

If an object is moving away from me at near-light speed, and I am moving away from it at near-light speed, the combined velocities would total near-2x light, correct? In this case I would never see the object again unless one or both of us slowed down so that we were moving at a combined velocity of 186k mi/sec, or if we hit the edge of the universe and bounced back toward the center again. Stupid universe walls.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere

Re:if it's a million million million, by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-30 17:37 · Score: 0

Nope. Nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Welcome to the realm of relativity.

Re:OT- last JE by spumoni_fettuccini · 2003-07-31 17:00 · Score: 1

Goes back to your JE. Sorry I never got around to posting back to it before it got archived. I hope you write a new on the same base idea or post something in mine. Found an old post of yours in order to avoid getting knocked down.

--
-- Some days you're the dog; some days you're the hydrant.

Slashdot Mirror

70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Stars Out There

195 comments