mykil
04-23-2009, 09:24 AM
Giant Mystery Blob Discovered Near Dawn of Time (https://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20090422/sc_space/giantmysteryblobdiscoveredneardawnoftime)
View Full Version : Giant Mystery Blob Discovered Near Dawn of Time
PeriodThree
04-24-2009, 02:13 AM
"Himiko holds more than 10 times as much mass as the next largest object found in the early universe, or roughly the equivalent mass of 40 billion suns. "
I would be impressed if it held the mass of 40 suns.
40 or
400 or
4000 or
40000 or
400000 or
4,000,000 or
40,000,000 or
400,000,000 or
4,000,000,000 or WTF!!!
40,000,000,000 of our sun.
criminey!
Giant Mystery Blob Discovered Near Dawn of Time (https://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20090422/sc_space/giantmysteryblobdiscoveredneardawnoftime)
I would be impressed if it held the mass of 40 suns.
40 or
400 or
4000 or
40000 or
400000 or
4,000,000 or
40,000,000 or
400,000,000 or
4,000,000,000 or WTF!!!
40,000,000,000 of our sun.
criminey!
Giant Mystery Blob Discovered Near Dawn of Time (https://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20090422/sc_space/giantmysteryblobdiscoveredneardawnoftime)
MsTerry
04-24-2009, 05:06 PM
I find it quite offensive that you are allowed to publicly make fun of me.
Calling me a giant blob is not helpful when you know I am battling my eating habits.
Giant Mystery Blob Discovered Near Dawn of Time (https://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20090422/sc_space/giantmysteryblobdiscoveredneardawnoftime)
Calling me a giant blob is not helpful when you know I am battling my eating habits.
Giant Mystery Blob Discovered Near Dawn of Time (https://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20090422/sc_space/giantmysteryblobdiscoveredneardawnoftime)
mykil
04-28-2009, 10:19 AM
Space Explosion Is Farthest Thing Ever Seen (https://news.yahoo.com/s/space/spaceexplosionisfarthestthingeverseen)
mykil
04-28-2009, 11:27 AM
Alright Rich I have a calculation for you my little genius. Up for the challenge? This can be off by a few Bazillion give or take if you wish. How many living creatures do you think die in any given second in our universe?<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
PeriodThree
04-29-2009, 01:21 PM
I'm thinking that the Drake Equation, used to try to guess at the possibility of extra-solar intelligent life could provide a reasonable way to approximate it...
Drake equation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake%27s_equation)
Quoting from wikipedia:
The Drake equation states that:
<dl><dd>https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/4/7/847914dec26cc45ac2957da0054683de.png</dd></dl> where:
<dl><dd>N is the number of civilizations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization) in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;</dd></dl> and
<dl><dd>R<sup>*</sup> is the average rate of star (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star) formation in our galaxy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way)</dd><dd>f<sub>p</sub> is the fraction of those stars that have planets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet)</dd><dd>n<sub>e</sub> is the average number of planets that can potentially support life (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life) per star that has planets</dd><dd>f<sub>ℓ</sub> is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point</dd><dd>f<sub>i</sub> is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence) life</dd><dd>f<sub>c</sub> is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space</dd><dd>L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.</dd></dl>It looks ugly, but it is just a bunch of factors.
So we'd remove the 'intelligent' and length and all terms, and add a few new terms like 'number of living creatures on one planet' and 'average life span'...
I think, at a first approximation, the answer is 'a total buttload'
Alright Rich I have a calculation for you my little genius. Up for the challenge? This can be off by a few Bazillion give or take if you wish. How many living creatures do you think die in any given second in our universe?<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Drake equation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake%27s_equation)
Quoting from wikipedia:
The Drake equation states that:
<dl><dd>https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/4/7/847914dec26cc45ac2957da0054683de.png</dd></dl> where:
<dl><dd>N is the number of civilizations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization) in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;</dd></dl> and
<dl><dd>R<sup>*</sup> is the average rate of star (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star) formation in our galaxy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way)</dd><dd>f<sub>p</sub> is the fraction of those stars that have planets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet)</dd><dd>n<sub>e</sub> is the average number of planets that can potentially support life (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life) per star that has planets</dd><dd>f<sub>ℓ</sub> is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point</dd><dd>f<sub>i</sub> is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence) life</dd><dd>f<sub>c</sub> is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space</dd><dd>L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.</dd></dl>It looks ugly, but it is just a bunch of factors.
So we'd remove the 'intelligent' and length and all terms, and add a few new terms like 'number of living creatures on one planet' and 'average life span'...
I think, at a first approximation, the answer is 'a total buttload'
Alright Rich I have a calculation for you my little genius. Up for the challenge? This can be off by a few Bazillion give or take if you wish. How many living creatures do you think die in any given second in our universe?<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
mykil
04-29-2009, 04:58 PM
One factor might be space/time as in a second on this earth may take a thousand years on another inhabitable planet. A though one to configure for sure… Also are we really sure that planets are the only living things harboring life, as in some strange asss things have been seen roaming around space! HA! WoW! <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
A while back such as in the seventies I think, a school did a mathematical equation and came up with the number 10,000 for a number of planets that harbor intelligent life in our galexy, although I don’t think they counted us for some strange reason. I believed at the time it was way low and still do, It is probably more along the lines of a million, still not including us of course… <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
A while back such as in the seventies I think, a school did a mathematical equation and came up with the number 10,000 for a number of planets that harbor intelligent life in our galexy, although I don’t think they counted us for some strange reason. I believed at the time it was way low and still do, It is probably more along the lines of a million, still not including us of course… <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
PeriodThree
04-30-2009, 10:31 AM
As far as we know there are something like 10<sup>22</sup> to 10<sup>24 </sup>stars in the universe.
By a coincidence, that is about the number of molecules of H20 in a cup of water (8oz of water = ~ 72 x 10<sup>23</sup> molecules)
Or...
7,200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
Molecules.
One factor might be space/time as in a second on this earth may take a thousand years on another inhabitable planet. A though one to configure for sure… Also are we really sure that planets are the only living things harboring life, as in some strange asss things have been seen roaming around space! HA! WoW! <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
A while back such as in the seventies I think, a school did a mathematical equation and came up with the number 10,000 for a number of planets that harbor intelligent life in our galexy, although I don’t think they counted us for some strange reason. I believed at the time it was way low and still do, It is probably more along the lines of a million, still not including us of course… <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
By a coincidence, that is about the number of molecules of H20 in a cup of water (8oz of water = ~ 72 x 10<sup>23</sup> molecules)
Or...
7,200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
Molecules.
One factor might be space/time as in a second on this earth may take a thousand years on another inhabitable planet. A though one to configure for sure… Also are we really sure that planets are the only living things harboring life, as in some strange asss things have been seen roaming around space! HA! WoW! <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
A while back such as in the seventies I think, a school did a mathematical equation and came up with the number 10,000 for a number of planets that harbor intelligent life in our galexy, although I don’t think they counted us for some strange reason. I believed at the time it was way low and still do, It is probably more along the lines of a million, still not including us of course… <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
mykil
04-30-2009, 11:42 AM
I was thinking of this stupid question I asked and once I decided to ask I should be willing to simplify to the smallest denominator so here is the simplest form I myself can come up with
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
If we start with what we do know such as:
<o:p></o:p>
There is a number 7 with 80 zeros behind it, a large number indeed; we know this to be the close to he number of atoms in our universe.
<o:p></o:p>
So if we start with this number and work backwards take a percentage of what transfers into living material, what percent might this be, one bazillion of one percent most likely.
<o:p></o:p>
Then take an average of what percent of this living matter has for atoms in each species in this universe.
<o:p></o:p>
Giving a crude estimate of living creatures in the universe, then
<o:p></o:p>
The rest is simple, take an average of what a life span might entail for all these creatures then
<o:p></o:p>
Average what a true second is in spacetime around our universe and there we have it! Simple enough don’t ya say?
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
If we start with what we do know such as:
<o:p></o:p>
There is a number 7 with 80 zeros behind it, a large number indeed; we know this to be the close to he number of atoms in our universe.
<o:p></o:p>
So if we start with this number and work backwards take a percentage of what transfers into living material, what percent might this be, one bazillion of one percent most likely.
<o:p></o:p>
Then take an average of what percent of this living matter has for atoms in each species in this universe.
<o:p></o:p>
Giving a crude estimate of living creatures in the universe, then
<o:p></o:p>
The rest is simple, take an average of what a life span might entail for all these creatures then
<o:p></o:p>
Average what a true second is in spacetime around our universe and there we have it! Simple enough don’t ya say?