What is more?

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Jeff7

There is a finite amount of matter in the Universe.

Citation, please?

I would have thought that it was general knowledge; maybe not the number, but at least the fact the the number of stars is finite. Apparently not. Wow, hopefully you guys are still in high school or something.

entertaining Carl Sagan video

Roughly 10^21 to 10^22 stars.
(1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)

Roughly 10^79 to 10^80 atoms in the universe
10^90 photons of light.
here's another source

For what it's worth, human's tiny brains are incapable of grasping just how large 10^80 is.

Awww.... one day I was hoping to truly understand a googolplex. Yes, I want to skip the googol. (for those not following, as I know DrPizza is... a googol is 10^100, and a googolplex is 10^googol... so 10^10^100... crikey that's big eh? 😛) The quote that described a googolplex as being physically impossible to write in numerical citation (not enough space in the universe, according to the wiki entry), intrigued the hell out of me... then I quickly dropped it for fear I would end up driving myself into the loony bin. 😀

 

[Gothgar]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Jeff7

There is a finite amount of matter in the Universe.

Citation, please?

I would have thought that it was general knowledge; maybe not the number, but at least the fact the the number of stars is finite. Apparently not. Wow, hopefully you guys are still in high school or something.

entertaining Carl Sagan video

Roughly 10^21 to 10^22 stars.
(1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)

Roughly 10^79 to 10^80 atoms in the universe
10^90 photons of light.
here's another source

For what it's worth, human's tiny brains are incapable of grasping just how large 10^80 is.

It also used to be general knowledge that the earth was flat, and that people could never fly, and that the earth was the center of the universe.

 

[FallenHero]

Stars:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw

Go past the 1:57 to skip the numa numa BS.

You are talking the entire UNIVERSE.

That picture is one thirteen-millionth of the total area of the sky. 10,000 Galaxies spotted just in that patch, each with lets say, 100 billion stars (below the low end of estimated size of the number of stars in the milky way.)

100,000,000,000 x 10,000 = 10^15 stars in just that patch of sky.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Gothgar

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Jeff7

There is a finite amount of matter in the Universe.

Citation, please?

I would have thought that it was general knowledge; maybe not the number, but at least the fact the the number of stars is finite. Apparently not. Wow, hopefully you guys are still in high school or something.

entertaining Carl Sagan video

Roughly 10^21 to 10^22 stars.
(1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)

Roughly 10^79 to 10^80 atoms in the universe
10^90 photons of light.
here's another source

For what it's worth, human's tiny brains are incapable of grasping just how large 10^80 is.

It also used to be general knowledge that the earth was flat, and that people could never fly, and that the earth was the center of the universe.

😕
When was it general knowledge that the earth was flat?? And, the earth *IS* the center of the visible universe. As far as people flying - just who were the people who doubted it? Even at the time of Da Vinci, he was drawing flying machines.

 

[Ballatician]

Originally posted by: rezinn
Yeah grains of sand are a lot smaller than nucleotides, and it's not like there are nucleotides in more places than there are sand.

That would mean you can view a nucleotide, have you ever seen one?

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Jeff7

There is a finite amount of matter in the Universe.

Citation, please?

My own deduction, as well as recollection of various things I've read over the years. They can see to the "edge" of the Universe, and there are estimates on the amount of matter in the Universe, as well as its diameter, and the number of stars within it.
Since there are numbers for these values, and not just 8 written there, I'd say that makes them count as finite values.


The Universe is a "bubble" of space, time, and energy, of a finite quantity. Now, there is the multiverse theory, which says that there may be other such bubbles beyond our own, and there may be an infinite number of them - or they too may be confined by whatever dimensions dictate their outward sizes.
But within our bubble, there is a finite amount of mass. There's just a really damn huge amount of it.

We can only see to the edge of the visible universe, and that horizon is expanding all the time...

There are no numbers for the amount of mass in the universe, nor the size of the universe. All we can say is how far we can see and what the density of matter in the space we can see is.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: Zaitsev
3.1647 billion nucleotides in human genome.Text

~ 50 trillion cells per human.

6.684 billion 'umans on Earth.

1057642.74 billion nucleotides in humans. The rest of the damn wild life makes it all hard though.

I think I'll vote nucleotides for this one.

3 billion x 50 trillion x 7 billion = 1,000,000 billion? 😕

3 * 50000 * 7 = 1050000

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: 911paramedic
Universe is infinite, I'm going stars. (Chemistry is one of my fall classes, so I reserve the right to revise this statement.)

That post is so full of fail.

A. Current understanding & model of universe = universe is not infinite.
B. wtf does chemistry have to do with astronomy?

A. Nuh uh 😛

NASA

Given the assumption that the matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic (The Cosmological Principle) it can be shown that the corresponding distortion of space-time (due to the gravitational effects of this matter) can only have one of three forms, as shown schematically in the picture at left. It can be "positively" curved like the surface of a ball and finite in extent; it can be "negatively" curved like a saddle and infinite in extent; or it can be "flat" and infinite in extent - our "ordinary" conception of space.

Current WMAP measurements indicate a flat universe... ie infinite in extent.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Zaitsev
3.1647 billion nucleotides in human genome.Text

~ 50 trillion cells per human.

6.684 billion 'umans on Earth.

1057642.74 billion nucleotides in humans. The rest of the damn wild life makes it all hard though.

I think I'll vote nucleotides for this one.

gah, n/m

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Do you guys with the infinite universe viewpoint believe in the big bang theory?

(as in, are there stars infinitely far away that were part of the big bang)

They dont call it Big for nothing

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Do you guys with the infinite universe viewpoint believe in the big bang theory?

(as in, are there stars infinitely far away that were part of the big bang)

The best description of the big bang I have heard was this:

At the time of the big bang the universe was infinite, it's just that the distance between all points in space was zero.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: Zaitsev
3.1647 billion nucleotides in human genome.Text

~ 50 trillion cells per human.

6.684 billion 'umans on Earth.

1057642.74 billion nucleotides in humans. The rest of the damn wild life makes it all hard though.

I think I'll vote nucleotides for this one.

3 billion x 50 trillion x 7 billion = 1,000,000 billion? 😕

3 * 50000 * 7 = 1050000

Ok, so 1 trillion x 1 billion x 1 billion = 1 billion?

I rounded the numbers to make it obvious that he was off by A LOT

I don't have a problem with the 1057642.74 bit (although I didn't actually calculate it), I have a problem with the "billion" part.

He's getting ~10^15 instead of ~10^30

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: Zaitsev
3.1647 billion nucleotides in human genome.Text

~ 50 trillion cells per human.

6.684 billion 'umans on Earth.

1057642.74 billion nucleotides in humans. The rest of the damn wild life makes it all hard though.

I think I'll vote nucleotides for this one.

3 billion x 50 trillion x 7 billion = 1,000,000 billion? 😕

3 * 50000 * 7 = 1050000

Ok, so 1 trillion x 1 billion x 1 billion = 1 billion?

I rounded the numbers to make it obvious that he was off by A LOT

I don't have a problem with the 1057642.74 bit (although I didn't actually calculate it), I have a problem with the "billion" part.

He's getting ~10^15 instead of ~10^30

lol 🙂

Multiplication instead of addition FTW!

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Ok, so trying to figure out the whole planet roughly....

I used 6x10^9 for nucleotides since 3x10^9 is giving the number of base pairs (I meant 6x10^9 rather than 6^9 in my original post)

I used 10^14 as number of cells (I found several figures but this one seemed typical)

I'll say 6x10^9 people on earth

Humans take up ~.13% of earth's biomass (don't know how else to get from humans to life on the planet)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology)

So (6x10^9) x (10^14) x (6x10^9) x (770) = 2.8x10^37 as an estimate for nucleotides on earth

I haven't taken an astronomy course in about 8 years so I haven't been keeping up on current events. The figures I found for number of starts in the visible universe was between 10^20 and 10^25

So I guess this comes down to whether the portion of the universe we can see is more or less than 1 / ~10^15th of the whole universe?

 

[Locut0s]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Ok, so trying to figure out the whole planet roughly....

I used 6x10^9 for nucleotides since 3x10^9 is giving the number of base pairs (I meant 6x10^9 rather than 6^9 in my original post)

I used 10^14 as number of cells (I found several figures but this one seemed typical)

I'll say 6x10^9 people on earth

Humans take up ~.13% of earth's biomass (don't know how else to get from humans to life on the planet)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology)

So (6x10^9) x (10^14) x (6x10^9) x (770) = 2.8x10^37 as an estimate for nucleotides on earth

I haven't taken an astronomy course in about 8 years so I haven't been keeping up on current events. The figures I found for number of starts in the visible universe was between 10^20 and 10^25

So I guess this comes down to whether the portion of the universe we can see is more or less than 1 / ~10^15th of the whole universe?

Nice calculating but you don't need to go even that far to see that the number of nucleotides is going to be more than the number of stars. I mean

6x10^9 x 6x10^9 = 3.6 × 10^19

That's just for all humans. Not counting anything else alive on earth. Number of stars in the universe is in the 10^20 range. Not hard to see that when you add up ALL sources of life on earth it's going to be AT LEAST another order or two of magnitude more than 10^19.

edit: Yeah I'm only taking into account the visible universe I suppose. What falls outside the visible "event horizon" is hard to account for.

 

[bdude]

Stars in the lead...why?

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: bdude
Stars in the lead...why?

maybe people arent sure of what a nuclear peptide is?

 

[Foxery]

Originally posted by: silverpig
We can only see to the edge of the visible universe, and that horizon is expanding all the time...

There are no numbers for the amount of mass in the universe, nor the size of the universe. All we can say is how far we can see and what the density of matter in the space we can see is.

Er, there are plenty of estimates for amount of mass. The whole mystery surrounding "dark matter" comes from the fact that we understand how much mass there is in the universe, but can't detect all of it.

As for the size, if you take the Big Bang theory and speed of light as the basis, then matter has been flying in all directions for 14 billion years at less than c. The maximum possible size of the universe is therefore a sphere whose radius is 14 billion lightyears.

Originally posted by: silverpig
The best description of the big bang I have heard was this:

At the time of the big bang the universe was infinite, it's just that the distance between all points in space was zero.

Too vague - it was a singularity, which specifically means that the density was infinite, and its dimensions were infintesimal. That does not imply anything whatsoever about its total mass.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: bdude
Stars in the lead...why?

maybe people arent sure of what a nuclear peptide is?

with mint frosting?

 

[darkxshade]

Whicheva is mo, it is not mo than da # of sperm I have in mah nutz!!!

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: Foxery

Originally posted by: silverpig
We can only see to the edge of the visible universe, and that horizon is expanding all the time...

There are no numbers for the amount of mass in the universe, nor the size of the universe. All we can say is how far we can see and what the density of matter in the space we can see is.

Er, there are plenty of estimates for amount of mass. The whole mystery surrounding "dark matter" comes from the fact that we understand how much mass there is in the universe, but can't detect all of it.

As for the size, if you take the Big Bang theory and speed of light as the basis, then matter has been flying in all directions for 14 billion years at less than c. The maximum possible size of the universe is therefore a sphere whose radius is 14 billion lightyears.

Originally posted by: silverpig
The best description of the big bang I have heard was this:

At the time of the big bang the universe was infinite, it's just that the distance between all points in space was zero.

Too vague - it was a singularity, which specifically means that the density was infinite, and its dimensions were infintesimal. That does not imply anything whatsoever about its total mass.

Well from what I'm reading, the estimates for the volume of the universe is at least 90-160 billion light years across depending on what article you look at. The explanation for things being farther away than the age of the universe in light years is that space can expand without the limitation of the light speed barrier, so objects in the universe can and are moving away from each other at greater than light speed. I don't know enough about it to really understand the nuance of it.

Here's one of the random articles
http://www.space.com/scienceas...ery_monday_040524.html

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: bdude
Stars in the lead...why?

maybe people arent sure of what a nuclear peptide is?

with mint frosting?

Most obscure Star Trek reference ever.

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Well from what I'm reading, the estimates for the volume of the universe is at least 90-160 billion light years across depending on what article you look at. The explanation for things being farther away than the age of the universe in light years is that space can expand without the limitation of the light speed barrier, so objects in the universe can and are moving away from each other at greater than light speed. I don't know enough about it to really understand the nuance of it.

Here's one of the random articles
http://www.space.com/scienceas...ery_monday_040524.html

And even if it were 10^500 quadrillion light years across, that's still a finite quantity.

I've heard the expansion likened to a chocolate chip cookie in the oven. The individual chips get farther apart as a function of the dough (space) expanding, and they simply rest within the medium.
Relative to empty space, you may be limited to the speed of light, but if that space itself is moving, then from some external reference, you're actually moving even faster.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

The Universe is Finite. That being said, I say Stars

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: bdude
Stars in the lead...why?

maybe people arent sure of what a nuclear peptide is?

with mint frosting?

Most obscure Star Trek reference ever.

🙂 (and of course it was cellular peptide, but I did it anyway since I'm such a rebel)

 

[jpeyton]

Are we talking about the number of stars in our dimension only?