Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)

Quote from: http://www.universetoday.com/24328/how-many-stars/

There are between 10 sextillion and 1 septillion stars in the Universe.

Thank you. You proved my point.

Number Of Stars In The Universe Could Be 300 Sextillion

So there's a guess 30 times the amount. It just shows, they haven't got a clue. 30 times? That's like me estimating my kitchen to be the size of a football field. Spin the wheel, pick a card, roll the dice ... they just tell you anything they think you might swallow. You seem to swallow almost anything.

Is this thread still going?

Who says there are 300 sextillion stars in the universe?

If you could count  and identify 1 per second it would take 9.50662939 * 10¹⁵ years to count them. As the universe is only 14 *10⁹ years old, you can see this hasn't happened.

What you have is a guess. As stupid guess. A guess made by someone who just decided to put a ridiculously large number on it. If there were that many stars (think how big a star is in the sky) and imagine a near infinite amount of them (a sextillion is a number incomprehensible to humans - you may as well think infinite), then all those little white stars aren't going to leave any room for darkness. We would all be wearing welding goggles at night. Infinite stars means infinite star-light means a blinding white sky. It doesn't matter that some aren't visible to the human eye, atoms aren't either, but enough of them and you see an object - in this case infinite sources of light.

The whole theory is preposterous. There are not 300 sextillion stars.

You're like a poor man's Tom Bishop. But good effort though. It was definitely in his spirit.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 18, 2011, 03:12:46 PM

Quote from: http://www.universetoday.com/24328/how-many-stars/

There are between 10 sextillion and 1 septillion stars in the Universe.

Thank you. You proved my point.

Quote from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/01/number-of-stars-in-universe_n_790563.html

Number Of Stars In The Universe Could Be 300 Sextillion

So there's a guess 30 times the amount. It just shows, they haven't got a clue. 30 times? That's like me estimating my kitchen to be the size of a football field. Spin the wheel, pick a card, roll the dice ... they just tell you anything they think you might swallow. You seem to swallow almost anything.

You do realize that 300 sextillion is less than the halfway point of the range 10 sextillion and 1 septillion, right?

It doesn't matter how many Clocktower. Those are incomprehensible made up numbers any way. The fact is we would all be blinded it the sky was filled with virtually infinite numbers of stars.

You're like a poor man's Tom Bishop. But good effort though. It was definitely in his spirit.

Thank you

Hmm. Thork, for some reason, you seem to think that the enormity of the value somehow indicates that it's impossible for a mere mortal to arrive at it. That it must be "incomprehensible made up numbers". I guess you need a lesson in estimation and the power of exponents.

Let me give you something to think about.

Right now, I'm willing to bet you're looking directly at a machine created by mortal men -- a monitor. These days, 32-bit color at a resolution of 1920x1200 pixels is pretty standard. That means it can produce and display 3 x 10^22194339 different images. In case you're wondering, that's a bit bigger than 3 x 10²³ (300 sextillion). This number doesn't even have a name. And we build tons of these things every day.

Looking out at the sky and estimating the total number of stars is totally within the realm of human capability.

300 sextillion may be incomprehensible, but it is not literally infinite. Your claim that it should be a "blinding white sky" only works if we are talking about literal infinity. There is enough room in space for 300 sextillion stars if we assume they are increasingly distant and in every direction. There is not, however, enough room to put them all at 3100 miles above an Earth-sized disc.

So there's a guess 30 times the amount. It just shows, they haven't got a clue. 30 times? That's like me estimating my kitchen to be the size of a football field. Spin the wheel, pick a card, roll the dice ... they just tell you anything they think you might swallow. You seem to swallow almost anything.

You guys really do have a hard time wrapping your heads around scale, don't you? I've addressed this already, twice. Let's try another way to help you understand: Let's flip the scale completely upside down, let's say we're estimating the size of something microscopic. We say it's somewhere between one and a hundred picometers, and you say "Ha! A hundred times! How can you be sure of anything??" Meanwhile you're trying to claim it's a couple of centimeters across. You're obviously wrong, because we know it's microscopic. Similarly, we know there is a vast number of stars. We don't need to pinpoint a value to know that it's too vast to fit at 3100 miles. The gap between your claims and these estimates far, far exceeds the uncertainty factor of those estimates.


Cue Conspiracy derailment in 3... 2...

Right now, I'm willing to bet you're looking directly at a machine created by mortal men -- a monitor. These days, 32-bit color at a resolution of 1920x1200 pixels is pretty standard. That means it can produce and display 3 x 10^22194339 different images. In case you're wondering, that's a bit bigger than 3 x 10²³ (300 sextillion). This number doesn't even have a name. And we build tons of these things every day.

Now imagine all those images. You can't. You can't even get close. Because your imagination does not work in numbers approaching infinity. You cannot imagine 300 sextillion stars. No one can. Its why its such a made up bullsh*t guess.

Looking out at the sky and estimating the total number of stars is totally within the realm of human capability.

I estimate there are 752. You were right. Estimating is within the realm of human capability. It means nothing when it can't be proven. Picking a number that cannot be close to be counted is a good safe way to estimate things. Especially numbers humans can't make tangible in their minds.

300 sextillion may be incomprehensible, but it is not literally infinite.

Can you discern between the two? 300 sextillion and infinite? Of course not, your life isn't long enough to verify either number. So how would your eyes tell the difference between 300 sextillion stars and infinite stars? They wouldn't. Both ways you'd be blind.

You guys really do have a hard time wrapping your heads around scale, don't you?

My point is the numbers are irrelevant when they are that big. They could be out by a factor of a billion. It makes absolutely no difference to your comprehension of the situation. The numbers are just too large. A sextillion means as much to you as a septillion or a duodecatillion or googol. Its so many as to leave no darkness. Its a dumb and unprovable guess.

My point is the numbers are irrelevant when they are that big. They could be out by a factor of a billion. It makes absolutely no difference to your comprehension of the situation. The numbers are just too large. A sextillion means as much to you as a septillion or a duodecatillion or googol. Its so many as to leave no darkness. Its a dumb and unprovable guess.

I had a good laugh at this one.  Big numbers are irrelevant.  HAHAH, that is funny.  You act like we need to imagine all the stars for them to exist.  But you are dodging the point.  There are simply to many for them to be 3100 miles above the earth.

Quote

My point is the numbers are irrelevant when they are that big. They could be out by a factor of a billion. It makes absolutely no difference to your comprehension of the situation. The numbers are just too large. A sextillion means as much to you as a septillion or a duodecatillion or googol. Its so many as to leave no darkness. Its a dumb and unprovable guess.

I had a good laugh at this one.  Big numbers are irrelevant.  HAHAH, that is funny.  You act like we need to imagine all the stars for them to exist.  But you are dodging the point.  There are simply to many for them to be 3100 miles above the earth.

Prove it. Show me how they counted.

Quote from: zarg on December 18, 2011, 03:41:49 PM

Right now, I'm willing to bet you're looking directly at a machine created by mortal men -- a monitor. These days, 32-bit color at a resolution of 1920x1200 pixels is pretty standard. That means it can produce and display 3 x 10^22194339 different images. In case you're wondering, that's a bit bigger than 3 x 10²³ (300 sextillion). This number doesn't even have a name. And we build tons of these things every day.

Now imagine all those images. You can't. You can't even get close. Because your imagination does not work in numbers approaching infinity. You cannot imagine 300 sextillion stars. No one can. Its why its such a made up bullsh*t guess.

Are you saying the figure I gave for the total number of images is bullsh*t?

So how would your eyes tell the difference between 300 sextillion stars and infinite stars? They wouldn't. Both ways you'd be blind.

Its so many as to leave no darkness.

...No. You would not be blinded by 300 sextillion stars if the space containing the stars is sufficient to hold 300 sextillion stars plus the space between them. There is much more available "darkness".

Quote from: zarg

You guys really do have a hard time wrapping your heads around scale, don't you?

My point is the numbers are irrelevant when they are that big.

You guys really do have a hard time wrapping your heads around scale, don't you?

your imagination does not work in numbers approaching infinity

Every number is equally "approaching infinity". 

Are you saying the figure I gave for the total number of images is bullsh*t?

Are you saying I can just use multiplication to find out how many randomly spaced stars there are?

...No. You would not be blinded by 300 sextillion stars ^{[Citation Needed]}

You guys really do have a hard time wrapping your heads around scale, don't you?

I accept my limitations. I do not think I can withstand the glare of 300 sextillion stars.

Quote from: zarg on December 18, 2011, 04:19:31 PM

Are you saying the figure I gave for the total number of images is bullsh*t?

Are you saying I can just use multiplication to find out how many randomly spaced stars there are?

Quote from: zarg on December 18, 2011, 04:19:31 PM

...No. You would not be blinded by 300 sextillion stars ^{[Citation Needed]}

Quote from: zarg on December 18, 2011, 04:19:31 PM

You guys really do have a hard time wrapping your heads around scale, don't you?

I accept my limitations. I do not think I can withstand the glare of 300 sextillion stars.

You are 100% correct, the glare would be horrendous if they were all crammed into a small area 3100 miles above us.  Thank god they are not.  Are you really such a big troll as to ignore that the universe could be so large as to space them out?  I mean you do not have to believe it but you should still be able to consider it.

You are 100% correct, the glare would be horrendous if they were all crammed into a small area 3100 miles above us.  Thank god they are not.  Are you really such a big troll as to ignore that the universe could be so large as to space them out?  I mean you do not have to believe it but you should still be able to consider it.

Now you are asking me to imagine that the universe is unimaginably big? RET gets more RETarded by the day.

Are you saying I can just use multiplication to find out how many randomly spaced stars there are?

What is it that you have an issue with? The fact that the number is huge, or that the stars are randomly placed? Stay focused. Do you accept my calculation of how many possible images there are, despite the enormity of the value? If yes, then the fact that an estimate is huge is irrelevant. As for the random spacing, observed patterns in those spacings are obviously factored in.

You say there are about 700 stars. If this is true, what factors do you see that could cause their estimates to be so far off?

I do not think I can withstand the glare of 300 sextillion stars.

You would... if they were all only 3100 miles away.

Now you are asking me to imagine that the universe is unimaginably big?

  According to this post, you believe in atoms, which means that you already believe that you're an unimaginably big person in an unimaginably big universe.

You say there are about 700 stars. If this is true, what factors do you see that could cause their estimates to be so far off?

No 700 was a wild estimate. A baseless useless estimate. I could have estimated 70,000.  There is no way you could prove there are not 70,000 stars. The number is already too large for you to verify. However 70,000 is a number you can understand. There are more than 70,000 grains of sand on the beach. More than 70,000 people in your country. Less than 70,000 people at your school/work. 70,000 stars in the sky would not blot out the darkness. I can imagine 70,000 grains of sand on a table. I'd still see some table. 300 sextillion grains of sand? Its unimaginable but there is no way I could see anything but sand. Imagine that with starlight and we are back to welding masks at night time.

Quote

I do not think I can withstand the glare of 300 sextillion stars.

You would... if they were all only 3100 miles away.

So clearly there are less. Excellent. I think you are getting it.

zarg   01:48:15   Viewing Thork's profile.

And you can pack that in as well. Pervert.

1) No 700, was a wild estimate. A baseless useless estimate. I could have estimated 70,000.  ...
2) ItsIt's unimaginable, but there is no way I could see anything but sand. ...
3) Imagine that with starlight, and we are back to welding masks at night time.

1) Imagine that: an FEDA making a wild estimate and stating it as fact!
2) Learn to grammar. You keep screwing up "its", the possessive, and "it's" the contraction.
3) Prove that. Oh, be sure to explain the "at night time". Do you think stars shine at night only?

I can imagine 70,000 grains of sand on a table. I'd still see some table. 300 sextillion grains of sand? Its unimaginable but there is no way I could see anything but sand.

Please provide the dimensions of your hypothetical table, multiply it by the ratio of the size of a grain of sand to what you propose to be the size of a star, and then demonstrate that the size of the observable universe is less than or equal to that.

Quote from: zarg on December 18, 2011, 04:37:29 PM

Quote

I do not think I can withstand the glare of 300 sextillion stars.

You would... if they were all only 3100 miles away.

So clearly there are less. Excellent. I think you are getting it.

Oh, dear...I'll never look at you the same way again.  You jumped to that because, of course you couldn't resist if you had the slightest reason to say something completely ridiculous.  I searched for what the slightest reason was for quite a while, because I don't really see anything, but I think I see it.  "You would if they were all only 3100 miles away" you interpreted as "They ARE that far, and then that would be the case if there were that many stars!"  So you say, "A-ha!  So you must agree that there are fewer!"

It's not even clever.  No one would have understood it in the slightest.

I'm not going to explicitly state exactly what your problem is, because you know and I know that you know what it is.  I just don't know what to do for you.  You continue to "debate" that the Earth is flat, angrily, irrationally.  You, for some reason, have decided that you really want to believe that the Earth is flat, but you never stop and look, and you haven't realized what you've done.  Well, I'll tell you what you've done:  you've raped and murdered the beauty of nature, tortured yourself, and built a reality with silly constructs that barely manage to allow you to think the Earth is flat, but what is it?  It's a disc with no Antarctica and a sun and moon rotating around a line, and a plane of stars.  A pointless, miserable universe to live in.  You cannot possibly enjoy believing this.

The FET universe is so small and boring. I'm certainly glad I don't live in it.

I was just reading that the average human has 100 billion brain cells. Can you believe that, Thork? Now, I could imagine 70,000 brain cells in your head. But 100 billion? It's unimaginable that you could fit 100 billion things into your head. So clearly there are less. Excellent.

It's a disc with no Antarctica and a sun and moon rotating around a line, and a plane of stars.  A pointless, miserable universe to live in.  You cannot possibly enjoy believing this.

Its the exact opposite. You aren't on a little ball, an insignificant dot whirling around an unimaginably large and bleak nothingness after a tiny ball of hot gases. You are in the centre of the Universe. A Universe crafted around your home. Who knows why, by whom, or what for ... but you're at the centre of it all ... you must be important.

The FET universe is so small and boring. I'm certainly glad I don't live in it.

But you do live here. Its not boring. Most of you haven't even figured out earth's shape yet. There's so much to find out about it.

I was just reading that the average human has 100 billion brain cells. Can you believe that, Thork? Now, I could imagine 70,000 brain cells in your head. But 100 billion? It's unimaginable that you could fit 100 billion things into your head. So clearly there are less. Excellent.

In your head, this is more than likely.

Its the exact opposite. You aren't on a little ball, an insignificant dot whirling around an unimaginably large and bleak nothingness after a tiny ball of hot gases. You are in the centre of the Universe. A Universe crafted around your home. Who knows why, by whom, or what for ... but you're at the centre of it all ... you must be important.

Because of the universal accelerator, isn't everyone on the Flat Earth being pushed against their will through an unimaginably large bleak nothingness, ever hurtling faster and faster towards oblivion?

Also, are Canadians more important than Americans, since they are closer to the center of the universe?

Its the exact opposite. You aren't on a little ball, an insignificant dot whirling around an unimaginably large and bleak nothingness after a tiny ball of hot gases. You are in the centre of the Universe. A Universe crafted around your home. Who knows why, by whom, or what for ... but you're at the centre of it all ... you must be important.

Tell me, Mr. Anderson, what good is a phone call when you are unable to speak?

The night sky (and possibly also the daytime sky, though this is uncertain) is simply a projection onto an overhead surface, probably made of canvas. The stars therefore do not exist as objects unto themselves, but are projected from an unknown location on the Earth's surface.

Therefore, there can be as many stars as the projector wills there to be.

Quote from: zarg on December 18, 2011, 04:37:29 PM

You say there are about 700 stars. If this is true, what factors do you see that could cause their estimates to be so far off?

No 700 was a wild estimate. A baseless useless estimate. I could have estimated 70,000.  There is no way you could prove there are not 70,000 stars. The number is already too large for you to verify. However 70,000 is a number you can understand. There are more than 70,000 grains of sand on the beach. More than 70,000 people in your country. Less than 70,000 people at your school/work. 70,000 stars in the sky would not blot out the darkness. I can imagine 70,000 grains of sand on a table. I'd still see some table. 300 sextillion grains of sand? Its unimaginable but there is no way I could see anything but sand. Imagine that with starlight and we are back to welding masks at night time.

Quote from: zarg on December 18, 2011, 04:37:29 PM

Quote

I do not think I can withstand the glare of 300 sextillion stars.

You would... if they were all only 3100 miles away.

So clearly there are less. Excellent. I think you are getting it.

Summary of Thork's argument in this post: If there were 300 sextillion stars 3100 miles away from us, the glare would be huge. There is no huge glare, therefore the variable that MUST be changed is the number of stars, not the distance.
Rubbish attempt, even by his standards.

Who actually counted these stars?

As far as I know people just looked at some blobs of supposedly distant galaxies and said "oh there must be several billion stars in there."

The night sky (and possibly also the daytime sky, though this is uncertain) is simply a projection onto an overhead surface, probably made of canvas. The stars therefore do not exist as objects unto themselves, but are projected from an unknown location on the Earth's surface.

Therefore, there can be as many stars as the projector wills there to be.

That would be another example of a special pleading fallacy. Since we've shown that all stars can't be 3100 miles above the FE, you invent a new construct, a magical canvas and decide that stars aren't real now. Any just why does the projector have a will?

Who actually counted these stars?

As far as I know people just looked at some blobs of supposedly distant galaxies and said "oh there must be several billion stars in there."

Who said anyone actually counted these starts? We have estimated the number of stars by statistical methods.

500 million though have been counted according to: http://www.sdss.org/.