There are more galaxies in the Universe than even Carl Sagan ever imaginedForget billions and billions. When it comes to the number of galaxies in the Universe, both theorists' and observers' estimates are too low.If you take the deepest image ever created of the distant Universe, the Hubble eXtreme Deep Field, and extrapolate over the whole sky, you'd estimate there were ~170 billion galaxies in the observable Universe. A detailed theoretical simulation predicted far more faint, small galaxies than we've seen, upping the expected total to closer to 2 trillion. But recent observational evidence shows that even that estimate is far too low. Instead, there are between 6 and 20 trillion galaxies out there. Carl Sagan's "billions and billions" was far too low of a guess.
sagan was just yet another brainet jew media character, he larped as a scientist on tv in order to wield political influence for zog. nobody other than television addicts ever lent any credence to what sagan said.
>>14596784God knew not to have life develop untill the edge walls of the universe were no longer visible, also making sure no intelligence develops near the edges of the universe, so a lot of extra fluff and padding was required around the edges, to complete the sense of immersed atmosphere and ambiance
All of those trillions of galaxies pale in comparison to my disgust for minorities and women
You're asking the wrong question. The question isn't "why do we have so many galaxies in the universe"; the question to ask is "why are there hardly any galaxies in the universe?" The average matter density in the universe is extremely low. So low that there are more atoms in a glass of water than there are galaxies in the universe. Water isn't even a particularly dense substance. In fact, of all the H2O atoms, a majority of the volume inside the glass of water is empty space.Yet the entirety of the glass of water looks full due entirely to the strength of the EM interactions; the water despite being mostly empty has a strong energy-mass density uniformly throughout. In contrast the gravitational interactions between galactic dusts is so weak that most of these empty space between galaxies is truly empty. In other words, galaxies need to get far separated as a consequence of the weakness of gravity, and hence there are very, very few galaxies in the universe.
>>14596809>why are there hardly any galaxies in the universe?There aren't, there is most likely an infinite amount of matter in the universe but we can't see far enough, all our theories lie on the assumption that only that exists which we can see
dude space lmao
there isn’t even one galaxy — nor is there a universe
>>14596963Englis isn't my first language but>that only that exists which we can seeI think is wrong and it's: >that only that which exists we can see>that only that which exists it's what we can seeOr>that only that which we can see existsHelp
>>14597020Your argument is as stupid as the argument that there is an universe.
>>14596809Probably because antimatter wiped out 90% of normal matter. The question is "why is there something instead of nothing?". Antimatter should have spawned at the same rate as normal matter annihilating each other out leaving an empty universe. The fact that it didn't happen seems to imply that there was slightly more matter than antimatter for some unknown reason. Does the universe treat antimatter differently from normal matter then?
>>14596784Counting galaxies is a tricky endeavor because the farther we look, the further back in time we go and many of those older galaxies may not exist anymore as they merge into bigger galaxies.
>>14597026The way I wrote it is correct, anon.
>>14597062New galaxies get created at the same rate.
>>14596784>But recent observational evidence shows that even that estimate is far too lowWhat observational evidence?
>>14597053The antimatter universe accelerated and evolved in on direction while matter the other; it's just 2 sides of semi spheres
>>14596784>>14596809How do you guys know how many galaxies there are?
>>14597053The final redpill at the bottom of the chalice of science is that God is real.
>>14597357We count them.
>>14597357It occured to me in a dream.
>>14596963ive thought this as well but always assumed im just ignorant of some theory which demonstrates that universal matter is finiteis there a reason to believe there's not more matter beyond the visible horizon of the universe?
>>14597591What??
>>14597364Oh, so you meant observable universe.
>>14596784The curvature of the universe is for all we know to be 0, so for all intents and purposes shouldnt the number of galaxies be infinite?
There are more sperm in my orgasm than there are cups of water in the world's oceans.
>>14597728>is there a reason to believe there's not more matter beyond the visible horizon of the universe?Because we haven't seen any evidence that the opposite is the case, but that doesn't mean both arguments aren't equally right, until we can see beyond that rim we just don't know.
>>14596784Why count something that is both theoretically and physically impossible to observe?
>>14596784>(Assuming space is flat)
>>14596799I have never seen a single paper on the nuclear winter effect. It's a boogeyman created by the pussified post-Hiroshima segment of the popular science community.
>>14597135That's not true at all, google the aggregation kernal rates.
>>14597026You’re right, it’s a strange sentence order. Your last one is correct.
>>14598374You haven't made much or any of an effort to look, then.
>>14598566Post one then you faggot, what kind of worthless empty comment is that, why even bother to write it?
>>14598884Btw what I _have_ actually found in literature is a paper that showed the national lab reports (which were not peer reviewed) is essentially bullshit fearmongeringhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01054575>An analysis of the report of the (U.S.) National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on atmospheric effects of a nuclear exchange leads to conclusions that differ from those of the NAS and of the earlier “TTAPS” and “AMBIO” studies. Any cooling of the earth's surface is likely to beshort-lived because of rapid removal of the smoke clouds originating from nuclear burst-initiated fires, andminor because of appreciable green-house effects due to several distinct physical causes. (One of these, neglected in prior analyses, is the infrared absorption from cirrus clouds produced directly by the nuclear bursts.) Taken together, these effects may even induce slight surface warming (“nuclear summer”) instead of cooling (“nuclear winter”). The consequences to atmospheric ozone are similarly ambiguous; depending on the detailed nuclear scenario, the net ozone content may increase-rather than decrease as argued by “TTAPS”. Experiments could settle some uncertainties.I'd love to see a single paper that demonstrates the forcing from our entire nuclear stock can have a long term effect.
>>14598884Because you posted>I have never seen a single paper on the nuclear winter effect.￣\_(ツ)_/￣If you'd said "I've never seen a plausible paper suggesting it would happen" I wouldn't have said shit.
>>14596963Here me out dont laugh me please what if gravitational constant was variable? And our constant is just the value at milkyway
>>14598990People who argue semantics are typically fucking retarded. Not reading your pissing contest reply chain btw.
>>14596784You seem to follow and know a lot about someone whom you think is an idiot.
