Are there more stars in space or grains of sand on earth?
603963
I'm almost finished with counting the grains of sand, and after I've got the stars counted I'll report back :)
601946
As many as there are stars in the sky.
385472
Our Universe is the only one that we know of.  Within our universe are at least a hundred billion galaxies.  Within our galaxy (assuming it is normal) there are a hundred billion stars.  That gives us (assuming the averages hold true) roughly 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (ten sextillion) stars in the known universe.
624353
gravity is everywhere - even in space.  what do you think holds everything together, keeping jupiter from sailing off towards alpha-centauri?  \n\non to your question - shooting stars are not stars, they are meteorites - varying sized "rocks" that are orbiting whatever has them stuck in a gravitational orbit until they encounter the earth's atmosphere, and burn up, which is what you see and call a "shooting star."  most never hit the ground, but when they do, look out!
683582
There are about a couple hundred billion stars in our galaxy. The stars close to the center are not likely to have planets because of dynamical considerations (other stars pass by too frequently to have stable orbits).\n\nThe BIG question is how many planets there are per star on average. Our sun has ten planets and assorted other objects. We have found many other planets orbiting other stars, but most of those stars have only one planet (that we have detected). One has three planets that we know about. HOWEVER, the way we detect these planets favors detecting large planets that are very close to their star. Once you start to ask about planets as small as Saturn, or that are farther away than Mercury is from our sun, the methods don't work so well.\n\nThe upshot is that we really just don't know how many planets a typical star has. Some probably have none. How many have none? We don't know. How many have ten smallish planets? We don't know. At best we can guess, say 4-5 on average. This would give close to a trillion planets in our galaxy. The number could easily be a tenth of this, though.
414226
Yes, there has to be.  The universe is immense with many galaxies, and many suns.  There must be a lot of similar planets out there somewhere, why should there be only Earth with life?  We might never meet any extraterrestrials, probably aren't supposed to, which could explain the vast distances.  Some other beings exist now, or were extinct eons ago, or are yet to be.  I think they are a lot like us, not made of electricity or silicon, or in only two dimensions like some sci fi.
588202
The total number of known stars is 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, when we write this number out. This figure would be pronounced as "ten billion trillion" stars.\n\nAs technology improves, this number will continue to increase since there are many more stars out there.
171357
Unfortunately we do not have any concrete evidence.  Here is a good quote by the late Carl Sagan:\n\n"There are some hundred billion (1011) galaxies, each with, on the average, a hundred billion stars. In all the galaxies, there are perhaps as many planets as stars, 1011 x 1011 = 1022, ten billion trillion. In the face of such overpowering numbers, what is the likelihood that only one ordinary star, the Sun, is accompanied by an inhabited planet? Why should we, tucked away in some forgotten corner of the Cosmos, be so fortunate? To me, it seems far more likely that the universe is \nbrimming over with life. But we humans do not yet know. We are just beginning our explorations. The only planet we are sure is inhabited is a tiny speck of rock and metal, shining feebly by reflected sunlight, and at this distance utterly lost."
657889
there are more stars in the sky than specs of sand on all the beaches in the world................. so to answer your question..yes there are more stars in the sky than leaves on all the trees
809888
All stars are round, and there are many trillions of stars, although you can only see about 3,000 of them at any one time without a telescope. The sun is a typical star, only much closer than all the others.
1017822
stars are very far away and that light u see has been traveling through space for maybe decades now and its passed through clouds of dust and a bunch of stuff.  That makes the star twinkle and gives it colors.  Also, stars are not white(unless they are white dwarfs, but those arnt really stars or they are really really big and hot).  Almost all stars have a color to them.  These can be blue, red, yellow, orange, or any of those colors inbetween.
384729
Greetings,\n\nThe number that would answer your question has not been named yet.  There are billions of stars in our galaxy alone, and there are billions and billions of galaxies.\n\nWe will never know how many stars there are because there are literally too many to count.\n\n-matt
556709
The scientist in charge of this project were taking extra care with picture preparation. Go to the site and you will see that around May 17th I think we can start looking for the particles from space.\nSee link below for Stardust at Home
313861
YES. There are many stars in our galaxy with solar system formed.
251053
There are ~200,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy. There are at least 80,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe, and reasonable estimates are from 80 billion to 400 billion. Estimates of the total number of stars in the universe that I've seen start around 3 followed by 16 zeroes, and a reasonable approximation would be in the neighborhood of 4.8 x 10^22.\n\nNow, we don't know of a single star that is known to NOT have planets; in fact, any planet within an order of magnitude or two of the mass of Earth is far too small for us to even detect, with the exception of those in very unusual systems, such as the one in the link below, which orbits a pulsar (it's also 1/5 the mass of pluto, but even if it were Earth-sized, a pulsar probably wouldn't be very conducive to life forming).\n\nWe also don't know exactly what conditions it takes to form life, how long those conditions need to last, or how long planets normally stay within that range of conditions.\n\nHowever, we can make some estimates.\nThe sun is a G-type star, and, although F-K type stars might be capable of supporting life (and such make up ~64% of the stars in the galaxy), we'll ignore everything but the 18.7% of stars which are G-type.\n\nFurther, let's say that only 1 in 10,000 G-type stars has a planet capable of forming life.\n\nNow, there is, on average, about 1 supernova per galaxy per century, so we'll have to eliminate some candidate stars on that; say about 99% of eligible stars do not form life as a result of radiation bombardment from nearby supernovae.\n\nThen, let's estimate that it takes 100,000,000 years for life to form, and the average planet only has 4,000,000,000 years of its lifespan where life can survive. Then, we have to figure out how many planets have life at any given time. The approximate lifespan of the sun is 10 billion years, so we'll figure that's about average for a G-type star.\n\nWe'll assume that no star has more than one habitable planet, and that no life colonizes any other planets. Then, we'll figure that only 1% of the planets which are still eligible actually have life.\n\nThat still leaves 3-4 planets currently inhabited, in our galaxy alone, including Earth. Multiply that by, oh, say, 1% of the minimum number of galaxies in the universe (just for the fun of it), and we still get nearly 3 billion currently inhabited planets.\n\nSo, I'd say that the answer is a pretty resounding "yes". Although most of them would be extinct long before we could concievably detect their existence, and even if not, they would be extinct for many millenia before we could communicate with them.
59177
No.  Firstly, no elements are "made" on earth apart from synthetic ones.  All elemental fusion takes place in stars\n\nSecondly, only the elements up to iron are capable of being formed inside a star.  Energetically, it's the wall.  Anything with a higher atomic number than iron can only be formed under the action of a supernova explosion.  Supernovae then seed the interstellar dust with these heavier elements, which eventually coalesce under the effects of gravity to form new stars, and, presumably, planetary systems.  Given the number of new extrasolar planets found recently, this seems to be a relatively common phenomenon.\n\nSo, all the gold on Earth was formed in a supernova explosion, and when the dust particles that condensed out of that explosion gathered together to form the Earth, a small amount of gold was present.  That's where it all came from!\n\nAs Carl Sagan was fond of saying, "We are all star-stuff."
50134
Given the number of stars in our galaxy alone, its highly probably that a star like our own sun exists with satellites like our earth orbiting it.  Of course if you're looking for a name of another planet with life on it you won't find that just yet.