More Stars Than Grains Of Sand On Earth (Repost)

[Kevin Lang]

TJR, at a given moment, there are a finite number of stars. If you freeze time for sand, you're freezing it for the stars as well.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

KL,



Stars in space and freezing time don't apply to the same rules as the sand.



Here is why:



Sand in a finite space (the Earth and it's atmosphere) at a point in time has to be finite because the amount of mass that can consume a finite space must also be finite.



Space however is infinite. Therefore the amount of mass (the stars) that can consume that space can also be infinite. Therefore the stars in space CAN BE infinite. They might also be finite, but there is really now way of telling (IMHO). We know that they CAN be infinite, though, and more than likely are, logically.



TJR

 

[Richard L]

TJR,

KL makes a valid point. If you can freeze time and count grains of sand you should apply that same moment in time freeze to the stars.



I agree that the distance to the stars makes the task much harder to comprehend since we are just now seeing the light from stars that may have been created thousands of light years ago, and some of the stars we see now, have already died. But the rules of time can still be applied theoretically. Since we cannot stop time to count either, and the quantity of each keeps changing from one moment to the next, the same rules should apply to both, which makes them both infinite.



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Rich, KL,



I contend that the same rules of freezing time apply for both sand on earth and stars in the sky.



Heck, when COUNTING anything you have to count with time frozen, so to speak. Counting the population, for example, is something that requires a snapshot as people are dying and being born all the time.



But, that doesn't make the # of people on earth infinite. Our world population is finite.



Grains of sand on Earth at a point in time also has to be finite. There can only be so many because of the fact that there is an enclosed, finite space.



But stars however, even if counted in a snapshot fashion COULD be infinite because the space that they exist within (even when frozen) is itself infinite.



So, the debate is (as I said in my first post) whether or not stars in space are infinite. Again, I'm just contending that they can be, and many feel they are. If you accept that they are, then there are more stars in the sky than grains of sand on earth. Even if not infinite, the magnitude of difference I am sure is HUGE between approx # of stars in the sky and grains of sand on earth...hugely different I would guess.



The same rules don't apply for both, IMHO. The FUNDAMENTAL conditions between stars in the sky and sand on earth is the containment. One set is populated in an infinite space; the other in a finite space. That allows one to be infinite and requires the other to be finite. For that reason I posted what I did.



I hope there still aren't people that think that there are more grains of sand on earth than there are stars in the sky...



TJR

 

[Bill V]

Besides, space isn't infinite--As Hubble (the person, not the telescope named after him) discovered, the universe is expanding, and therefore, like sand, is finite at any moment in time.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bill,



I thought it was our universe that was expanding...not space. Maybe my definition of space is wrong or different than others. Our universe expands to take up more space, but space is infinite, filled potentially by infinite universes.



TJR

 

[Bill V]

TJR, regardless of whether we're talking space or the universe, or whether your definition is right or wrong, or whether space and the universe are considered to be synonyms or not--the article in question is comparing the number of grains of sand on earth to the number of stars in "the" (presumably "our") universe. Which once again gets us down to a finite region, which once again means we're looking at a finite number.



Definitely a good discussion here, though...

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bill V,



Okay, sure, you are right. If it's the number of stars the known universe, then the same rules apply and they are both finite at any given point in time.



TJR

 

[Bill V]

That, of course, is assuming that the article is accurately reporting the intent of the scientists who wrote it. And we all know what can happen when journalists try to spin science for the masses. :throwup: