Way too much information, which tends to show that information is irrelevant. Anyway, about one in 100 galaxies would be exploding now, as seen from our time-delayed vantage point in the Milky Way, which is about a billion exploding galaxies in our sky. Are these explosions at all obvious? It sure looks like galactic explosions are fairly rare.
Thanks a million for the summation.
Excellent catch.
I can see how you would arrive at 1/100 galaxies because supposedly there would be an “explosion” lasting 100 years every 10,000 years, so 100/10,000 = 1/100, basically at any point in time we should see about 1% of these galaxies in the middle of an “explosion”.
This is weird stuff, because if our galaxy “exploded” 10k years ago, how did we survive? It’s not “really” an explosion, it’s probably something more akin to an aggressive outward growth cycle or somesuch thing. If my house exploded for one month out of every 100 months, I’d have to rebuild it every 9 years or so. But if it suffers an expansion cycle 1/100 of the time, then I might see or hear some of the effects, such as crackling or creaky noises in the morning or afternoon when the sun starts or stops shining on it. And yeah, that’s what I hear, but I wouldn’t call that an “explosion”.
Here’s what I don’t understand — why does this subquantum kinetic theory get pushed into this corner? What is it that drives the theory to say that such a thing needs to happen? I don’t know enough to see why this would be so.