There are 200 billions stars in our galaxy

15% have some planets

50% of the planetary systems have one or some planets in the habitable
zone

Then 15 billions planets in the habitable zone, in our galaxy

And there are 100 billions of galaxies in the universe

Then there are 15x10^24 planets in the habitable zone, in all of the
universe

This should be very weird to see, or to be on the aliens planet

>
>And there are 100 billions of galaxies in the universe
>
>Then there are 15x10^24 planets in the habitable zone, in all of the
>universe
>

The universe is obviously infinite, therefor the number of planets is
also infinite.

HOWEVER, interstellar distances are far too great, as to preclude any
possibility of travel or communication. Distance - Speed x Time .

>HOWEVER, interstellar distances are far too great, as to preclude any
>possibility of travel or communication. Distance - Speed x Time .

Should be Distance = Speed x Time .

casagiannoni@optimum.net wrote on 15/7/21 12:28 am:
>>
>> And there are 100 billions of galaxies in the universe
>>
>> Then there are 15x10^24 planets in the habitable zone, in all of the
>> universe
>>
>
> The universe is obviously infinite, therefor the number of planets is
> also infinite.

The Universe *IS* infinite ..... and growing!! ;-)

> HOWEVER, interstellar distances are far too great, as to preclude any
> possibility of travel or communication. Distance - Speed x Time .
> --
Daniel

>>
>> The universe is obviously infinite, therefor the number of planets is
>> also infinite.
>
>The Universe *IS* infinite ..... and growing!! ;-)

Something infinite has no boundaries or bounds, so geometric
references like size, shape or growth are simply not applicable.

casagiannoni@optimum.net wrote on 17/7/21 3:31 am:
>>>
>>> The universe is obviously infinite, therefor the number of planets is
>>> also infinite.
>>
>> The Universe *IS* infinite ..... and growing!! ;-)
>
> Something infinite has no boundaries or bounds, so geometric
> references like size, shape or growth are simply not applicable.
>
At the time of The Big Bang, the Universe, then, had no boundaries or
bounds, but it's a tad bigger now .... and is getting bigger!!
--
Daniel

>At the time of The Big Bang, the Universe, then, had no boundaries or
>bounds, but it's a tad bigger now .... and is getting bigger!!

It always was and always will be, never had any bounds or limits, has
no shape, isn't growing or shrinking, and absolutely NO God ...

PS - There was no Big Bang !

It is based on the apparent current motion of galaxies and
extrapolating back about 12.8 billion years.

This is a very simple-minded analysis and most likely wrong.

PS - There was no Big Bang !

It is based on the apparent current motion of galaxies and
extrapolating back about 12.8 billion years, and assumes that
everything sprang out of a point at that time.

This is a very simple-minded analysis and most likely
completely wrong !

On 19/07/2021 3:32 am, casagiannoni@optimum.net wrote:
> PS - There was no Big Bang !
>
> It is based on the apparent current motion of galaxies and
> extrapolating back about 12.8 billion years.
>
> This is a very simple-minded analysis and most likely wrong.
>

Yes, never head a more ludicrous idea.

casagiannoni@optimum.net wrote on 19/7/21 3:37 am:
> PS - There was no Big Bang !
>
> It is based on the apparent current motion of galaxies and
> extrapolating back about 12.8 billion years, and assumes that
> everything sprang out of a point at that time.
>
> This is a very simple-minded analysis and most likely
> completely wrong !
>
"about 12.8 billion years"??? I thought the Universe was 13.7 Billion
years old!!
--
Daniel

>"about 12.8 billion years"??? I thought the Universe was 13.7 Billion
>years old!!

My mistake; 13.7 billion.

Hard to immagine in perspective. 13,700 million, and each is a
thousand millenia !

>> This is a very simple-minded analysis and most likely wrong.
>>
>
>
>Yes, never head a more ludicrous idea.

Especially the part about everything springing from a point. Yet so
many actually believe that.

>"about 12.8 billion years"??? I thought the Universe was 13.7 Billion
>years old!!

>My mistake; 13.7 billion.
>
>Hard to imagine in perspective. 13,700 million, and each is a
>thousand millenia !

On 20/07/2021 3:31 am, casagiannoni@optimum.net wrote:
>>> This is a very simple-minded analysis and most likely wrong.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, never head a more ludicrous idea.
>
>
> Especially the part about everything springing from a point. Yet so
> many actually believe that.
>

Yeah that's the nuts bit - from a pinhead lol.

People confuse sci-fi/magic with reality.

casagiannoni@optimum.net wrote:
>>> This is a very simple-minded analysis and most likely wrong.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Yes, never head a more ludicrous idea.
>
>
> Especially the part about everything springing from a point. Yet so
> many actually believe that.

Verily it is said:
a scientistc can know,
a hillbilly at best beleive.

--
[The difference between a conclusion and an assumption:]

In its original form, special relativity is based on just two postulates
(or assumptions); namely, that the speed of light (in a vacuum) is
constant - no matter who measures it, or when, or where - and that the
laws of physics are the same for in all inertial frames of reference
(basically,...
-- Universe Today