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.
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
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...
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...
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
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.
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:
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
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.
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:
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.
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....
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)
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.
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
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
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.
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:
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.
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 "experts" consider this? If so where are their assumptions discussed? I'm using the assumptions they presented on the material you posted.
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.
originally posted by: niceguybob
a reply to: Spiro
To not know sarcasm when you hear it is beyond my comprehension. Ummm DUhh?
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....
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.