Total stars in Universe is rougly equal to the total number (ever) of human cells.

[Anomalocaris]

No, you misunderstand the conclusion science is drawing.  We have not seen the light from the furthest reaches of the universe that exists.  We’ve seen the light from the furthest reaches of the universe whose light had Time to reach us..

Do you understand the difference?

Light takes time to travel.

No I'm not misunderstanding, I've heard scientist say we have seen light from the end of the universe. I do understand light travels at 186,000 MPs

No. Not the end of the universe in space.  You are seeing the light from near the beginning of the universe in time.  Ask those scientists to clarify and not try to fit their words which you clearly understands in only the vaguest terms into your preconceived notions,

Multiple lines of evidence shows the Universe is approximately 13.5 billion years old.   The very earliest light in the universe only had 13.5 billion years to travel.   Therefore we can not see any light that originated from further away than the distance light can travel in 13.5 billion years.  

Understood?

Yes I understand quite well, light has been traveling for 13.5 billion years in a universe that's 13.5 billion years old, the light from the edge of the universe has had time to get here. However we have no real idea of our position in the universe so we could be 13.5 billion light years from some point on the edge of the universe and much less at some other point, unless you believe we are at the exact center of the universe.

Exact center?

Think about this.  

If you are in a field a mile square bounded on all sides by fences on a cloudy day.   You can only see 100 yards. Do you need to be at the exact center to see exactly the same thing in all direction and see no fence anywhere in any direction.

The spherical part of space with we at the center and extending outwards in every direction by a distance equal to how far light can travel in 13.5 billion years is the part of the universe that we can observe.  That is called the observable universe.  We may have seen the furthest reach of the observable universe.   Do not confuse the entire observable universe with the entire universe.

Just what makes yo believe we are more than 13.5 billion light years from some edge of the universe, why can't we be much closer than that to some points on the edge of the universe. Just what would the edge look like anyhow, would we actually recognize the edge. Much of the outer reaches of the universe are speculation only, most of what scientist believe has never been observed.

The edge would look like no more stars or galaxies beyond?

If the farthest you can see is 10 billion light years but the oldest stuff at 10 billion light years already exhibit evidence of being 3 billion years old, then you might have see the edge?

If you can see back 13.5 billion years, but you can see the stuff way out 13.5 billion light years from us is clustered in a way that suggest they won’t evolve into something similar to where we are now, that suggest the universe is. It homogenous and somewhere near where things start to get different there might be an edge?

We found that the universe does not become significantly different when you get closer to the edge of observable universe.   If the entire universe is the same size as the observable universe, or if the entire universe is only somewhat bigger than the observable universe, then the furtherest parts we can see would be much closer to true edge of the universe.   Any parts of the universe that is near to any true edge would experience forces and development significantly differently from our part.  So they should look different.   But to the furthest we can see, the universe does not look different.  So if the universe has an edge, it is no where close to the furthest reaches we can see.

Understood?

Like I said above it's all speculation when you get to those distances, for all we know those objects that far out do not exist, they could have been destroyed or what ever else might happen to them a billion years ago and we would have no clue, the edge of the universe could be rushing in on us and we would not even know it.

We indeed do not know for sure what exactly happened subsequently to any particular object whose light from 13.5 billion years we are just seeing now.   Your point is?

The point here is by looking back through 13.5 billion years, we are actually looking through an entire depth of time 13.5 billion years deep, not just one point 13.5 billion years ago.   In broad strokes, what we see at each snapshot during the 13.5 billion years coupled with our understanding of physics let’s us summarize how things change through time during the last 13.5 billion years on a statistical basis.  We can extraopolate, again on a statistical basis, whether any part of what we see through the depth of time and distance from us exhibits evidence of not being on the same development tradjectory as all the rest.

So all we see suggest what we are looking at 13.5 billion years ago at a distance that would take light 13.5 billion years to traverse looks very much like what we think our part of the universe would have looked like 13.5 billion years ago.  Everything in between also looked like they would fit on the same continuous development path as everything else.

So we see no region on very large scale, outwards from us in distance or backwards in time, to suggest that region is significantly different from the region near us, or any other region we see.

So to the farthest in distances and farthest back in time, the universe seems homogenous.

Understood?

We don’t know exactly how far the universe extends beyond the furthest reach we can see.  We believe evidence point to it extend quite a long ways further.  For all we know, it could spatially go on forever.  

Understood?

It only makes sense that it never ends, just what would be on the other side of an expanding universe, nothing? Is there nothingness, I hardly think so. Besides that, if the Big Band is true the the universe can't go on forever now can it, it would have to expand until the energy runs out, unless you want to purpose that more energy can somehow be created to continue the push.

otherside?  You hardly think so?   Who is you?  How much have you done to understand the complexity and basis of modern cosmology?

Do you not understand the universe is everything and there is no otherside.  Everything is getting further apart.  If there is something outside everything then everything is not everything, is it now.

Now the furtherest reaches we can see, although huge by human scale, is finite in size.  That part was much smaller, the size of Walnut, at a moment very close to the beginning.  

But the Walnut is just what will become the part of the universe that will be within the distance from us that light can cover in 13.5 billion years.  The entire universe is much bigger than that part whose light could reach us within 13.5 billion years.

So when our observable universe was the size of a Walnut, the entire universe was much larger proportion, just as the entire universe now is much bigger than the on]bservable universe now.

If the entire universe is infinite in spatial extent now, it was probably infinite in spatial extent back then.

Understood?

 You nor anyone else can know that there was always more to the universe than what was contained in that small package of material at the moment of the beginning of the expansion. No one knows how large the universe truly is nor will we ever know. Your last statement is an impossibility, you want to have your cake and eat it too. 

Of coarse you do know I do not believe in the Big Bang and I have sever reservations on what is being observed in the outer reaches of the universe, I have many reservations about what is said about our own galaxy. I am a creationist who believes an infinite eternal God created this universe and still has full control over it and I that the universe He created is infinite. do i have proof it's infinite, no more than you have proof that the universe is 13.5 billion years old. But why would God create a universe that wasn't as infinite as He is, and because he is infinite and eternal he would need a universe to be the same to hold Him. In my opinion the only way this created universe is not infinite would be if God actually resides in another dimension. Like most things man has to speculate on those things he can not understand and the size of the universe is one of those things and God is another.

GC

Ah yes.  No one can know because I am too small, too unimaginative, too misantropicto conceive of how the wisdom of others through unstinting effort can expand human vision and understanding there, therefore my favorite fantasy rules?

[Jehanne]

GC,

The authors of Genesis took much of their accounts for their creation myth from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Just Google it.

[Godscreated]

GC,

The authors of Genesis took much of their accounts for their creation myth from the Epic of Gilgamesh.  Just Google it.

Nope you are wrong on that.

GC

[Jehanne]

GC,

The authors of Genesis took much of their accounts for their creation myth from the Epic of Gilgamesh.  Just Google it.

Nope you are wrong on that.

GC

The Epic of Gilgamesh (/ˈɡɪlɡəˌmɛʃ/)[1] is an epic poem from ancient Mesopotamia that is often regarded as the earliest surviving great work of literature. The literary history of Gilgamesh begins with five Sumerian poems about Bilgamesh (Sumerian for "Gilgamesh"), king of Uruk, dating from the Third Dynasty of Ur (c. 2100 BC). These independent stories were later used as source material for a combined epic. The first surviving version of this combined epic, known as the "Old Babylonian" version, dates to the 18th century BC and is titled after its incipit, Shūtur eli sharrī ("Surpassing All Other Kings"). Only a few tablets of it have survived. The later "standard" version dates from the 13th to the 10th centuries BC and bears the incipit Sha naqba īmuru ("He who Saw the Deep", in modern terms: "He who Sees the Unknown"). Approximately two thirds of this longer, twelve-tablet version have been recovered. Some of the best copies were discovered in the library ruins of the 7th-century BC Assyrian king Ashurbanipal.

Relationship to the Bible

Further information: Panbabylonism

Various themes, plot elements, and characters in the Epic of Gilgamesh have counterparts in the Hebrew Bible—notably, the accounts of the Garden of Eden, the advice from Ecclesiastes, and the Genesis flood narrative.

Noah's Flood

Andrew George submits that the Genesis flood narrative matches that in Gilgamesh so closely that "few doubt" that it derives from a Mesopotamian account.[23] What is particularly noticeable is the way the Genesis flood story follows the Gilgamesh flood tale "point by point and in the same order", even when the story permits other alternatives.[24] In a 2001 Torah commentary released on behalf of the Conservative Movement of Judaism, rabbinic scholar Robert Wexler stated: "The most likely assumption we can make is that both Genesis and Gilgamesh drew their material from a common tradition about the flood that existed in Mesopotamia. These stories then diverged in the retelling."[25] Ziusudra, Utnapishtim and Noah are the respective heroes of the Sumerian, Akkadian and biblical flood legends of the ancient Near East.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh

[Brian37]

That is a SHITLOAD!

[Brian37]

Excellent points.  The term "universe" (such as observable, non-observable that is spatially connected, non-observable, non-spatially connected, etc.) mean different things to different physicists and astronomers.

In any case, the observable Universe is really big, and the number of planets is even bigger, and yet, some dude in 1st century Palestine was the creator of all of this???

Yep the observable universe is FUCKING GINORMOUS!

And no invisible sky wizard needed to make observations of it either.

[CapnAwesome]

The number of stars in the Universe is equal to or slightly greater than the number of cells in all the humans who have ever lived:

There are 37.2 trillion cells in your body:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new...y-4941473/

The number of human beings who have ever lived is 108 billion:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/fire-i...uXIG2Eh2Uk

Finally, there are 10^24 stars (a number that has been increasing over the years) in the Universe:

https://www.space.com/26078-how-many-sta...there.html

Coincidence, or proof Jesus is the Lord and savior?

[vorlon13]

Which Jesus ?

Jewish Jesus that Jesus Himself was promoting, or the retconned Christian Jesus Paul cobbled together, or Trump Jesus ??

[Jehanne]

The number of stars in the Universe is equal to or slightly greater than the number of cells in all the humans who have ever lived:

There are 37.2 trillion cells in your body:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new...y-4941473/

The number of human beings who have ever lived is 108 billion:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/fire-i...uXIG2Eh2Uk

Finally, there are 10^24 stars (a number that has been increasing over the years) in the Universe:

https://www.space.com/26078-how-many-sta...there.html

Coincidence, or proof Jesus is the Lord and savior?

It used to be said (by physicists) that a "factor of 10" was good in cosmology. For Christians and other believers, a "factor of a million" is considered sufficient "proof". These people could not formulate a null hypothesis even if instructions were provided to them on a Starbucks cup.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Excellent points.  The term "universe" (such as observable, non-observable that is spatially connected, non-observable, non-spatially connected, etc.) mean different things to different physicists and astronomers.

In any case, the observable Universe is really big, and the number of planets is even bigger, and yet, some dude in 1st century Palestine was the creator of all of this???

Yep the observable universe is FUCKING GINORMOUS!

And no invisible sky wizard needed to make observations of it either.

It's estimated that there is around 200 Billion galaxies in the observable universe.  So for purposes of visualization imagine that each galaxy occupies on cubic foot of space.  Therefore 200 Billion galaxies would occupy 200 Billion cubic feet of space. That equals a sphere of about 7 miles in diameter.  That's a pretty large ball isn't it?  Now imagine our planet in one of those cubic feet.  You might have to use a powerful microscope to see it.  

Now do the same exercise to caluclate the size the sphere would be if each star occupied one cubic feet of space.  Who knows how large the sphere would be if you did it with the possible number of planets in the observable universe?