| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/15/2011 05:39:28 AM · #1 |
Great little flash program..
BIG!
|
|
|
|
02/15/2011 05:57:29 AM · #2 |
| freakin metric system....was that the "new math" teachers were always talking about when i was in elementary school? if so, it never came, at least not in the U.S. anyway |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 06:02:52 AM · #3 |
Tres cool - nice find!
Similar, for those inclined to explore the mind-bottling: Powers of Ten |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 07:45:25 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Great little flash program..
BIG! |
Very nice! Really puts things in perspective. |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 07:51:41 AM · #5 |
"We're probably not in the center of the Universe."
WHAT?!?!?
|
|
|
|
02/15/2011 08:16:47 AM · #6 |
| My wife says size doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 08:59:32 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
My wife says size doesn't matter. |
She's just trying to be nice... ;-) |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 09:06:15 AM · #8 |
"I like to think that whenever I drink water, I drink Mickey Mouse heads
(0.000000001 m)"
|
|
|
|
02/15/2011 10:13:42 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by larryslights:
"We're probably not in the center of the Universe."
WHAT?!?!? |
Well, by observation, everything seems to be moving away, but that isn't an indicator that we are actually in the center or any such business, but rather, it is simply due to the fact that the things "behind" us are moving more slowly outward (expanding universe) and the things "in front" of us are moving faster, giving the illusion that everything is moving away from us.
Make sense? Of course, early observations did indeed raise the question of "are we in the center of the universe", which we currently do not believe to be the case... :) |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 10:18:00 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
freakin metric system....was that the "new math" teachers were always talking about when i was in elementary school? if so, it never came, at least not in the U.S. anyway |
No, as Professor Tom Lehrer explains in his song New Math, it emphasizes understanding the process rather than ascertaining any particular answer.
The metric system is hardly new -- it was established just after the French Revolution. |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 10:19:20 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by larryslights:
"We're probably not in the center of the Universe."
WHAT?!?!? |
Well, by observation, everything seems to be moving away, but that isn't an indicator that we are actually in the center or any such business, but rather, it is simply due to the fact that the things "behind" us are moving more slowly outward (expanding universe) and the things "in front" of us are moving faster, giving the illusion that everything is moving away from us.
Make sense? Of course, early observations did indeed raise the question of "are we in the center of the universe", which we currently do not believe to be the case... :) |
I don't think this is right. I think the universe is all expanding in spacetime (hypothetically due to inflation). The galaxies are moving away from each other because of this, not because of their linear speed.
Also, relativity would indicate that we are the center of the universe on the large scale. At least we qualify as the center just as much as any other point...
Message edited by author 2011-02-15 10:19:46. |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 10:22:49 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't think this is right. I think the universe is all expanding in spacetime (hypothetically due to inflation). The galaxies are moving away from each other because of this, not because of their linear speed.
Also, relativity would indicate that we are the center of the universe on the large scale. At least we qualify as the center just as much as any other point... |
The clearest explanation I ever heard of why everything looks like it's moving away from us is this:
Imagine that you're cooking a loaf of raisin bread. When you put the pan in the oven, the dough is dense and the raisins are tightly packed. As the bread cooks and the dough rises, the raisins all space out and each grows more distant from the others.
Same thing with the expansion of matter in the universe. |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 10:24:21 AM · #13 |
| I think that's a good example. The thing that is sorta mindbending to think about is that it is SPACE that is growing and causing the galaxies to move, not the galaxies moving themselves. As with the raisin bread, the raisins don't migrate THROUGH the bread, but the bread grows. |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 10:26:17 AM · #14 |
so it like this
AND THE LORD FARTED |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 11:53:37 AM · #15 |
After a certain point it all becomes just theory we can only sea clearly so far inwards or outwards. This is just one dimension, there could be more dimensions that tie the univers together more.
I only see the Sun (today), our Moon (some nights), and those pesky "Giant Earthworms", I try not to have them step on me.
So there really could be MORE Nikon and Canon users out there somewhere!
I also believe in UFO's, if they were Identified, they couldn't be called U-FO's anymore. |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 12:16:06 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by justamistere:
After a certain point it all becomes just theory we can only sea clearly so far inwards or outwards. This is just one dimension, there could be more dimensions that tie the univers together more.
I only see the Sun (today), our Moon (some nights), and those pesky "Giant Earthworms", I try not to have them step on me.
So there really could be MORE Nikon and Canon users out there somewhere!
I also believe in UFO's, if they were Identified, they couldn't be called U-FO's anymore. |
speaking of...
//www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 12:30:00 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't think this is right. I think the universe is all expanding in spacetime (hypothetically due to inflation). The galaxies are moving away from each other because of this, not because of their linear speed.
Also, relativity would indicate that we are the center of the universe on the large scale. At least we qualify as the center just as much as any other point... |
Right... basically, wherever you are will seem to you that you are in the center, because all points are moving away from each other. You perceive that you are at the center of the *observable* universe. The key word is observable, keeping in mind that anything farther away than the age of the universe, you cannot see... yet.
FWIW, galaxies do have motion relative to each other. Individual galaxies are commonly members of groups, all of which are gravitationally bound and in orbit around a common center of mass. the groups themselves may have motion relative to other groups, and be members of "super groups" and so on. Also remember that most of the mass of the universe is not perceivable, being "dark matter." The only way we have of "seeing" this mass is when we look at gravitational lensing effects. |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 12:56:58 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
FWIW, galaxies do have motion relative to each other. |
Presumably galaxies in collision are moving relative to each other ... |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 01:11:05 PM · #19 |
| What are you people talking about? Tivoed American Idol last week, now running off to see. :) |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 01:21:10 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by kirbic:
FWIW, galaxies do have motion relative to each other. |
Presumably galaxies in collision are moving relative to each other ... |
Agreed. But what I did not know, and just learned this last week from Brian Greene's book is this relative motion is so small compared to the inflation motion that it is generally ignored in calculations. I wasn't under that impression previously. |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 01:26:36 PM · #21 |
| I think the universe is only expanding if you accept Einsteinian relativity and the Red-Shift effect -- if God simply made galaxies with different sizes and spectra and pasted them onto the celestial sphere a somewhat different model probably applies ... |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 01:32:08 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think the universe is only expanding if you accept Einsteinian relativity and the Red-Shift effect -- if God simply made galaxies with different sizes and spectra and pasted them onto the celestial sphere a somewhat different model probably applies ... |
Just like dinosaur bones, right? ;) |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 01:59:01 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...But what I did not know, and just learned this last week from Brian Greene's book is this relative motion is so small compared to the inflation motion that it is generally ignored in calculations. I wasn't under that impression previously. |
Indeed, relative motion is very small compared to the inflation-related motion; that's no surprise when we realize that for far-off galaxies, the inflation-related motion is a large proportion of the speed of light! |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 02:11:40 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by larryslights:
"We're probably not in the center of the Universe."
WHAT?!?!? |
Well, by observation, everything seems to be moving away, but that isn't an indicator that we are actually in the center or any such business, but rather, it is simply due to the fact that the things "behind" us are moving more slowly outward (expanding universe) and the things "in front" of us are moving faster, giving the illusion that everything is moving away from us.
Make sense? Of course, early observations did indeed raise the question of "are we in the center of the universe", which we currently do not believe to be the case... :) |
I don't think this is right. I think the universe is all expanding in spacetime (hypothetically due to inflation). The galaxies are moving away from each other because of this, not because of their linear speed.
Also, relativity would indicate that we are the center of the universe on the large scale. At least we qualify as the center just as much as any other point... |
You are quite correct, although I didn't see any point in over elaborating, I'm trying to learn Slippys gift of succinctness.. |
|
|
|
02/15/2011 02:42:53 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
You are quite correct, although I didn't see any point in over elaborating, I'm trying to learn Slippys gift of succinctness.. |
No prob. I think what got me to respond was the idea that there could be a "behind" and a "in front of". These words lead to an incorrect image in one's mind. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/21/2025 05:07:03 AM EDT.
