Universe doesn't look real. Amazing picture.

sven256 · 18 Jun 2007 at 23:40

Longbow said:
There's thousands of galaxies in that image, most too small to pick out though.

But let's assume each galaxy has 250 billion stars (around half of what our galaxy contains).

Then you're looking at 25,000,000,000,000+ stars.

http://hubblesite.org/gallery/

Your numbers are slightly off, the "average" galaxies will have around 100 billion stars. Ours has just over 100 billion but its still a hell of a lot

Johnnytoxic · 18 Jun 2007 at 23:40

Yeah that always boggles me. Looking further into space is like travelling back in time.

If our sun suddenly went dim we wouldn't know until a few minutes later

.

sven256 · 18 Jun 2007 at 23:42

Gaverick said:
To think what we see in this image actually occurred 78 billion lightyears ago, what's it like now?!

I don't think it will anywhere near 78 billion

.
more like around 14 billion years. and a light year is really a measure of distance not time

Johnnytoxic · 18 Jun 2007 at 23:42

sven256 said:
Your numbers are slightly off, the "average" galaxies will have around 100 billion stars. Ours has just over 100 billion but its still a hell of a lot

Chances are life in just our galaxy are probably 99%. They think there are deep sea oceans on the moon europa that they want to go digging into.

squiffy · 18 Jun 2007 at 23:42

hmm had a quick read on flat earth society...

Berserker · 18 Jun 2007 at 23:51

Want more pics?

Knock yourself out

the-void · 18 Jun 2007 at 23:53

I personally don't like that impression, seems very Disney.

As for the pondering all the stars in the universe, did you know there are more connections between the neurones in you're brain than there are stars in the sky.

Vulcan · 18 Jun 2007 at 23:55

sven256 said:
Your numbers are slightly off, the "average" galaxies will have around 100 billion stars. Ours has just over 100 billion but its still a hell of a lot

It's not that low, many estimate between 250-400, although i've heard 500. But they are just estimates.

sven256 · 18 Jun 2007 at 23:55

the-void said:
I personally don't like that impression, seems very Disney.

As for the pondering all the stars in the universe, did you know there are more connections between the neurones in you're brain than there are stars in the sky.

not quite true

I think the average person has around 100 billion neurons so it will be very close but the number of stars in the known universe wins just

~J~ · 18 Jun 2007 at 23:56

For the astrophysicists:

If you assume that the Earth is in the centre (it's probably not, but let's say it is), and you move your finger halfway towards the edge of the paper.

Now, let's say that the distance is something like 40million light years.

So, it's taken 40 million light years for the light to travel from the point where your finger is to the earth.

Yes?

Well what about this theory about how the universe is expanding? Does that mean that we'll NEVER ever know how big the universe is because by the time we've found a solar system that is 100 million years away, the universe has expaned by another 25?

Rosbif · 18 Jun 2007 at 23:56

Its nice to know that the universe we inhabit resembles the crap floating around in my fathers pond.

lemonkettaz · 18 Jun 2007 at 23:58

Rosbif said:
Its nice to know that the universe we inhabit resembles the crap floating around in my fathers pond.

cos it is

Berserker · 19 Jun 2007 at 00:01

sven256 said:
I think the average person has around 100 billion neurons so it will be very close but the number of stars in the known universe wins just

You mean galaxy there, not universe.

A bit more on my grains of dust claim...

"Virtually all single stars (stars that are not in binary systems) must have planets of some sort - rocky, gaseous, Neptune-like, and so forth," says Marcy. "Among the binary stars, all those separated by at least the distance from us to Pluto also have planets of some sort."

Since roughly half of all stars are binary, and half of those are widely separated, the bottom line is that Marcy suspects that roughly three-fourths of all galactic stars have planets. From an astronomical perspective, that's as good as all of them.

Now, how many planets does each star have? Well, the Sun has eight, nine, or a few more, depending on your semantic sympathies. But from the standpoint of extraterrestrial biology, counting planets is hardly adequate, since there are at least five moons in our own solar system that are big enough, and complex enough, to tantalize us as possible abodes for life. We now know of seven other worlds (two planets, in addition to the five moons) in our back yard that might - just might - offer conditions suitable for life.

So here it is: there are a few hundred billion stars in the Galaxy, and there are maybe a hundred billion galaxies in that part of the cosmos we can survey with our telescopes. With 5 or 10 interesting orbs per solar system, the visible universe contains a hundred billion trillion worthy worlds. A hundred billion trillion.

That's more than all the dust motes floating in all the rooms of all the buildings of Earth.

source

sven256 · 19 Jun 2007 at 00:08

^^ No universe as he said neuron connections so in the brain it would be about 100 billion x 100 billion

the-void · 19 Jun 2007 at 00:08

sven256 said:
not quite true

I think the average person has around 100 billion neurons so it will be very close but the number of stars in the known universe wins just

You did not read my post correctly. You are right about the average number of neurons in the brain. However I was talking about the number of connections between those neurons, not the neurons themselves.

Your typical neuron has around 1,000 to 10,000 connections to other neurons. Some neurons can have as many as 100,000 connections to other neurons.

So our brains do contain more connections than there are stars in the sky. Now something like that, I find amazing.

sven256 · 19 Jun 2007 at 00:10

i know what you meant and it still stands even if you multiply the maximum number.

the-void · 19 Jun 2007 at 00:19

sven256 said:
i know what you meant and it still stands even if you multiply the maximum number.

The maximum number of connections (at the highest level of 100,000 connections) gives

10,000,000,000,000,000

Compared to

25,000,000,000,000+

There would need to be over 100,000 galaxies at an average of 100 billion each to equal the maximum number of connection in the brain.

If you take the upper level of the typical neuron then you would still be left with

1,000,000,000,000,000

compared with

25,000,000,000,000+

Which still trumps your earlier figure.

Amazing isn't it.

Flibster · 19 Jun 2007 at 00:21

Alan! said:
What's the name of the machine in Hitchhikers that let the user see the entire Universe?

Surprised no-one else has got this.

The Total Perspective Vortex!

Due to the fact that every piece of matter affects every other piece of matter, it can xxtrapolate the entire universe, every last sun, moon, planet from a small piece of fairy cake.

It then shows you how insignificant you are by putting a You are here sign in it.

Simon/~Flibster

joeconway · 19 Jun 2007 at 00:26

digg.com = life as I know it

sven256 · 19 Jun 2007 at 00:28

the-void said:
The maximum number of connections (at the highest level of 100,000 connections) gives

10,000,000,000,000,000

Compared to

25,000,000,000,000+

There would need to be over 100,000 galaxies at an average of 100 billion each to equal the maximum number of connection in the brain.

If you take the upper level of the typical neuron then you would still be left with

1,000,000,000,000,000

compared with

25,000,000,000,000+

Which still trumps your earlier figure.

Amazing isn't it.

There are over 100 billion galaxies not a very low "100,000 galaxies" with a average of over 100 billion stars in each.