It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The number of galaxies "Times" planets in the universe?!

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
Amazing reply by Jade, as always.

And yes ours is a "BARRED" spiral galaxy, not a spiral galaxy : ) Love that the image got that right!


Yeah, its a distinction only us space geeks typically care about but its still cringe worthy when the mainstream media (sometimes even mainstream popular science media) get it wrong


I am totally open minded, care to elaborate? I see a bar but what does this mean? Overall.. And if the Milky Way is different in that aspect, what does it mean or tell us? Thanks.
Firepiston
edit on 7-6-2014 by FirePiston because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-6-2014 by FirePiston because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: FirePiston

Well the knowledge that the Milky Way is a "barred" spiral galaxy is relatively new. You can look through older astronomy books where the Milky Way is normally always pictured as a typical "round" spiral. I mean, it's just a small detail but I liked that those pictures were accurate. (From what I read 2/3th of galaxies are "barred". I also want to mention we had a cat which had a very clear "barred galaxy" pattern on its fur..which I think is noteworthy...indicating that this shape is common in nature. I always found it fascinating that something on earth, one of my fricking cats...has the shape of a galaxy on its fur : ) How's that saying going? How above...so below...something like that...



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
a reply to: FirePiston

Well the knowledge that the Milky Way is a "barred" spiral galaxy is relatively new. You can look through older astronomy books where the Milky Way is normally always pictured as a typical "round" spiral. I mean, it's just a small detail but I liked that those pictures were accurate. (From what I read 2/3th of galaxies are "barred". I also want to mention we had a cat which had a very clear "barred galaxy" pattern on its fur..which I think is noteworthy...indicating that this shape is common in nature. I always found it fascinating that something on earth, one of my fricking cats...has the shape of a galaxy on its fur : ) How's that saying going? How above...so below...something like that...


As above so below. Neat observation! The nature connection.. Reminds me of the human brain and blood vessels and trees and then the galaxy which has similar patterns nature wise. Thanks
Firepiston
edit on 7-6-2014 by FirePiston because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
a reply to: FirePiston

Well the knowledge that the Milky Way is a "barred" spiral galaxy is relatively new. You can look through older astronomy books where the Milky Way is normally always pictured as a typical "round" spiral. I mean, it's just a small detail but I liked that those pictures were accurate. (From what I read 2/3th of galaxies are "barred". I also want to mention we had a cat which had a very clear "barred galaxy" pattern on its fur..which I think is noteworthy...indicating that this shape is common in nature. I always found it fascinating that something on earth, one of my fricking cats...has the shape of a galaxy on its fur : ) How's that saying going? How above...so below...something like that...


As above, So below.

The ancient alchemist motto (i think?)

Also demonstrated in the intro to Neil DeGrasse Tyson's Cosmos reboot:




posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: FirePiston

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
Amazing reply by Jade, as always.

And yes ours is a "BARRED" spiral galaxy, not a spiral galaxy : ) Love that the image got that right!


Yeah, its a distinction only us space geeks typically care about but its still cringe worthy when the mainstream media (sometimes even mainstream popular science media) get it wrong


I am totally open minded, care to elaborate? I see a bar but what does this mean? Overall.. And if the Milky Way is different in that aspect, what does it mean or tell us? Thanks.
Firepiston


Well it has to do with the structure of our home galaxy.

It's kinda like saying one lives in a two story Victorian house vs a one story California ranch. Ok, not as extreme as that but its mostly notable because we live here.
edit on 7-6-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar
Your numbers are close but the ones the experts came up with based on Kepler data are actually a little bigger than that.

From the Planetary Habitability Lab at Arecibo:

4.2 to 5.3 Trillion for the universe:

40 to 49 Billion for our Milky Way galaxy:
Unfortunately the so-called "experts" can't do math as well as the OP, and their figure for the universe is a billion times smaller, not larger; I'm surprised you didn't notice. I can't say if either of those numbers is correct, but I can say it looks like they either screwed up their math, or else they made an assumption they didn't disclose in what you posted.

Take the Milky way estimate. Their notes imply it's typical and what they used for an average galaxy. Now multiply the Milky way estimate by the estimated number of galaxies in the universe, and you don't come up with that range for the universe.

40-49 billion is 4-4.9 x 10^10
Multiply by their assumed number of 100 billion galaxies (10^11)

The product is in the same magnitude as what the OP calculated
4-4.9 x 10^21
That's about 5 billion trillion, but the image says "4.2 to 5.3 Trillion for the universe", which is only:
4.2-5.3 x 10^12

so why is it roughly a billion times smaller than the OP's figure and what their own math says it should be?

It's an interesting coincidence that OP used one number ~5 times smaller and the other number ~5 times larger which effectively came up with roughly the same product, or what should be the same product.


edit on 7-6-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: JadeStar
Your numbers are close but the ones the experts came up with based on Kepler data are actually a little bigger than that.

From the Planetary Habitability Lab at Arecibo:

4.2 to 5.3 Trillion for the universe:

40 to 49 Billion for our Milky Way galaxy:
Unfortunately the so-called "experts" can't do math as well as the OP; I'm surprised you didn't notice. I can't say if either of those numbers is correct, but I can say it looks like they either screwed up their math, or else they made an assumption they didn't disclose in what you posted.

Take the Milky way estimate. Their notes imply it's typical and what they used for an average galaxy. Now multiply the Milky way estimate by the estimated number of galaxies in the universe, and you don't come up with that range for the universe.

40-49 billion is 4-4.9 x 10^10
Multiply by their assumed number of 100 billion galaxies (10^11)

The product is in the same magnitude as what the OP calculated
4-4.9 x 10^21
That's about 5 billion trillion, but the image says "4.2 to 5.3 Trillion for the universe", which is only:
4.2-5.3 x 10^12

so why is it roughly a billion times smaller than the OP's figure and what their own math says it should be?

It's an interesting coincidence that OP used one number ~5 times smaller and the other number ~5 times larger which effectively came up with roughly the same product, or what should be the same product.



I literally went to a search engine and typed,"9 billion times 500 billion". Exactly that, I did not use zeros I type the words. And that was the answer I got. 4.5e+21
I have no clue is the reason I made this OP in the first place. To find out what this number is.
Firepiston
edit on 7-6-2014 by FirePiston because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: niceguybob
Doesn't matter and I don't know.
If your trying to insinuate that based on the math we're not alone in the Universe,your wrong.
Other then God, we are the highest form of intelligence out there.
Until humans develop ways to go to other galaxies and planets to sprinkle DNA of different species of plants and animals, there's nothing out there.
Just rocks and gases.
Humans RULE....


Bwahahahahahah!!!!

(sorry mods delete if needed)



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: canucks555

originally posted by: niceguybob
Doesn't matter and I don't know.
If your trying to insinuate that based on the math we're not alone in the Universe,your wrong.
Other then God, we are the highest form of intelligence out there.
Until humans develop ways to go to other galaxies and planets to sprinkle DNA of different species of plants and animals, there's nothing out there.
Just rocks and gases.
Humans RULE....


Bwahahahahahah!!!!

(sorry mods delete if needed)


I will give the benefit of the doubt and assume for now that he has had a bad day and wants to rant. But yea.. Everyone in life has a moment when everything just sucks. I wish he would further explain is standpoint.
Firepiston
edit on 7-6-2014 by FirePiston because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: FirePiston
I literally went to a search engine and typed,"9 billion times 500 billion". Exactly that, I did not use zeros I type the words. And that was the answer I got. 4.5e+21
I have no clue is the reason I made this OP in the first place. To find out what this number is.
Firepiston
Well now you know, a trillion is 10^12 and a billion is 10^9, so add the 12 and the 9 (number of zeroes) and you get 21 zeroes, you can call it a billion trillion, and pat yourself on the back for getting the right answer, where the "experts" apparently got it wrong.

Which search engine did you use? I usually use the startpage engine and I noticed what you said works in Google search but not in startpage. Here's a good site for typing that kind of question in which is specifically designed for it:

www.wolframalpha.com...
edit on 7-6-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: JadeStar
Your numbers are close but the ones the experts came up with based on Kepler data are actually a little bigger than that.

From the Planetary Habitability Lab at Arecibo:

4.2 to 5.3 Trillion for the universe:

40 to 49 Billion for our Milky Way galaxy:
Unfortunately the so-called "experts" can't do math as well as the OP, and their figure for the universe is a billion times smaller, not larger; I'm surprised you didn't notice. I can't say if either of those numbers is correct, but I can say it looks like they either screwed up their math, or else they made an assumption they didn't disclose in what you posted.

Take the Milky way estimate. Their notes imply it's typical and what they used for an average galaxy. Now multiply the Milky way estimate by the estimated number of galaxies in the universe, and you don't come up with that range for the universe.

40-49 billion is 4-4.9 x 10^10
Multiply by their assumed number of 100 billion galaxies (10^11)

The product is in the same magnitude as what the OP calculated
4-4.9 x 10^21
That's about 5 billion trillion, but the image says "4.2 to 5.3 Trillion for the universe", which is only:
4.2-5.3 x 10^12

so why is it roughly a billion times smaller than the OP's figure and what their own math says it should be?

It's an interesting coincidence that OP used one number ~5 times smaller and the other number ~5 times larger which effectively came up with roughly the same product, or what should be the same product.



Did you notice that they are talking about habitable zone planets? So that's a smaller percentage of the total.

22% for F,G,K stars.
48% for M stars.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: FirePiston


Even the Pope admits there may be life out there.
-Bible thumping at it's finest
hah!



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar
Both the Milky Way figures and the Universe figures say they are for habitable planets, right?

Besides why are you even quoting percentages to explain an error of a factor of one billion, or 1000000000?

I was expecting you to admit the OP is right about the total, and the experts are wrong. (well actually the experts are right if you do their math for them which they somehow screwed up).
edit on 7-6-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiro

To not know sarcasm when you hear it is beyond my comprehension. Ummm DUhh?

Statistically .....the numbers are so beyond logic that there's other life forms out there, even a money could figure THAT out.
Which is where we originated from too. Righttt? I can't believe you guys are that serious about my ignorance..
Seriously.
Just kidding.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I do not care the exact number because I know it is more than any of us could really comprehend. I just know it is big and that is all I wanted to confirm. Some of you need to stop arguing about it and just be happy that this "reality" is full of anything you want it to be. If that makes sense... Thank you all for your input!
Firepiston



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: JadeStar
Both the Milky Way figures and the Universe figures say they are for habitable planets, right?

Besides why are you even quoting percentages to explain an error of a factor of one billion, or 1000000000?

I was expecting you to admit the OP is right about the total, and the experts are wrong. (well actually the experts are right if you do their math for them which they somehow screwed up).


Did the OP consider than a fair amount of stars in high redshift galaxies no longer exist due to the fact that we are seeing them as they were billions of years ago due to the enormous distances?

These ghost stars would inflate the OPs number.

When talking about the universe we're talking about time as much as space, so its tricky.

That is why the first graphic i posted says "The Observable Universe".
edit on 7-6-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar
Did the OP consider than a fair amount of stars in high redshift galaxies no longer exist due to the fact that we are seeing them as they were billions of years ago due to the enormous distances?

These ghost stars would inflate the OPs number.
Did the "experts" consider this? If so where are their assumptions discussed? I'm using the assumptions they presented on the material you posted.

Besides that argument doesn't exactly make sense. You have two options (at least):

1. You can talk about what we are observing today meaning we do count what we see that existed 9 billion years ago
2. You can talk about what exists today, which is different than what we are observing. Presumably some galaxies have merged, so is the 100 billion galaxy figure an estimate of what exists today? Or is it an estimate of what existed in the past according to light received by our telescopes?

If there was a merging of galaxies, the number of galaxies would be affected between those two assumptions.
Stars aren't generally destroyed in galactic collisions, but they do live and die, and new stars are born, so you can talk about rates of star births and deaths. But still I don't see how this discussion results in a figure a billion times lower for the universe than for multiplying the number of habitable planets for the milky way by their estimate for the number of galaxies.
edit on 7-6-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: niceguybob
a reply to: Spiro

To not know sarcasm when you hear it is beyond my comprehension. Ummm DUhh?


To not use smiles or give indication of sarcasm is beyond my comprehension. Ummmm Duhh?

You were being completely serious in your reply and because most members took you up on it you felt the need to not feel embarrassed. True story not to be denied


Spiro
edit on 7-6-2014 by Spiro because: s



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: niceguybob
Doesn't matter and I don't know.
If your trying to insinuate that based on the math we're not alone in the Universe,your wrong.
Other then God, we are the highest form of intelligence out there.
Until humans develop ways to go to other galaxies and planets to sprinkle DNA of different species of plants and animals, there's nothing out there.
Just rocks and gases.
Humans RULE....

So the universe had to wait 13.5 billion years until its one and only "true intelligent being" came along? That doesn't make any sense.

If the 13.5 billion-year history of the Universe was compressed into a 24-hour day, then humans (who have been around for only 500,000 years) have only existed for the final 3 seconds of that day.

Why did God bother having the universe wait around for what amounts to 23 hours, 59 minutes and 57 seconds of that day to finally introduce the ultra-important humans to it?


edit on 6/7/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: niceguybob
a reply to: Spiro

To not know sarcasm when you hear it is beyond my comprehension. Ummm DUhh?

Statistically .....the numbers are so beyond logic that there's other life forms out there, even a money could figure THAT out.
Which is where we originated from too. Righttt? I can't believe you guys are that serious about my ignorance..
Seriously.
Just kidding.


To late friendly man! You've been labelled a thumper! And are now stuck with that stigma!

To be honest I was hoping, nay praying (lol) that thou werst being sarcastic.

With so many beliefs roaming about, sarcasm can be hard to detect on ats!

One cool thing I read this year, and it's posted here, is that cosmic particles carry the ingredients of life. Like, the cosmos is bombarded with the stuff constantly. Cool!

edit on 7-6-2014 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join