See?
http://primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe/
That's a cool visual.
It's also got shit that's very very small.... wow.....
Very cool! I've always been intrigued at how we seem to be at the very middle of these things.
My favorite part: the rubik's cube.
Quote from: Sigmatic on December 04, 2010, 07:37:08 PM
Very cool! I've always been intrigued at how we seem to be at the very middle of these things.
We are in the middle of everything, unless the universe as a whole is rotating.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on December 05, 2010, 05:15:39 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on December 04, 2010, 07:37:08 PM
Very cool! I've always been intrigued at how we seem to be at the very middle of these things.
We are in the middle of everything, unless the universe as a whole is rotating.
In terms of scale, we are about in the middle of sizes, unlesss the scroll bar they made is weird like that.
maybe our knowledge of what is out there is just centered on our own size category.
indeed. Science is looking both up and down, and apparently both the large-scale and the small-scale limits push at their orders of magnitude at a similar pace. Because the scales are logarithmic and the progress isn't, this is probably not nearly as unlikely as it seems. Much less unlikely than us just happening to exist right in the middle of scales of magnitude taken as absolute.
In fact, there is nothing we can say about it because we don't know if the smallest scale we currently know is in fact the smallest scale there is. Same about the largest scales. So the fact that we're right in the middle says a lot more about the limits of scientific progress than about the actual scale structure of the universe.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 05, 2010, 01:23:11 PM
indeed. Science is looking both up and down, and apparently both the large-scale and the small-scale limits push at their orders of magnitude at a similar pace. Because the scales are logarithmic and the progress isn't, this is probably not nearly as unlikely as it seems. Much less unlikely than us just happening to exist right in the middle of scales of magnitude taken as absolute.
In fact, there is nothing we can say about it because we don't know if the smallest scale we currently know is in fact the smallest scale there is. Same about the largest scales. So the fact that we're right in the middle says a lot more about the limits of scientific progress than about the actual scale structure of the universe.
This is what I think about "God".
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 05, 2010, 01:23:11 PM
indeed. Science is looking both up and down, and apparently both the large-scale and the small-scale limits push at their orders of magnitude at a similar pace. Because the scales are logarithmic and the progress isn't, this is probably not nearly as unlikely as it seems. Much less unlikely than us just happening to exist right in the middle of scales of magnitude taken as absolute.
In fact, there is nothing we can say about it because we don't know if the smallest scale we currently know is in fact the smallest scale there is. Same about the largest scales. So the fact that we're right in the middle says a lot more about the limits of scientific progress than about the actual scale structure of the universe.
Exactly. We're in the middle of the scale because we made the scale. I think that any intelligent Arcturus or HIV sized beings capable of coming up with their own scale would find themselves in the middle theirs as well.
It's the same reason why the map on the wall in my school looked like this,
(http://www.world-atlas.us/world-map.gif)
instead of this.
(http://www1.worldbank.org/devoutreach/images34/kaufmann-map.gif)
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 04, 2010, 02:43:25 PM
See?
http://primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe/
i shared this on facebook for awesomeness
I take it back, in terms of meters we're about 9 orders of magnitude larger than the very center of what we've observed. Transistor gates and the like are closer to the middle of the logarithmic scales between the size of the universe and strings.
Right? That's what I'm seeing.
Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on December 06, 2010, 04:00:57 AM
SNIP
It's the same reason why the map on the wall in my school looked like this,
(http://www.world-atlas.us/world-map.gif)
instead of this.
(http://www1.worldbank.org/devoutreach/images34/kaufmann-map.gif)
Yeah, but the map on my school wall never looked like the bottom one.
Quote from: Rumckle on December 06, 2010, 09:23:18 PM
Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on December 06, 2010, 04:00:57 AM
SNIP
It's the same reason why the map on the wall in my school looked like this,
(http://www.world-atlas.us/world-map.gif)
instead of this.
(http://www1.worldbank.org/devoutreach/images34/kaufmann-map.gif)
Yeah, but the map on my school wall never looked like the bottom one.
That's because your convict ancestors were also from the Northern Hemisphere. :D
The upside down version of the globe makes the Americas look distant and unimportant to the grand scheme of things.
I prefer Bucky Fuller's map:
(http://www.stonehouseasset.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/dymaxion_map.71134705.jpg)
This is cool:
Going round in circles
In contradiction to most cosmologists' opinions, two scientists have found evidence that the universe may have existed for ever
http://www.economist.com/node/17626874
Quote from: Telarus on December 07, 2010, 06:40:01 AM
This is cool:
Going round in circles
In contradiction to most cosmologists' opinions, two scientists have found evidence that the universe may have existed for ever
http://www.economist.com/node/17626874
Is repost. I got there first.
Bucky Fuller's map is pretty damn sexy.
I think I want a copy of that map.
Also, just want to point out:
Compare Smallest-sized particle that surgical masks block out to largest known virus.
I think that you can correctly assume the general ratio.
Quote from: Telarus on December 07, 2010, 06:40:01 AM
This is cool:
Going round in circles
In contradiction to most cosmologists' opinions, two scientists have found evidence that the universe may have existed for ever
http://www.economist.com/node/17626874
Dr... ROGER PENROSE??? :eek:
Quote from: Nigel on December 16, 2010, 06:34:35 AM
Quote from: Telarus on December 07, 2010, 06:40:01 AM
This is cool:
Going round in circles
In contradiction to most cosmologists' opinions, two scientists have found evidence that the universe may have existed for ever
http://www.economist.com/node/17626874
Dr... ROGER PENROSE??? :eek:
Secret British scientist. :lulz:
:lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on December 16, 2010, 06:34:35 AM
Quote from: Telarus on December 07, 2010, 06:40:01 AM
This is cool:
Going round in circles
In contradiction to most cosmologists' opinions, two scientists have found evidence that the universe may have existed for ever
http://www.economist.com/node/17626874
Dr... ROGER PENROSE??? :eek:
That roger and our roger are related. He's said as much before.