PDA

View Full Version : Mind-blower! Scale of the Universe



toby
01-29-2010, 06:07 PM
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/525347

warning, corny music enabled.

Intuition
01-29-2010, 06:42 PM
Going to watch. Not sure if I have seen this one or not but I always love this kind of stuff. I was addicted to the Hubble site zoo ins/outs of certain astro pictures.

Really gives you this crazy sense of scale. It doesn't ever really add up realistically because its too huge but seeing how small of a slice of sky some of the epic pictures made in the Hubble really makes the imagination go nuts.

--edit--

Pretty cool little presentation...

This site is a bit old now but presents a similar map.

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/12lys.html

You can go down and see smaller scale stuff as well in lower menus.

shrox
01-29-2010, 07:49 PM
That's pretty neat. I have a program called Celestia that is a universe simulator. It's pretty neat, you can zoom way out of our galaxy, the zoom back into to the Hubble telescope in orbit.

http://www.shatters.net/celestia

jin choung
01-29-2010, 07:59 PM
man that's neat.

love the idea that there are places in the universe so far you can't even see it yet....

jin

ericsmith
01-29-2010, 09:16 PM
love the idea that there are places in the universe so far you can't even see it yet....


But if you go with the big bang theory, that kind of falls down. If everything originated from one point, then unless the objects are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light, then the light from all the objects would already be at every other object.

eric

toby
01-29-2010, 09:27 PM
But if you go with the big bang theory, that kind of falls down. If everything originated from one point, then unless the objects are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light, then the light from all the objects would already be at every other object.

eric
I think the big bang created our universe, but not everything - ?

jin choung
01-30-2010, 12:05 AM
But if you go with the big bang theory, that kind of falls down. If everything originated from one point, then unless the objects are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light, then the light from all the objects would already be at every other object.

perhaps it is illuminating that every physicist and astronomer worth his salt disagrees with you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

read the very first entry under "Misconceptions".

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

jin

GregMalick
01-30-2010, 12:25 AM
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/525347

warning, corny music enabled.

Thanks for sharing the link, Toby.
It really gave Alice & I a "wow" moment.

Mr Rid
01-30-2010, 03:02 AM
perhaps it is illuminating that every physicist and astronomer worth his salt disagrees with you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

read the very first entry under "Misconceptions".

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

jin


Its all a big fat relative guess. 'They' dont know what the hell. Am reminded when a coworker and I once brought in our copies of Cosmology. His copy asserted the universe was collapsing (published in the 60s), and mine stated it was expanding (published in the 80s). Some redshift decimal point moved. Whatever. "Remember, you should always... no wait, you should never..."

Its all darkons
http://www.freakface.com/speedofdark/

Anti-Distinctly
01-30-2010, 03:27 AM
perhaps it is illuminating that every physicist and astronomer worth his salt disagrees with you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

read the very first entry under "Misconceptions".

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

jin

It's all about inflation.
But I see that you already get that from your last link there :)

For those who are interested in cosmology, one of the best lectures I've seen is by Lawrence Krauss A universe from nothing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo).
It is, in the proper use of the word, awesome.

jin choung
01-30-2010, 03:35 AM
Its all a big fat relative guess. 'They' dont know what the hell is going on.

that's not true.

To say that we don't know everything is not the same as "we don't know anything".

It's amazing how folks (including creationists) are so eager to equate the one with the other.

And here's another thing for us lay people - just because WE don't understand it doesn't mean no one does or that it's somehow beyond the grasp of man. It may be beyond your grip. It may be beyond mine.

But that says exactly two things: Jack and sh1it.

Jin

Iain
01-30-2010, 03:45 AM
That's very cool!

serge
01-30-2010, 03:50 AM
Awesome! Thanks for sharing!

probiner
01-30-2010, 05:35 AM
Wow, very nice job here... Thanks for pointing out toby.

doimus
01-30-2010, 07:17 AM
Amazing.... besides the obvious very small/very big stuff that always amaze, it was interesting to see comparison of more objects closer to our scale.

For example, I'm surprised at the size of gap on a CD surface compared to the HIV virus or red blood cell.

And I'm sure I never, EVER want to run into the giant earthworm!

ericsmith
01-30-2010, 01:15 PM
perhaps it is illuminating that every physicist and astronomer worth his salt disagrees with you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

read the very first entry under "Misconceptions".

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

jin

Okay, there is one basic flaw in my reasoning. It basically assumes that any celestial body that emits light has done so from the beginning. But in fact, if a star was born 10 million years ago, and it's 20 million light years away, we won't see it for another 10 million years.

However, to assume that objects could in fact move away faster than the light traveling to us because empty space is expanding... Well, that sounds pretty theoretical to me.

Eric

JeffrySG
01-30-2010, 02:18 PM
I just like how it takes longer to go smaller than humans than it does to go bigger... It's still really hard to begin to grasp....

Mr Rid
01-30-2010, 04:17 PM
that's not true.

To say that we don't know everything is not the same as "we don't know anything".

It's amazing how folks (including creationists) are so eager to equate the one with the other.

And here's another thing for us lay people - just because WE don't understand it doesn't mean no one does or that it's somehow beyond the grasp of man. It may be beyond your grip. It may be beyond mine.

But that says exactly two things: Jack and sh1it.

Jin

My point is, the nature, scale, origin of the universe is all speculation from our limited perspective. It's quarks, the Force, great Spaghetti Monster, a topic for amusement purposes only.

Mr Rid
01-30-2010, 04:19 PM
...
However, to assume that objects could in fact move away faster than the light traveling to us because empty space is expanding... Well, that sounds pretty theoretical to me.

Eric

It is. :thumbsup: Your guess is as good as theirs.

jin choung
01-30-2010, 04:25 PM
Well, that sounds pretty theoretical to me.

again - you're not a scientist. you're not an astronomer.

if it sounds "theoretical to you"... what kind of significance do you imagine that has?

scientists and astronomers believe this to be true. the same scientists who came up with the whole "nothing goes faster than light" thing in the first place.

so it makes no sense for you to use one of THEIR ideas arrived at with THEIR methods to try to take down ANOTHER one of THEIR ideas ALSO arrived at with THEIR methods.

trust me - there are literally thousands of ideas and facts and theories that are beyond your ability to grasp.

AND beyond MY ability to grasp.

but again, just because it doesn't make sense to ME doesn't mean anything.

jin

jin choung
01-30-2010, 04:27 PM
It is. :thumbsup: Your guess is as good as theirs.

hahaha.

no it is not.

your guess vs. the guess of a trained physicist and scientist who has studied these things for decades will make a FAR FAR FAR greater guess than you.

again - your fallacy is that because they don't know EVERYTHING, you assert they don't know ANYTHING.

and IN FACT, they know just as little as a monkey like you.

and like me.

i means srsly.

wtf?

for some reason, do you assume that you can perform heart surgery too? cuz i mean, let's face it, your guess is as good as theirs.... :|

jin

jin choung
01-30-2010, 04:32 PM
My point is, the nature, scale, origin of the universe is all speculation from our limited perspective. It's quarks, the Force, great Spaghetti Monster, a topic for amusement purposes only.

again - you dismiss things you don't understand. many things are theories. gravity is a theory.

it is the height of ignorance for you as a layman to dismiss the theories of scientists.

it's exactly akin to a toddler dismissing their parents warning that fire is hot. "stupid parents - what do they know. it looks pretty and if it's pretty is must be friendly. my guess is as good as theirs."

jin

jin choung
01-30-2010, 04:38 PM
and this is the stupidity and arrogance of the american people in general.

when they dispute things like evolution and global warming.

i mean - WTF DO *THEY* KNOW?

yes, scientists may disagree on points but the LAYPEOPLE CERTAINLY don't know enough to JUDGE BETWEEN THEM!

and yet, people hold tremendously strong opinions on everything.

it's like toddlers strolling in in the middle of a trial and assuming they got everything, all the nuances, all the pros and cons and feel they are capable of making a ruling.

it boggles the mind.

jin

Mr Rid
01-30-2010, 04:38 PM
Again, its all theory and speculation. 'There's 9 planets. Wait, there's 10... no, 8... '

jin choung
01-30-2010, 04:39 PM
Again, its all theory and speculation.

you are not even qualified enough to say THAT.

and when you dismiss THEORY - you are on shaky ground indeed. GRAVITY is a theory.

theory in science is DISTINCT from the colloquial use. to dismiss theory as akin to YOUR hunches and guesses and spaghetti monsters (and SPECULATION for fs sake) is to display your ignorance in grand flashing lights.

jin

jin choung
01-30-2010, 04:43 PM
and because it is just so appropriate:

http://tinyurl.com/89dbh

>sigh<

jin

Titus
01-30-2010, 05:01 PM
Its all a big fat relative guess. 'They' dont know what the hell. Am reminded when a coworker and I once brought in our copies of Cosmology. His copy asserted the universe was collapsing (published in the 60s), and mine stated it was expanding (published in the 80s). Some redshift decimal point moved. Whatever. "Remember, you should always... no wait, you should never..."

Its all darkons
http://www.freakface.com/speedofdark/

Ahem! I know a thing or two about astronomy. You're right about astrophysicists don't know exactly what is going on. What they (we :D) know are some facts like:

-All the stars/galaxies are moving away from each other, this means at some moment they were very close in space (big bang theory)

-The background noise/temperature is the same in all the places of the universe, etc.

What I'm trying to say is there are as much cosmologic ideas as cosmologists. There is no standard cosmology, but all have to addere to the known facts. When I was studying astronomy there were like 4 researchers in the institute working each one in a different universe theory. Of course by that time (1994) we didn't had figured out about the cosmologic constant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant). There was no way to know if the universe was inflationary or not, now we know.

Mr Rid
01-30-2010, 05:14 PM
My fave 'amazing universe' short is from 1960- http://www.nfb.ca/film/Universe/ I cant begin to figure out how the hell they shot some of this.
An obvious 2001 influence. In preparation for making convincing visual FX, Kubrick viewed every film ever made containing space FX shots. Universe was the only example that impressed him, and the same approach of in-camera animation was employed on 2001. Universe co-creator Roman Kroitor went on to be co-creator of Imax.
http://www3.nfb.ca/cinerobot/cinerobotheque/IMG428x321_WEB/60/60009/8.jpg

Another interesting influence of Kroiter's was a recorded conversation of his, sampled in the short film 21-87, an inspiration for George Lucas' THX-1138, as well as the spark for his concept of the Force.
http://www.nfb.ca/playlists/1960s-explosion-creativity/viewing/21-87/

Mr Rid
01-30-2010, 05:20 PM
you are not even qualified enough to say THAT.

and when you dismiss THEORY - you are on shaky ground indeed. GRAVITY is a theory.

theory in science is DISTINCT from the colloquial use. to dismiss theory as akin to YOUR hunches and guesses and spaghetti monsters (and SPECULATION for fs sake) is to display your ignorance in grand flashing lights.

jin

Yes Jin.

Titus
01-30-2010, 05:20 PM
Again, its all theory and speculation. 'There's 9 planets. Wait, there's 10... no, 8... '

I agree with Jin. In a daily life, theory is "just a crazy idea, I'm guessing". In science a theory means something more formal and open to debate but based on facts. Explained by wikipedia:

"A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:

1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class."


Maybe the word you're looking for is hypothesis, a hypothesis is just an idea derived from observation, a "what if..?"

Formally speaking, when you say "it's just a theory", you're not dismissing anything.

shrox
01-30-2010, 06:50 PM
I agree with Jin. In a daily life, theory is "just a crazy idea, I'm guessing". In science a theory means something more formal and open to debate but based on facts. Explained by wikipedia:

"A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:

1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class."


Maybe the word you're looking for is hypothesis, a hypothesis is just an idea derived from observation, a "what if..?"

Formally speaking, when you say "it's just a theory", you're not dismissing anything.

Good distinction there, Felipe.

Mr Rid
01-30-2010, 07:56 PM
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

-German patent clerk

jin choung
01-30-2010, 08:00 PM
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

-German patent clerk

that so has nothing to do with the discussion.

some people do indeed know better than YOU. you're trying to say your opinions are just as valid as trained professionals with years and decades of study, thought and experience.

you see nothing wrong with that?

>shaking head<

jin

Mr Rid
01-30-2010, 08:13 PM
that so has nothing to do with the discussion.

some people do indeed know better than YOU. you're trying to say your opinions are just as valid as trained professionals with years and decades of study, thought and experience.

you see nothing wrong with that?

>shaking head<

jin
It has everythibng to do with the discussion in my mind. Its from one of the famed professionals you seem to be referring to.

Here's another one of Einy's,
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For while knowledge defines all we currently know and understand, imagination points to all we might yet discover and create."

Artists tend to have better developed imagination than scientists. If you can think it, you might be able to do it. Knowledge is not wisdom. And we know how far off track scientists can get when too buried in the numbers.

Any one may stumble into valid insight on the nature of things. A child may notice how the continents seemingly fit together like puzzle pieces, and perhaps grow to pursue a 'theory/hypothesis/hunch or whatever you want to call it. As a kid I remember observing how the living room 'bent' around my finger as I moved it back and forth closely in front of my eye. Someone living 1000 years ago probably noticed the same thing but couldnt Google "diffraction." A young patent clerk may get funny ideas about 'atoms' from simply observing particles jiggling aorund in a drop of water. You may bang your head on the toilet and come up with the flux capacitor.

If big bang expansion and lightspeed dont seem to jive to ericsmith or whoever, then thats how it begins- from an intuition, that Einstein spoke so highly of. Average people come up with great ideas all the time. I mean look at ShamWow!

JonW
01-30-2010, 08:18 PM
Not only are the figures of the universe impossible to get one’s head around!


The telescopes they use are just as remarkable:

1.4 billion pixel cameras continuously adding data.

1000s of tons of equipment.

The thermal & structural movement & forces on this massive piece of equipment.

& each of the mirror panels are massaged & alined continuously not only for each mirror but as a whole set to minimise atmospheric distortion to a fraction of the dimension of the length of light.



& we think we have problems with Lightwave!

shrox
01-30-2010, 08:21 PM
It has everythibng to do with the discussion in my mind. Its from one of the famed professionals you seem to be referring to.

Here's another one of Einy's,
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For while knowledge defines all we currently know and understand, imagination points to all we might yet discover and create."

Artists tend to have better developed imagination than scientists. If you can think it, you might be able to do it. Knowledge is not wisdom. And we know how far off track scientists can get when too buried in the numbers.

Any one may stumble into valid insight on the nature of things. A child may notice how the continents seemingly fit together like puzzle pieces, and perhaps grow to pursue a 'theory/hypothesis/hunch or whatever you want to call it. As a kid I remember observing how the living room 'bent' around my finger as I moved it back and forth closely in front of my eye. Someone living 1000 years ago probably noticed the same thing but couldnt Google "diffraction." A young patent clerk may get funny ideas about 'atoms' from simply observing particles jiggling aorund in a drop of water. You may bang your head on the toilet and come up with the flux capacitor.

If big bang expansion and lightspeed dont seem to jive to ericsmith or whoever, then thats how it begins- from an intuition, that Einstein spoke so highly of. Average people come up with great ideas all the time. I mean look at ShamWow!

I was one of those hyper-observant kids, I drove teachers mad enough to transfer me to another teacher.

ericsmith
01-30-2010, 08:48 PM
and this is the stupidity and arrogance of the american people in general.

when they dispute things like evolution and global warming.

i mean - WTF DO *THEY* KNOW?

yes, scientists may disagree on points but the LAYPEOPLE CERTAINLY don't know enough to JUDGE BETWEEN THEM!

and yet, people hold tremendously strong opinions on everything.

it's like toddlers strolling in in the middle of a trial and assuming they got everything, all the nuances, all the pros and cons and feel they are capable of making a ruling.

it boggles the mind.

I agree that those with more training and knowlege are in a better position to make accurate assesments, but it sounds to me like you're saying that all non-scientists should just be like sheep and blindly believe whatever they're told.

I think it's perfectly valid to look at information provided and make my own decisions as to which of two opposing viewpoints is more supported by evidence, or is more logical and therefore more likely to be right.

I do my best to avoid being dogmatic, but that doesn't mean I decline to ever think for myself.

Eric

ericsmith
01-30-2010, 08:55 PM
I agree with Jin. In a daily life, theory is "just a crazy idea, I'm guessing". In science a theory means something more formal and open to debate but based on facts.

I think it would be more accurate to say based on observation, not facts.

This may seem like mincing words, but it leads to the basic issue here. Theories are classified as such because there are not enough facts to prove them.

Eric

jin choung
01-30-2010, 09:08 PM
I agree that those with more training and knowlege are in a better position to make accurate assesments, but it sounds to me like you're saying that all non-scientists should just be like sheep and blindly believe whatever they're told.

depending on the subject matter... YES!

because on your own, you are WORSE than blind and likely to come up with all kinds of wacky imaginings that have been laid to rest in the scientific community decades ago but you're just not aware of it.

your intuition and evaluation is only as good as the mind behind it AND the information that it has on hand.

YOU have limited information. YOU have limited experience.

and as i pointed out to you already - you don't have a leg to stand on because you ACCEPT one aspect of scientific workproduct (speed of light) while REJECTING another aspect of scientific workproduct arrived at using the same methods to derive the FIRST!

do you see the frailty of that position?

it would be more consistent if you rejected all science completely (including speed of light restrictions) than to take one aspect that you kind of have a grasp and familiarity of and reject another simply because you're not versed in the whys and wherefores.

----------------------------------------------------------------

again - this is the problem with americans in politics and culture. hubris. people thinking they know something when they don't.

people not DEFERRING TO EXPERTS when it makes COMPLETE SENSE FOR THEM TO DO SO.

when it comes to highly technical and complicated disciplines, your "thoughts on the matter" are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

i mean... is that not plain?

is there ANY reason for a heart surgeon to listen to the babblings of a toddler?

in the words of clint eastwood,

"a man's gotta know his limitations."

failure to do so results in catastrophe at worst and a wounded ego at best.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

it's fine to have thoughts of your own and question things. but as a lay person, to put your opinion on the SAME LEVEL as trained experts and to ASSUME *THEY* ARE WRONG is ludicrous.

what is your opinion of the flight procedures of the space shuttle?

IT DOESN'T MATTER. because you don't know what you're talking about.

jin

jin choung
01-30-2010, 09:10 PM
I think it would be more accurate to say based on observation, not facts.

This may seem like mincing words, but it leads to the basic issue here. Theories are classified as such because there are not enough facts to prove them.

Eric

again - GRAVITATION IS A THEORY!!!

you are not understanding what is being said here:

"THEORY" in colloquial usage is DIFFERENT from "THEORY" in SCIENCE. look it up and be shocked at all the things in science that are indeed THEORY.

jin

jin choung
01-30-2010, 09:15 PM
If big bang expansion and lightspeed dont seem to jive to ericsmith or whoever, then thats how it begins- from an intuition, that Einstein spoke so highly of. Average people come up with great ideas all the time.

and average people are the motherfing idiots that wanted to burn copernicus at the stake because he wouldn't kowtow to their notions of common sense!

average people are the people that think evolution is a anti-God lie even though so much of what we know about biology and medicine and genetics would go poof if we were to deny evolution.

average people are the people that thought the original anatomists were ghouls and monsters and were "playing God" (all the time with the "playing God") and mucking with things they should not.

average people are the people that oppress minorities because of their differences because they somehow feel that they're inferior or ungodly.

average people are pretty fing idiotic.

you can have thoughts. you can question.

this is GOOD.

but then based on those moments of musing, to then say that the scientific establishment that has literally centuries of math, observation, experiment and validation on its side is wrong... BECAUSE IT DOESN'T JIVE WITH YOUR GUT INSTINCT is ludicrous.

it's EXACTLY AKIN to a toddler telling his dad to fly the car already, he's tired of the traffic.

HUMILITY means understanding your limitations.

MADNESS is assuming that you are as qualified as anyone else in ALL POSSIBLE DISCIPLINES NO MATTER HOW ESOTERIC OR SPECIALIZED.

"you're the new guy at a nuclear reactor plant. the head technician tells you to push this button but make sure NEVER EVER to push the red button.

but you know what, i just have a gut feeling that i SHOULD push that red button. i mean, i'm just as smart as he is. wtf. why not?"

jin

jin choung
01-30-2010, 09:17 PM
how else DO you form your opinions?

EXACTLY!

if you DIDN'T get your scientific information from scientists WHERE WOULD THAT HAVE COME FROM?!

your baby sister?!

and if you DID get your initial beliefs from scientists IN THE FIRST PLACE, what in the world makes you think that YOU - who are getting ALL THEIR INFO SECOND HAND, can then JUDGE the rest of the workproduct of those same scientists who gave you your initial beliefs?!

:bangwall:




jin

Mike_RB
01-30-2010, 09:20 PM
Can we talk about the relativistic kill vehicles again and the "shoot 1st" principle? :)

shrox
01-30-2010, 09:22 PM
...MADNESS is assuming that you are as qualified as anyone else in ALL POSSIBLE DISCIPLINES NO MATTER HOW ESOTERIC OR SPECIALIZED.

jin

That's worked for me so far...

JMCarrigan
01-30-2010, 10:20 PM
Humans!

cresshead
01-30-2010, 11:19 PM
My fave 'amazing universe' short is from 1960- http://www.nfb.ca/film/Universe/ I cant begin to figure out how the hell they shot some of this.
An obvious 2001 influence. In preparation for making convincing visual FX, Kubrick viewed every film ever made containing space FX shots. Universe was the only example that impressed him, and the same approach of in-camera animation was employed on 2001. Universe co-creator Roman Kroitor went on to be co-creator of Imax.
http://www3.nfb.ca/cinerobot/cinerobotheque/IMG428x321_WEB/60/60009/8.jpg

Another interesting influence of Kroiter's was a recorded conversation of his, sampled in the short film 21-87, an inspiration for George Lucas' THX-1138, as well as the spark for his concept of the Force.
http://www.nfb.ca/playlists/1960s-explosion-creativity/viewing/21-87/

excellent film, thanks for sharing the link:thumbsup:

-EsHrA-
01-31-2010, 03:42 AM
science, logic and reason for teh win! :)

and yes, it is Fact of Gravity.. but since it can always be changed, altered, added upon to enhance our understanding of it...
it will always be called ' Theory of Gravity', 'Evolution Theory' etc.

just because we (science) are humble :)
and dont claim to know everything. (hi religion!)..

mlon

shrox
01-31-2010, 08:41 AM
excellent film, thanks for sharing the link:thumbsup:

I am guessing there was allot of airbrushed glass plates used.

Imagine making something like this, being stuck with black and white film, them next year color becomes affordable...

shrox
01-31-2010, 08:42 AM
science, logic and reason for teh win! :)

and yes, it is Fact of Gravity.. but since it can always be changed, altered, added upon to enhance our understanding of it...
it will always be called ' Theory of Gravity', 'Evolution Theory' etc.

just because we (science) are humble :)
and dont claim to know everything. (hi religion!)..

mlon

Gravity has never been a theory, only how it works is theory. This one scar certainly proves to me gravity is not a theory...

Mike_RB
01-31-2010, 08:51 AM
Gravity has never been a theory, only how it works is theory. This one scar certainly proves to me gravity is not a theory...

Wrong. Again your using the word incorrectly.

shrox
01-31-2010, 08:55 AM
Wrong. Again your using the word incorrectly.

Meant to be silly...and obviously an acquired physical characteristic proves nothing regarding the interaction of gravitons and myself...

Titus
01-31-2010, 11:03 AM
Gravity is in fact not a theory, it's a law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation). The upper level in our scientific method.

It doesn't matter how many times you throw a rock, having the same conditions always will happen the same.

3dworks
01-31-2010, 12:13 PM
not sure if anyone did post this yet, it's a classic about the proportions and dimensions of our universe by charles and ray eames from 1977! see it on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2cmlhfdxuY

and there's also an official website:

http://www.powersof10.com/

markus

probiner
01-31-2010, 12:56 PM
thanks 3Dworks, that's even better.

Cheers

Titus
01-31-2010, 01:11 PM
not sure if anyone did post this yet, it's a classic about the proportions and dimensions of our universe by charles and ray eames from 1977! see it on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2cmlhfdxuY

and there's also an official website:

http://www.powersof10.com/

markus

We have (or had) an exhibit using these images here at the subway in Mexico City.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpqgjwJbWoE

toby
01-31-2010, 03:28 PM
For those who are interested in cosmology, one of the best lectures I've seen is by Lawrence Krauss A universe from nothing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo).
It is, in the proper use of the word, awesome.
LOVE that one.

It's a MUST SEE for anyone interested in this topic!

jin choung
01-31-2010, 03:43 PM
Gravity is in fact not a theory, it's a law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation). The upper level in our scientific method.

It doesn't matter how many times you throw a rock, having the same conditions always will happen the same.

it's both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation

the descriptions of motions are law (newton) but the explanation of why it is what it is (general relativity) is theory (and yet more precise and in fact supersedes newton as noted previously).

(but note that even in the wikipedia article referring to newton's laws that it is frequently referred to as a theory - and even on the NASA website http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sgravity.htm - but exasperatingly, i must once again emphasize that there is a DISTINCT DIFFERENCE between a colloquial "theory" and a scientific one. for further proof see below: )

also, a prominent list of "mere theories" (go to "list of notable theories": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Theories_in_physics

jin

toby
01-31-2010, 04:04 PM
it's both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation

the descriptions of motions are law (newton) but the explanation of why it is what it is (general relativity) is theory (and yet more precise and in fact supersedes newton as noted previously).

(but note that even in the wikipedia article referring to newton's laws that it is frequently referred to as a theory - and even on the NASA website http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sgravity.htm - but exasperatingly, i must once again emphasize that there is a DISTINCT DIFFERENCE between a colloquial "theory" and a scientific one. for further proof see below: )

also, a prominent list of "mere theories" (go to "list of notable theories": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Theories_in_physics

jin
:agree:
To us a 'theory' is "just an idea" - in science, "just an idea" doesn't last 10 seconds - theories are in use every day, astronaut's lives depend on them, and accurate predictions are made using theories. If there's an accepted theory in science, it makes no sense for a non-scientist to deny it.

aurora
02-01-2010, 08:27 AM
I've seen this one and many others but it always blows me away when I look at these scale comparisions.

The only other thing I'll say is while we kinda know what gravity appears to do we still have no real idea what the heck it really is. Its the one thing that is a bigger goal then the Higgs Boson (the media proclaimed God particle) and the Unified Theory. Which I always find strange since solving the quandaries between all Newtonian/Einsteinian models and Quantum models is requisite for solve Unified Theory, meaning gravity too. Physicists are a strange group. Not sure how I stay sane working around them so much.

safetyman
02-01-2010, 10:58 AM
I agree that most of the time scientists know what they're talking about, but you have to agree that many times they are just guessing and don't really know for sure. For instance, 4 days ago the weather report said it was going to snow 1-2 inches; 2 days ago, the report said no snow; on Saturday we got 6 inches of the white stuff.

Many, many "space experts" believe that the Earth and the life on it are rare and that we may be alone in the universe. Carl Sagan and others believed that not only does life exist outside of our "box" but that it's quite a common occurance. The Wiki page about the size of the observable universe stated that it contains about 80 Billion galaxies, with each galaxy containing on average 200-400 Billion stars. The same scientists who say that we are alone are the ancestors of the scientists who believed the Earth was flat in my opinion.

I'm not qualified to second-guess the "experts", but I, like Mr. Rid, have the right to second-guess any theory, hypothesis, opinion, conjecture, rule, statement, or whatever other term you wish to use which may or may not be a fact. Not sure if that made sense. <Ducks and runs out of the room>

Shnoze Shmon
02-01-2010, 06:15 PM
No Enterprise!

It's lame!

:p




And I wanna see that galaxy far far away too! Where's it at?



And really really obviously missing from that part with the "this is as far as we can see" is the "You are here".

No "Made in China" stuck to the quarks either.

Sheesh how lame!

Mr Rid
02-01-2010, 08:42 PM
No Enterprise!

It's lame!

This may be easier for some to grasp universal scale with-
http://www.merzo.net/

geothefaust
02-01-2010, 09:12 PM
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/525347

warning, corny music enabled.

That was awesome! Thanks for sharing it. :)


PS - I liked the music. Reminds me of MOO II (Master of Orion II).

safetyman
02-02-2010, 05:48 AM
Glad you put these "experts" in quotation marks. Because I no of NO expert anywhere (ie. real scientist) who would say these things. Unless of course you are talking about religious fanatic scientists - like those who state that Creationism is a "real science." :bangwall:

Quite the contrary. This is what I'm talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

Mike_RB
02-02-2010, 06:34 AM
Quite the contrary. This is what I'm talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

Ooh! Ooh! While that is one answer to the fermi paradox... The other is everyone is just being quiet, in fear of being preemptivley destroyed, or if they we'rent quiet enough, they've been preemptivley destroyed already.

This is one of those things thats a lot more hypothesis than anything else right now as our sample size of solar systems we've done extensive research on with life and natural selection is equal to 1.

erikals
02-02-2010, 11:41 AM
Gravity vs Intelligent Falling,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8AL9VLth4s

jin choung
02-02-2010, 04:46 PM
Ooh! Ooh! While that is one answer to the fermi paradox... The other is everyone is just being quiet, in fear of being preemptivley destroyed, or if they we'rent quiet enough, they've been preemptivley destroyed already.

This is one of those things thats a lot more hypothesis than anything else right now as our sample size of solar systems we've done extensive research on with life and natural selection is equal to 1.

exactly - this is indeed something where lots of people can guess whatever the f they want and at the end everyone has to admit they don't really fing know....

rare earth ***HYPOTHESIS***.

for the rest of the class, the difference between a hypothesis and a theory is what now....

:|

sigh

jin

shrox
02-02-2010, 05:23 PM
Did anybody try out Celestia? I was just playing with it last night.