Look at the stars, too many to count

[PomonaCA]

So a couple days ago the scientists of astronomy discovered something. What did they discover? They discovered that they underestimated the number of stars in the universe.

And when they said 'underestimated', keep in mind they underestimated to the tune of 200 billion. Usually when people underestimate something, it's by 2, or 20.... hell, 10, 20 or 30 percent. But when you mix mindfuck intellectualism and ego with manmade science, well, you start to use terms like "underestimate" to describe, what those of us who live in reality would otherwise describe as "We don't fucking know what we're talking about. Your guess is as good as ours". You got that right, science underestimated by 300 FUCKING PERCENT! I can't help but chuckle to think about how allegedly educated people use words like underestimate. It makes me laugh.


Yes, the same folks who brought you "The debate is over, Global Warming is real" are now saying.... "Oops! We were waaaaay off!"

It seems that mankind has known for quite some time how many stars are in the universe. We learned it a long time ago. Long before the egyptians played their guessing games or any europeans or mesoamericans.

We knew when God told Abraham-

"Now look up at the sky and count the stars, if you can." He said to him, "That's how many descendants you will have! TOO MANY TO COUNT!"

[trish]

So a couple days ago the scientists of astronomy(they're called astronomers)
...discovered that they underestimated the number of stars in the universe... to the tune of 200 billion.Which triples the previous estimate.
Usually when people underestimate something, it's by 2, or 20.... hell, 10, 20 or 30 percent...science underestimated by 300 FUCKING PERCENT!You were off by 100%. That's okay. Anybody can make a mistake.

[PomonaCA]

(they're called astronomers)Which triples the previous estimate. You were off by 100%. That's okay. Anybody can make a mistake.


You'd think that instead of engaging in personal attacks that you'd use your science to explain why your scientific estimates were off by 300 percent.

[hippifried]

300 billion, huh? Is that the universe or just this galaxy?

[PomonaCA]

Another liberal tactic: Obfuscation

[trish]

I didn't regard it as a personal attack, and no they weren't off by 300% they were off by 300 fucking percent.

Estimates of the number of stars in the observable universe are not based on theory; rather they are simply based on what can be observed. The number of stars in an nearby elliptical galaxy or a nearby spiral galaxy etc. is found by various photographic and counting techniques and related to the luminosities of the corresponding galaxy type. The number of observable galaxies is again not a theoretically based number but is found by counting the number of galaxies one can actually count in various regions of the sky. As one can imagine these estimates are upgraded with each new technological advance. Imagine how the count went up when it was first discovered the milky way is a vast sea of stars! The current revision is due to the discovery that elliptical galaxies house ten times (that's 1000%) as many stars as previously thought. The newly discovered, very dim stars were discovered by carefully surveying nearby ellipticals with the newest technology.

[trish]

300 billion, huh? Is that the universe or just this galaxy?
The number of stars in a galaxy has order of magnitude in the hundreds of billions. If the count for the universe were only off by 200 billion the error would've an unimaginably small fraction of a percent of the total number of stars (it only be off by one galaxy).

[PomonaCA]

I didn't regard it as a personal attack, and no they weren't off by 300% they were off by 300 fucking percent.

Estimates of the number of stars in the observable universe are not based on theory; rather they are simply based on what can be observed. The number of stars in an nearby elliptical galaxy or a nearby spiral galaxy etc. is found by various photographic and counting techniques and related to the luminosities of the corresponding galaxy type. The number of observable galaxies is again not a theoretically based number but is found by counting the number of galaxies one can actually count in various regions of the sky. As one can imagine these estimates are upgraded with each new technological advance. Imagine how the count went up when it was first discovered the milky way is a vast sea of stars! The current revision is due to the discovery that elliptical galaxies house ten times (that's 1000%) as many stars as previously thought. The newly discovered, very dim stars were discovered by carefully surveying nearby ellipticals with the newest technology.


Science changes it's mind, yet again. I'm just curious, is the debate really over? LOL Is global warming real or will science change it's mind again? lol

This won't be the last time science revises it's estimate, btw. It will revise and revise and revise and revise and will NEVER know.

[trish]

Of course science changes it's mind. About every week. But it also progresses. You religious folks have changed your mind about how many gods there are. Are you going to go back to believing in a dozen? You used to believe adulterers should be stoned. Are you going to go back to stoning adulterers sometime soon? I bet you can give me good reasons why you won't be changing your minds anytime soon on those particular issues. But you do change your minds. Latin masses to English masses. Celibate priests to married reverends to gay bishops. Everybody advances by observing and revising their thought accordingly. The new dim stars were found by the newest technology at the Keck Observatory.

Yes, global warming is real. But its effects are extremely complex and we'll be making better and better measurements with better and better satellite surveys at a wider and finer range of wavelengths and will consequently be refining and fine tuning our climate models.

Yes science will revise and revise and revise and revise and never EVER know with the absolute certainty of the faithful. Why does not knowing scare you so much?

[PomonaCA]

Of course science changes it's mind. About every week. But it also progresses. You religious folks have changed your mind about how many gods there are. Are you going to go back to believing in a dozen? You used to believe adulterers should be stoned. Are you going to go back to stoning adulterers sometime soon? I bet you can give me good reasons why you won't be changing your minds anytime soon on those particular issues. But you do change your minds. Latin masses to English masses. Celibate priests to married reverends to gay bishops. Everybody advances by observing and revising their thought accordingly. The new dim stars were found by the newest technology at the Keck Observatory.

Yes, global warming is real. But its effects are extremely complex and we'll be making better and better measurements with better and better satellite surveys at a wider and finer range of wavelengths and will consequently be refining and fine tuning our climate models.

Yes science will revise and revise and revise and revise and never EVER know with the absolute certainty of the faithful. Why does not knowing scare you so much?

Who's afraid of not knowing? The faithful religious or the vain seeker?

[trish]

Who's afraid of not knowing? The faithful religious or the vain seeker? That would depend on the particular person of faith and the particular seeker. The question was why are YOU so afraid of not knowing with certainty?

You yourself are wildly incurious about the number of stars in the observable universe. So much so that you thought 200 billion put us in excess of the actual number by threefold, whereas that's only about the number of stars in a single galaxy. Apparently you never thought to ask God how many stars there are in the observable universe (or if you did He didn't tell you). It's something you know nothing about. Yet you smugly laugh out loud because some people who were curious enough to think about it have revised their estimate. Why? You're not even interested in the number of stars. Evidently you feel a deep seated need to make fun of people who you think might not share your religious beliefs (though many of those astronomers at Keck are in fact practicing Christians) and who have no fear of the uncertain of the unknown and of being mistaken. Why is that? I don't recall any parables where Christ LOL'd smugly at the mistaken...seems out of character for him.

[PomonaCA]

That would depend on the particular person of faith and the particular seeker. The question was why are YOU so afraid of not knowing with certainty?

You yourself are wildly incurious about the number of stars in the observable universe. So much so that you thought 200 billion put us in excess of the actual number by threefold, whereas that's only about the number of stars in a single galaxy. Apparently you never thought to ask God how many stars there are in the observable universe (or if you did He didn't tell you). It's something you know nothing about. Yet you smugly laugh out loud because some people who were curious enough to think about it have revised their estimate. Why? You're not even interested in the number of stars. Evidently you feel a deep seated need to make fun of people who you think might not share your religious beliefs (though many of those astronomers at Keck are in fact practicing Christians) and who have no fear of the uncertain of the unknown and of being mistaken. Why is that? I don't recall any parables where Christ LOL'd smugly at the mistaken...seems out of character for him.

Curious enough to think about it or curious enough to make estimates and then constantly revise those estimates in the name of science? And every time your estimates come up short you say "Well, at least I tried!" LOL

Why not be honest and stop calling it science? Let's use a far simpler term like "Guessing". I mean, when you underestimate so badly, we can only believe that you are simply guessing under the ruse of methodology.

[trish]

Curious enough to think about it or curious enough to make estimates and then constantly revise those estimates in the name of science? And every time your estimates come up short you say "Well, at least I tried!" LOLAnd also, "We're getting closer."


Why not be honest and stop calling it science? Let's use a far simpler term like "Guessing". "Science" is the simpler term, it only has seven letters, "guessing" has eight. Moreover, even though "guessing" can be done scientifically it doesn't have to be.


I mean, when you underestimate so badly, we can only believe that you are simply guessing under the ruse of methodology. Or you could believe that the new Keck technology discovered an amazing new fact: that elliptical galaxies contain a vast number of small dim stars that were undetectable by prior methods. But I guess I'm just a glass half full kind of person.

But you're ignoring my questions. Why are you so fearful of uncertainty? Why do you feel a compulsion to sneer at others who are not afraid? If you're certain there's a god and your soul is saved why are you so needful to scorn the happily damned? Aren't you supposed to try to save them? Are you sure lol-ing the damned is going to get you through those pearly gates?

[rameses2]

Isn't life itself trial and error, learning and knowing? Y'know, like how everybody knew the Earth was flat or how everybody knew that fire lived inside of wood? I'm pretty sure those "knowns" were re-evaluated upon further study:geek:, mais non?358318

[NYBURBS]

So a couple days ago the scientists of astronomy discovered something. What did they discover? They discovered that they underestimated the number of stars in the universe.

And when they said 'underestimated', keep in mind they underestimated to the tune of 200 billion. Usually when people underestimate something, it's by 2, or 20.... hell, 10, 20 or 30 percent. But when you mix mindfuck intellectualism and ego with manmade science, well, you start to use terms like "underestimate" to describe, what those of us who live in reality would otherwise describe as "We don't fucking know what we're talking about. Your guess is as good as ours". You got that right, science underestimated by 300 FUCKING PERCENT! I can't help but chuckle to think about how allegedly educated people use words like underestimate. It makes me laugh.


Yes, the same folks who brought you "The debate is over, Global Warming is real" are now saying.... "Oops! We were waaaaay off!"

It seems that mankind has known for quite some time how many stars are in the universe. We learned it a long time ago. Long before the egyptians played their guessing games or any europeans or mesoamericans.

We knew when God told Abraham-

"Now look up at the sky and count the stars, if you can." He said to him, "That's how many descendants you will have! TOO MANY TO COUNT!"

There is a total difference between scientific study and religious faith. Science is based upon observing and testing the information at hand, and then going on to develop theories based upon what has been observed. Religious faith essentially requires one to favor ancient tales over rational observation.

Furthermore, at least science is open to critical review, while religion slams any such assessments as blasphemy. Believe in millennia old wives tales if you so choose, but please refrain from trying to equate it to scientific study.

[Faldur]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_aPU8oYrNAzA/SxYC_yVAjoI/AAAAAAAAAe8/FlylkHfKYF0/s400/not_this_shit_again.jpg

[trish]

WHAT KECK REVEALS: A Play in One Act

Cosmologist: How many stars are there? I heard you guys changed your minds.

Astronomer: Why do you want to know?

Cosmologist: In order to estimate the mass of the observable universe and determine whether it will continue to expand with accelerating rate.

Astronomer: Oh. Well Pieter van Dokkum of Yale University and Charlie Conroy of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass., have published a paper in Nature in which they report that they surveyed eight nearby elliptical galaxies (four in the Coma cluster and four in the Virgo cluster) working from the Keck Observatory and found in each a vast population of very dim stars never before detected. The newly discovered dim stars would increase the number of stars in each of eight ellipticals by tenfold. If this is the case for all massive ellipticals it would increase the number of stars in the universe three-fold (not all galaxies are elliptical). Depending on who you talked to it was previously thought the number of stars in the universe was somewhere between 10 and 100 sextillion. Three times that puts it somewhere in the 30 and 300 sextillion range.

Cosmologist: Oh, so as far we can tell from present methods the order of magnitude estimate hasn't changed, it is still around 22 or 23.

Astronomer: Yep.

Cosmologist: Damn it. I was hoping the new estimate would be more universe shattering than that...perhaps allow us to eliminate some of the early universe scenarios.

Astronomer: Perhaps after you redo the calculations with the new numbers something will crop up. Who knows? Perhaps the newly discovered matter is that predicted by some of the Jeans collapsing models of early galaxy formation. In any case, from the astronomical perspective this is exciting news. We may have discovered a general feature of massive ellipticals unknown before to our science. If so, our understanding of the distribution of stars among the various species of galaxy will be improved. This certainly has to be good news for anyone interested in the problem of galaxy formation and galaxy evolution.

Cosmologist: So did Dokkum and Conroy actually count the number of stars in those eight ellipticals?

Astronomer: No. Not only would that be impossibly tedious, it would be impossible because modern telescopes can’t resolve dim stars at those distances. Dokkum and Conroy measured the luminosity curve in various wavelengths over the surface of the ellipticals. If they are right, the light they measured carried the fingerprints of a vast sub-population of red dwarf stars, in each of the observed ellipticals.

Cosmologist: Cool. I imagine your colleagues are anxious to confirm the discovery.

Astronomer: Indeed, confirm it or falsify it. At the moment, as you might imagine, there of astronomers of both persuasions. Some are preparing to make observations of their own on other ellipticals while others are scrutinizing Dokkum and Conroy’s data and picking apart the analysis.

Cosmologist: What God conceals, Keck reveals.

[hippifried]

I still think there's no way to know if the universe even has a measurable limit.

But there's some things we can know. Like that there's just some people who are too dense to warrent being taken seriously at all.

[trish]

I still think there's no way to know if the universe even has a measurable limit.And you're right (depending I suppose on what you mean by "measurable limit"). This is why the Cosmologist in the play above is only concerned with the observable universe (understood to be the matter and energy that are within the past directed light cone of our current time and location). There may be ways to make educated "guesses" about what's beyond the theoretical limits to observation, but the problem of confirming those speculations is in principle intractable.


But there's some things we can know. Like that there's just some people who are too dense to warrent being taken seriously at all.Some people can be used as foils to talk to others. But yeah, your right...I shouldn't feed the troll.

[hippifried]

(depending I suppose on what you mean by "measurable limit")

I mean that there might not be a limit. At all. No edge. No center. No length. No width. No beginning or end. Our measurements are based on our own limitations, & we're finite. The assumption that the universe is finite is one I'm not willing to make. The speculations are all quite interesting though.

[trish]

That's what I thought you meant. We can only "see" those things whose light has had time to reach us. Those 30-300 sextillion stars (if their light weren't so dim) lay in this observable portion of the universe. Confirming speculations of what lies beyond that horizon is next to impossible. That doesn't mean there aren't reasonable assumptions one can make, but very few; e.g. the laws of physics are same just beyond the frontier of vision, or space is still three dimensional just beyond the point where we can see and objects still grow older. But dreaming up ways to test these assumptions is a challenge. In short, I think we're in basic agreement.

[muhmuh]

only ellipticals? awww and here i was hoping wed found a way to put the wimpiness thats permeating cosmology (and supposedly the cosmos) to rest

[trish]

Good point, muhmuh...the more red and brown dwarf stars there are, the fewer wimps. So yeah, too bad it was just the ellipticals.

[PomonaCA]

There is a total difference between scientific study and religious faith. Science is based upon observing and testing the information at hand, and then going on to develop theories based upon what has been observed. Religious faith essentially requires one to favor ancient tales over rational observation.

Furthermore, at least science is open to critical review, while religion slams any such assessments as blasphemy. Believe in millennia old wives tales if you so choose, but please refrain from trying to equate it to scientific study.


Science is open to critical review? GOOD, because it's usually wrong. Even when it says "The debate is over", we find that they still windup "recalibrating" their 'facts' and then redefining the language of the facts. Global cooling didn't happen? Call it global warming and then say that you were misunderstood and you really meant to say warming. Then offer up some ass backward definition of the word 'warming'. Then when you're exposed as the fraud that you are, try to make the word 'warming' synonymous with "climate change".

All the while you just keep telling everyone "I'm getting closer!". lol

[PomonaCA]

That's what I thought you meant. We can only "see" those things whose light has had time to reach us. Those 30-300 sextillion stars (if their light weren't so dim) lay in this observable portion of the universe. Confirming speculations of what lies beyond that horizon is next to impossible. That doesn't mean there aren't reasonable assumptions one can make, but very few; e.g. the laws of physics are same just beyond the frontier of vision, or space is still three dimensional just beyond the point where we can see and objects still grow older. But dreaming up ways to test these assumptions is a challenge. In short, I think we're in basic agreement.

Reasonable assumptions? Is "reasonable assumption" what science is now trying to make synonymous with "estimate" LOL

Let's be honest here. Science was wrong, again. Way off, again and is trying to play on language, again.

When you're estimates are off by 300 percent, it's safe to say that you don't have a clue and are in fact just guessing. Despite the glorified fact-finding these people do, they really have no idea what they are doing.

[hippifried]

& your alternative would be...?

[trish]

Christians can't agree on whether their god is a trinity or a unity. There's a 300% difference in opinion. You know what some people say if your estimates are off by 300%: you have no clue.

But of course the generalizations that some people make are simply wrong. Astronomers never said their estimate of the number of stars was more than an order of magnitude estimate and nothing more than an estimate at that. And Christians never claimed they knew absolutely that God is a Trinity (or a Unity in the case of other Christians), they merely claim it's a matter of faith.

The real story here is that astronomers may have discovered that massive elliptical galaxies are generally homes to large populations of red dwarf stars. If so, most astronomers would regard it has an advance in their field.

[PomonaCA]

Christians can't agree on whether their god is a trinity or a unity. There's a 300% difference in opinion. You know what some people say if your estimates are off by 300%: you have no clue.

But of course the generalizations that some people make are simply wrong. Astronomers never said their estimate of the number of stars was more than an order of magnitude estimate and nothing more than an estimate at that. And Christians never claimed they knew absolutely that God is a Trinity (or a Unity in the case of other Christians), they merely claim it's a matter of faith.

The real story here is that astronomers may have discovered that massive elliptical galaxies are generally homes to large populations of red dwarf stars. If so, most astronomers would regard it has an advance in their field.


Magnitude estimate? LOL You have to be a scientist to memorize mindfuck wordplay like that.

A guy goes to the gas station and says give me an magnitude estimate amount of gas droplets.

The attendant says how many droplets is that?

The guys says, "I estimate between 100 and 1,000,000".

Attendant says "Nice estimate" lol


Solomon was right about you vain fools. Truly chasers of the wind.

[trish]

That’s a great example, thanks. If the attendant really wanted please he would’ve asked, “Are those metric drops, medical drops, Imperial drops, U.S. drops or just random sized drops?” What I like about the example is that normal everyday drops (unlike the officially defined standards mentioned above) come in a variety of sizes. Just like stars. There are the teensy droplets that float in the air after your girlfriend spays her atomizer. Then there are the big wobbly drops that roll off your roof in a rain and hit the sidewalk with an audible “SPLAT.” Droplets can clearly have a volumes smaller than a cubic millimeter and larger than 300 cubic millimeters. (That’s probably a very conservative range...by which I mean a very restrictive range).

Suppose it rains one night and you collected a 1.2 cm (+/- 0.5 mm) of water in your rain gauge. Asking how many drops did you catch is kind of like (but a lot easier than) asking how many stars are in a given massive elliptical galaxy. So let’s ask. How many raindrops fell into the mouth of your rain gauge? Be careful, this is different than merely asking the volume of water in your rain gauge given in the units of a standard drop. It’s a much harder question. You could get an exact answer if perhaps there was a video camera focused on the rain gauge and recording each drop that fell in. Then you could watch the tape and count the droplets as they entered the gauge. If you don’t have such a recording, you will probably be reduced to making an estimate.

First, let’s figure out how much volume of rainwater you collected. Say your rain gauge is a cylinder of diameter of 10 centimeters. Then the volume of water you collected is (1.2 +/- 0.05 cm)xPix(25 square cm); i.e. the volume you collected is somewhere between 90300 and 98200 cubic millimeters. Now let’s work on the number of drops that fell through the mouth of the gauge.

We could get a low-ball estimate by assuming all the drops are huge clunkers coming in at a volume of 300 cubic millimeters. Dividing we find, 301 to 328 big clunker drops may have fallen into the rain gauge.

We could get a high estimate by assuming all the drops are small, coming in at 1 cubic millimeter each. Under that assumption we can say up to 98200 drops fell into the rain gauge.

Putting the low and the high estimates together we find the number of drops that fell into your rain gauge was likely somewhere between 301 to 98200. (If we just reported the average we’d say the number of drops is about 5 x 10^4. Note the lower bound of 300 is below the number of significant digits reported in the average).

We can of course do things to refine this back of the envelop estimate. For example we can study the distributions of droplet sizes that fall under a variety of weather conditions, make note of last night’s conditions and apply the finding to obtain a confidence interval range for the number of drops. But I think you can agree that it’s going to be very difficult to obtain an answer that’s more than an order of magnitude estimate. Indeed, we’d be happy to get tighter bounds on just the order of magnitude.

Now for homework answer the question: how many drops of rain fell in your county last night? This question is a little like asking how many stars exist in the observable universe...except it’s easier.

The raindrop questions are a bit silly. After all who wants to know really how many drops of rain fell in a given region? And to what purpose do they want to know? But then, who ever asks for 1,000,000 drops of gasoline?


Solomon was right about you vain fools. Truly chasers of the wind. I like that Solomon dude. Did you know the force of a wind increases with the cube of it's velocity? Fascinating subject. Too bad Solomon never saw the age when people would sail across the world's oceans, truly chasing the wind, to new found discoveries.

[hippifried]

Let there be light!!!

[muhmuh]

Let there be light!!!

red and brown (aka shite) dwarfs dont really emit that much light... which is the problem certain idiots who started this thread fail to understand

[hippifried]

Ok. LET THERE BE RADIATION!!!

Wouldn't want anybody to get confused.

[Cuchulain]

Ok. LET THERE BE RADIATION!!!


Oh noes!

[PomonaCA]

That’s a great example, thanks. If the attendant really wanted please he would’ve asked, “Are those metric drops, medical drops, Imperial drops, U.S. drops or just random sized drops?” What I like about the example is that normal everyday drops (unlike the officially defined standards mentioned above) come in a variety of sizes. Just like stars. There are the teensy droplets that float in the air after your girlfriend spays her atomizer. Then there are the big wobbly drops that roll off your roof in a rain and hit the sidewalk with an audible “SPLAT.” Droplets can clearly have a volumes smaller than a cubic millimeter and larger than 300 cubic millimeters. (That’s probably a very conservative range...by which I mean a very restrictive range).

Suppose it rains one night and you collected a 1.2 cm (+/- 0.5 mm) of water in your rain gauge. Asking how many drops did you catch is kind of like (but a lot easier than) asking how many stars are in a given massive elliptical galaxy. So let’s ask. How many raindrops fell into the mouth of your rain gauge? Be careful, this is different than merely asking the volume of water in your rain gauge given in the units of a standard drop. It’s a much harder question. You could get an exact answer if perhaps there was a video camera focused on the rain gauge and recording each drop that fell in. Then you could watch the tape and count the droplets as they entered the gauge. If you don’t have such a recording, you will probably be reduced to making an estimate.

First, let’s figure out how much volume of rainwater you collected. Say your rain gauge is a cylinder of diameter of 10 centimeters. Then the volume of water you collected is (1.2 +/- 0.05 cm)xPix(25 square cm); i.e. the volume you collected is somewhere between 90300 and 98200 cubic millimeters. Now let’s work on the number of drops that fell through the mouth of the gauge.

We could get a low-ball estimate by assuming all the drops are huge clunkers coming in at a volume of 300 cubic millimeters. Dividing we find, 301 to 328 big clunker drops may have fallen into the rain gauge.

We could get a high estimate by assuming all the drops are small, coming in at 1 cubic millimeter each. Under that assumption we can say up to 98200 drops fell into the rain gauge.

Putting the low and the high estimates together we find the number of drops that fell into your rain gauge was likely somewhere between 301 to 98200. (If we just reported the average we’d say the number of drops is about 5 x 10^4. Note the lower bound of 300 is below the number of significant digits reported in the average).

We can of course do things to refine this back of the envelop estimate. For example we can study the distributions of droplet sizes that fall under a variety of weather conditions, make note of last night’s conditions and apply the finding to obtain a confidence interval range for the number of drops. But I think you can agree that it’s going to be very difficult to obtain an answer that’s more than an order of magnitude estimate. Indeed, we’d be happy to get tighter bounds on just the order of magnitude.

Now for homework answer the question: how many drops of rain fell in your county last night? This question is a little like asking how many stars exist in the observable universe...except it’s easier.

The raindrop questions are a bit silly. After all who wants to know really how many drops of rain fell in a given region? And to what purpose do they want to know? But then, who ever asks for 1,000,000 drops of gasoline?

I like that Solomon dude. Did you know the force of a wind increases with the cube of it's velocity? Fascinating subject. Too bad Solomon never saw the age when people would sail across the world's oceans, truly chasing the wind, to new found discoveries.


He's a GAS STATION ATTENDANT YOU STUPID FUCKING TRANNY. He's just a regular guy in a country near you. A regular guy selling gas, in this case by the droplet in the mostly likely system of measure in said country. If you don't like the term droplet, let's go for microliter.

The point isn't about system of measurements despite your attempts to obfuscate it into such. See, this is why you're a screw up in life. You seem to have a hard time staying on topic.

[trish]

If you don't like the term droplet...I love the term droplet. It's great. Didn't I say it's a wonderful example? Counting droplets of arbitrary size has a lot in common with counting stars...partly because they both come in a wide range of sizes and partly because most of them (stars and droplets) go unseen. Forget the microliters, let's stick with the droplets.


The point isn't about system of measurements despite your attempts to obfuscate it into such.I agree. I agree. Did you read my post? The point is definitely not about the units of measurement. The point is that when there's a wide range of sizes and not every individual star or droplet can be seen, there's going to be a corresponding wide range of expected error in anyone's "count". Suppose all you know to begin with is that a cylindrical rain gauge with a 10cm diameter contains 1.2 cm (+/- 0.5 mm) of rain water, rain water that fell into it drop by random drop through the course of the night. How do YOU place a range on the number of drops collected?


See, this is why you're a screw up in life. You seem to have a hard time staying on topic. Au contraire. I'm very successful, thank you very much. And my post was right on topic. Read it again. It explores a situation, similar to star counting, in which an order of magnitude estimate is precisely what is appropriate. This exactly addresses the issue you seem to have (in post #28, for example) with the appropriateness of order of magnitude estimates.


YOU STUPID FUCKING TRANNYReally. Is that the way Christians talk? Or is that what you say to all the girls when you can't get it up?...'cause baby, if this thread is any example of your mental prowess, then baby, you ain't gettin' it up.

[hippifried]

Okay... No need for me to step in here except to say: Go get 'im girl!

[PomonaCA]

I love the term droplet. It's great. Didn't I say it's a wonderful example? Counting droplets of arbitrary size has a lot in common with counting stars...partly because they both come in a wide range of sizes and partly because most of them (stars and droplets) go unseen.

A star is a star. Doesn't matter the type, it's a star. And scientists estimated their numbers, again and they were wrong, again.

A star is a star and science was wrong, again.

[trish]

A star is a star and science was wrong, again. What happened? Your argument today lacks passion. It lacks luster. It meets no points. It makes no points. Are you feeling okay?

[PomonaCA]

What happened? Your argument today lacks passion. It lacks luster. It meets no points. It makes no points. Are you feeling okay?

Let's stay on topic. If you wish to withdraw from the discussion you may. I'm CERTAIN that science will be wrong, again.

Even after they declare <chuckle> :dead:"The debate is over"

[trish]

It's been two days, but it looks like you're back. Too bad though your position hasn't recovered. Your last two posts made no points and met no points. I demonstrated directly and also by analogy how stellar type plays a key role in the taking a stellar census. You, on the other hand, have not met my arguments with counter arguments. "Stars are stars" is neither a point nor a counter argument, it's merely a tautology that I'm more than willing to grant.

The new red dwarfs that van Dokkum may have discovered in six massive elliptical galaxies may indicate that all massive ellipticals contain large sub-populations of red dwarf stars. Further investigation will be required. If the conjecture is correct it will revise the total stellar count within the observable universe by three-fold. The count of all the other types of stars have not changed. The order of magnitude range of the stellar count hasn't changed. One of the exciting things about the discovery is that the new red dwarfs (if their existence in all massive ellipticals is confirmed) fulfill the predictions of gravitational studies that indicate there's a lot of non-luminous or dimly luminous matter in the universe waiting to be detected. We don't know what percentage of it will be in the form of stars, planets, asteroids, gas, dust, wimps etc. I am CERTAIN more discoveries and refinements are in the future. Hopefully we will be "wrong" again many more times to come.

[PomonaCA]

It's been two days, but it looks like you're back. Too bad though your position hasn't recovered. Your last two posts made no points and met no points. I demonstrated directly and also by analogy how stellar type plays a key role in the taking a stellar census. You, on the other hand, have not met my arguments with counter arguments. "Stars are stars" is neither a point nor a counter argument, it's merely a tautology that I'm more than willing to grant.

The new red dwarfs that van Dokkum may have discovered in six massive elliptical galaxies may indicate that all massive ellipticals contain large sub-populations of red dwarf stars. Further investigation will be required. If the conjecture is correct it will revise the total stellar count within the observable universe by three-fold. The count of all the other types of stars have not changed. The order of magnitude range of the stellar count hasn't changed. One of the exciting things about the discovery is that the new red dwarfs (if their existence in all massive ellipticals is confirmed) fulfill the predictions of gravitational studies that indicate there's a lot of non-luminous or dimly luminous matter in the universe waiting to be detected. We don't know what percentage of it will be in the form of stars, planets, asteroids, gas, dust, wimps etc. I am CERTAIN more discoveries and refinements are in the future. Hopefully we will be "wrong" again many more times to come.


You continue to split fine hairs. Everyone is seeing this game you're playing. You lose a straight-up argument so you play the games that impotent intellectuals usually end up resorting to; You redefine your previous statements to cover up your obvious failure.

[trish]

You continue to split fine hairs.The mass of a supergiant can be as high as 70 solar masses whereas the the mass of a red dwarf can be lower than 1/10th of a solar mass. The ratio is 700; i.e. a supergiant can be 70,000% larger by mass than a red dwarf. The luminosity of a supergiant can be ten quadrillion times that of a red dwarf. (The difference, as I explained with the droplet example, is responsible for the order of magnitude error bar in any stellar census.) You call 70,000% a fine hair, yet you're willing to declare the end of all science because of a possible 3-fold revision of the stellar population which is inside the error bar of the current count.


Everyone is seeing this game you're playing.I hope so. It's a very exciting game. Remember Dokkum's discovery has yet to be confirmed and the proposition that all ellipticals have dwarf populations similar to the six he studied has yet to be established. Maybe there is no revision to be made. There's work to be done. Does light from bright spiral galaxies blind us to the "fingerprints" that led to Dokkum's recent paper? Are there much larger populations of red dwarfs in spirals too? How can we answer such a question? How about brown dwarfs which are even harder to detect? If ellipticals really do have greater proportions of dwarfs than other galaxies, why do they? What formative mechanism would account for such a difference? There are a lot of interesting questions here vying for the attentions [of] astronomers and astrophysicists. The game's afoot!

[muhmuh]

If ellipticals really do have greater proportions of dwarfs than other galaxies, why do they?

hardly any and (and im guessing here) thinner gas clouds leading to lower star mass?

[trish]

hardly any and and (im guessing here) thinner gas clouds leading to lower star mass?Sounds like the start of a reasonable explanation. The evidence is that ellipticals have considerably less gas than spirals and other galaxies. There are at least two theories of elliptical formation that I can recall: 1) monolithic collapse (with or without dissipation) from primordial gas and dust; and 2) Toomre’s merger scenario (in which ellipticals result from collisions of one galaxy with another. The latter suggestion exploits the similarities between ellipticals and the large bulges of some spiral galaxies. Ellipticals and bulges seem to have the same luminosity contours, velocity profiles etc.

The monolithic collapse model (without dissipation) predicts that ellipticals should be more massive than observation previously suggested. I’m not sure if anyone has done the calculations yet, but at first blush it might seem like the newfound dwarfs would lend this model some observational support.

If Toomre is right, should we expect to find red dwarf populations hiding within large galactic bulges? I don’t have a angle on that myself.

The more we discover, the more questions there are.

[PomonaCA]

We just found out that there are 100,000,000 stars

Then,

Oh no, there are way more than 100,000,000 stars

Then when questioned about how they could fuck up their estimate so badly, scientists say;

Oh, well we were only talking about certain types of stars before. Now we're talking about other stars lol

[trish]

We just found out that there are 100,000,000 stars You're way off already. There are more than that many stars in our own Milky Way Galaxy. The actual number (of stars in the observable universe) is somewhere in the 30 to 300 sextillion range. So you're off by at least 30 trillion percent. How did you fuck up so badly?

Once again you got the argument wrong. The argument is not that "now we're talking about other stars," the argument is that the range of stellar types introduces a margin of error in any logarithmic estimate of the stellar population. Go back and read the water drop explanation. Please feel free to criticize my actual argument, but don't make up some lame straw man limper of an argument and attribute it to me or anyone else. That's considered very bad form, in case you didn't know.

In post #41 you're on record for calling 70,000% is a fine hair. So according to you a 300% revision of the stellar census (which is still only a proposed revision, not an official revision) is 0.43% of a fine hair (that's 43 ten thousandth of a fine hair). You lose.

[PomonaCA]

You're way off already. There are more than that many stars in our own Milky Way Galaxy. The actual number (of stars in the observable universe) is somewhere in the 30 to 300 sextillion range. So you're off by at least 30 trillion percent. How did you fuck up so badly?

Once again you got the argument wrong. The argument is not that "now we're talking about other stars," the argument is that the range of stellar types introduces a margin of error in any logarithmic estimate of the stellar population. Go back and read the water drop explanation. Please feel free to criticize my actual argument, but don't make up some lame straw man limper of an argument and attribute it to me or anyone else. That's considered very bad form, in case you didn't know.

In post #41 you're on record for calling 70,000% is a fine hair. So according to you a 300% revision of the stellar census (which is still only a proposed revision, not an official revision) is 0.43% of a fine hair (that's 43 ten thousandth of a fine hair). You lose.


Thanks for restating my point. What you're doing is redefining previous statements. You can mix in creative language all you want, but the fact is that science continues to obfuscate and make fine distinctions when it is in FACT, wrong.

[trish]

Thanks for restating my point. What you're doing is redefining previous statements.I'm just restating previous arguments, trying to put them into words that might click for you or anyone else reading.

but the fact is that science continues to obfuscate and make fine distinctions...Like the distinction between a supergiant and a red dwarf. A 70,000% distinction by mass which you called a "fine hair".


...when it is in FACT, wrong. No, you are wrong. On several points. You are at least 30 trillion percent off when you report the stellar census of the observable universe to be 100 million stars. You are 70,000% off when you insist the difference between a supergiant and a red dwarf is a fine distinction. You are 100% wrong when you claim the stellar census has changed 3-fold. It may or it may not. You are wrong in your assumption that the current census is taken to be an absolute number without error bars that every astronomer stands by. Astronomers make a lot of mistakes, big ones too; but obfuscation is your game, not theirs.

[onmyknees]

I haven't a clue on how many stars in galaxy...nor care. What I do know is when Trish grabs onto a topic, the word pit bull comes to mind.. LOL.
Facts, figures, charts, graphs, suppositions, complex calculi calculations...you'll be so blinded by science, it will take a team of Phd's to unravel her thesis. Even Fact Check.org won't be able to help you ! Tish is many things...hot, smart, a worthy debater, but abstract, she's not !

abstract ..ab.stract,adj. (having only intrinsic form with little or no attempt at pictorial representation or narrative content ) !

Thomas Dolby's "She Blinded me with Science" Comes to mind

YouTube - Thomas Dolby - She Blinded Me With Science (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IlHgbOWj4o)

[trish]

Thanks for the appreciation. Flattery will get you everywhere :wink:.
Frankly, I don't care too much about the number of stars in the observable universe either and neither do many astronomers. It's not one of the more fundamental cosmological parameters like baryonic mass density or the value of the cosmological constant. In any case have a Merry Christmas, if I don't get back to the threads by then.