Initially they thought it was more, but recent findings show that they were way off.100 to 200 billion galaxies in the cosmos? To me that number seems kind of small when you think about the size of space.
Nice link. It states, "Probably some 2 trillion galaxies existed in the early universe,..."Initially they thought it was more, but recent findings show that they were way off.
The universe is awash in islands of matter — some 100 billion galaxies make up the basic building blocks of the cosmos.www.discovermagazine.com
Right! If you knew the numerator you could calculate the density, if you knew the denominator. *wink* [This is that dumb, "If we had some bread, we could make a ham sandwich, if we had some ham."}Since we can never observe the whole extent of the Universe, surely we cannot estimate its overall density, and any figures can only be guesses?
Agreed, which is why the ”Universe” has previously only been the observable universe; if regions beyond can never be addressed, why bother addressing them in any specific fashion that would imply we can (e.g. density).Somewhere we are not talking the same language;
"Since we can never observe the whole extent of the Universe,"
Even without expansion, the Universe is so large that light from the most distant parts can never reach us. Even if one does not accept this, then it becomes true when taking expansion into account.
" . . . . . . surely we cannot estimate its overall density,"
If we cannot observe the whole extent of the Universe, we have no reason whatsoever to assume that the density of the unobservable part is the same as the observable part - especially when the unobservable part can be any billions of times larger than the observable, and of totally unguessable compoosition.
Ergo " and any figures can only be guesses? " aka assumptions.
You may have read it too fast. The word “joke” was implied in, “This is analogous to that dumb joke about the ham sandwich...”. If that’s a pond separation thing then it would be interesting to learn why. I will go with “my brevity is oft witless”.I stand by this, and cannot accept post #6. I am rather surprised that you call my post "dumb", unless this has a different meaning this side of The Pond.