Again, you're going to have to explain what relevance the difficulties we have forecasting the behaviour of a complex, chaotic system has to the straightforward observation
of galaxies. I mean, they're galaxies.
Right there, in a picture in front of you. I'm struggling to understand what you think can have gone wrong
Let's use the same kind of analogy you've employed. If I want to take a picture of a basketball, I can do that close up, right? But if I want to take a picture of 1500
basketballs, all spaced out, I have no option but to do so from further away. With a standard 28mm lens on a 35mm camera, and allowing 4 square feet of floor per basketball, I would need to be roughly 90 feet up in the air to fit them all in the frame.
Now imagine I want to take that same picture with an extreme telephoto lens, equivalent to peeking through a dime-sized hole seventy-five feet away. In order to see all those basketballs through that hole, they're going to have to be a bit further away. Almost nineteen miles
Now make them 1500 earth-sized planets. It's a straightforward scaling up of similar triangles: now I'd have to be almost 2,000,000,000 miles away. 1500 suns? 217,011,334,736 miles away. 1500 solar systems (just out to pluto, not including the comets)? 919,679,070,315,789 miles away, or 156LY. If we include the comets, that becomes 2,299,197,675,789,472,500 miles.
But we aren't looking at basketballs, planets, or solar systems. We're looking at galaxies
, giving us a whopping 145,473,622,268,931,148,838,190 miles or 24,746,725,672 LY. Now, that's actually rather more
than the measured distance to those galaxies, mainly because I'm assuming they're all laid out flat. To get a more accurate estimate we need to think about looking through a 'cone' of space, with galaxies at different distances.
But I dunno - maybe I'm just swallowing all this without really thinking about it