Carl Sagan was wrong

[BaalChatzaf]

Carl Sagan was wrong. He said there are billyuns and billyuns of stuhrs in the heavens. Well it turns out there are billyuns, and billyuns, and billyuns, and billyuns and billyuns, and billyuns of stuhrs in the heavens.

See:

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-science/20101201/US.SCI.Starry.Night/

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Kimmler]

Carl Sagan was wrong. He said there are billyuns and billyuns of stuhrs in the heavens. Well it turns out there are billyuns, and billyuns, and billyuns, and billyuns and billyuns, and billyuns of stuhrs in the heavens.

See:

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-science/20101201/US.SCI.Starry.Night/

Ba'al Chatzaf

This is the *snigger* objectivist Carl Sagan?

[BaalChatzaf]

This is the *snigger* objectivist Carl Sagan?

Could you explain that? Thank you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Carl Sagan was wrong. He said there are billyuns and billyuns of stuhrs in the heavens. Well it turns out there are billyuns, and billyuns, and billyuns, and billyuns and billyuns, and billyuns of stuhrs in the heavens.

See:

http://www.comcast.n...I.Starry.Night/

Ba'al Chatzaf

"The night sky may be a lot starrier than we thought.

A study suggests the universe could have triple the number of stars scientists previously calculated. For those of you counting at home, the new estimate is 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. That's 300 sextillion."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/01/scientists-sextillion-stars/#ixzz16y25NgZ0

Ba'al:

Steven's general mental capacity limits when it comes to "O" or "o"bjectivism is a "snigger," occasionally supported by a cut and past piece of propaganda from a marxist website. Therefore, it is not even worth asking him for clarification.

He apparently wishes not to be serious here at OL. Tediousness and predictability the has accomplished.

He tends to be a bit wally in how he approaches us here at OL.

Adam

[Mike11]

There is something Lovecraftian about this information. Puts the human mind in its place.

Edited December 2, 2010 by Joel Mac Donald

[BaalChatzaf]

There is something Lovecraftian about this information. Puts the human mind in its place.

Think about how smart the astronomers and physicists are for finding all those extra billyuns and billyuns of stuhrs.

And think how amazing it is that Horribly Corrupt Physics (according to Harriman) can lead us to such information.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sbeaulieu]

There is something Lovecraftian about this information. Puts the human mind in its place.

Love H.P. Lovecraft. Let's just hope he wasn't in on any truths prior to our new estimate of stars in the known universe! ;)

~ Shane

[kiaer.ts]

There is something Lovecraftian about this information. Puts the human mind in its place.

Yes, as the greatest known phenomenon in the universe, the only one capable of comprehending all others.

[kiaer.ts]

There is something Lovecraftian about this information. Puts the human mind in its place.

Yes, as the greatest known phenomenon in the universe, the only one capable of comprehending all others.

What a piece of work is a man,

how noble in reason,

how infinite in faculties,

in form and moving how express and admirable,

in action how like an angel,

in apprehension how like a god!

[BaalChatzaf]

There is something Lovecraftian about this information. Puts the human mind in its place.

In the brain, where mind belongs.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Kimmler]

There is something Lovecraftian about this information. Puts the human mind in its place.

Think about how smart the astronomers and physicists are for finding all those extra billyuns and billyuns of stuhrs.

And think how amazing it is that Horribly Corrupt Physics (according to Harriman) can lead us to such information.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Clearly if Kant had never existed, these stars would never have been there to be found.

Or there wouldn't have been corrupt physicists who perform evil experiments...

[Starbuckle]

"And think how amazing it is that Horribly Corrupt Physics (according to Harriman) can lead us to such information."

Do you really regard knocking down strawmen as so very persuasive?

With respect to the count of stars in the universe, the news report tells us that the updated guesstimate is not yet universally accepted by the specialists themselves.

[BaalChatzaf]

"And think how amazing it is that Horribly Corrupt Physics (according to Harriman) can lead us to such information."

Do you really regard knocking down strawmen as so very persuasive?

With respect to the count of stars in the universe, the news report tells us that the updated guesstimate is not yet universally accepted by the specialists themselves.

I take Harriman exactly as his word. There is no straw man. There is what he says about physics. He says it is philosophically corrupt (and by implication, incoherent). If so, why are the results so good? Why the accurate readings, the discoveries of surprising phenomena and above all the technology that flows from the physics?

Historically it was classical physics with its absolute space and time and strict deterministic causal.ity that lead in the wrong direction. If we had staid on the classical path the electronics which we are now enjoying including computers, communication technology etc. etc. would not exist. Without relativity and quantum theory we would have no GPS system for locating ourselves to within ten meters.

Ba'al Chatzaf