Types of Galaxies in Our Universe

SurfingCaliforniaCoastlin

100 to 200 billion galaxies in the cosmos? To me that number seems kind of small when you think about the size of space.

pillarsofcreation

100 to 200 billion galaxies in the cosmos? To me that number seems kind of small when you think about the size of space.
Initially they thought it was more, but recent findings show that they were way off.

Helio

Helio

Initially they thought it was more, but recent findings show that they were way off.

Nice link. It states, "Probably some 2 trillion galaxies existed in the early universe,..."

There has been two different lines of evidence that support this figure, though it's an approximation.

The most distant galaxies are from billions of years ago and they are smaller, on average, than what we see closer to us.

If we assume 100 billion stars for an average for all those 2 trillion, the total no. of stars is very roughly 2 x 10^23. As the huge telescopes come along and that number grows by 3x, then we would have an Avogadro number of 6e23! [A good way to remember it.]

It's possible that the no. of exoplanets may match that number. It's an incredible thought.

pillarsofcreation

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
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?

Cat

pillarsofcreation

Helio

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?

Cat
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."}

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
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.
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.

Cat

Helio

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.
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).

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.
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”.

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
OK. I will settle for thus:

'Ergo " and any figures can only be guesses? " aka assumptions.
I stand by this.'

Cat

Arvillaheaney

There is like 10 galaxies within 1 million ly it’s very common lol that’s slow amount unless there is more.

visit here

Last edited:

Atlan0101

We cannot count the number of galaxies in the probable infinite breadth of space since we cannot possibly observe that unobservability. Then there is the other, the perpendicular -- to breadth -- depths of the countless planes of space. How many galaxies are there in the unobservable 'folds' (the in-folding(s)) of space? A traveler who may have traveled outside relativity to the Earth and the Earth observer (who realizes he may have a 'c' of his own relative to his locality and not the Earth (open systemically constant to all positions and velocities no matter the relativity)) may discover there is much more to the Multiverse Universe than the observer on Earth can ever possibly observe (if all observers and travelers would observe it, it would total up, close up, to an infinitely dense mass; the Big Crunch || at once the energy of the [Base Planck / Big Bang] Horizon).

Among other things, such as 'local' and 'non-local', 'time' (singular) and 'times' (plural), etc., there is the existence of 'linear' (as in linear universe).... and then there is also the existence of the 'non-linear' (as in paralleling -- non-linear -- universes). A concurrent, or parallel, existence of 'non-linearity'. I've repeatedly noticed that there are those who believe there is no such thing as non-linearity.