the universe inside of us | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
Now online (6)
recycle
Roger Wilco
big
Hyperflake
belb
DADONCK
...and 296 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614317
Today 38
Topics 127557
  
 
Messageboard index
the universe inside of us
 

offline jupitah from Minneapolis (United States) on 2003-02-05 18:40 [#00542701]
Points: 3489 Status: Lurker



atoms are something like 10^-23 times smaller than us and
the universe is something like 10^23 times larger than us.
some mathemetician told a friend of mine that this was not
in fact a profundity because the horizon of the macroscopic
perception would be equally as "distant" logorithmically as
would be the horizon of the microscopic perception. i
cannot figure why this is so and wonder if he was merely
trying to justify the situation without having to question
the limits of logic... being a mathemtician. though if it
is true that there is an logical explanation why this is so,
I am dying to know and speak up if you have any idea.

the ratio of the sun's diameter to its distance from us is
equivilant to the ratio of the moon's diameter to its
distance from us... thus both bodies occupy one half of a
degree of our sky and the full eclipse's are made possible.
the sun fades into darkness like a dialated pupil, the moon
turns fire red.


 

offline fleetmouse from Horny for Truth on 2003-02-05 18:43 [#00542703]
Points: 18042 Status: Lurker



today in the clouds i saw a ducky


 

offline Komakino from Tan-giers USSR (Russia) on 2003-02-05 18:44 [#00542704]
Points: 682 Status: Lurker



http://www.solarphysics.kva.se/NatureNov2002/images/AR10030
_4877_color.jpeg


 

offline jupitah from Minneapolis (United States) on 2003-02-05 18:52 [#00542707]
Points: 3489 Status: Lurker | Followup to Komakino: #00542704



thanks for sharing that. it's beautiful.


 

offline gl1tch from The Meantime (United States) on 2003-02-05 19:35 [#00542747]
Points: 313 Status: Regular



Everything is connected.

The Earth is 75% water - We are 75% water.

Everything is Everything is Everything.


 

offline fleetmouse from Horny for Truth on 2003-02-05 19:36 [#00542748]
Points: 18042 Status: Lurker



i like my bum


 

offline weatheredstoner from same shit babes. (United States) on 2003-02-05 20:21 [#00542763]
Points: 12585 Status: Lurker



Life is in total balance.


 

offline rockenjohnny from champagne socialism (Australia) on 2003-02-05 20:39 [#00542775]
Points: 7983 Status: Lurker | Followup to jupitah: #00542701



wow, thats beautiful



 

offline magiker from Östersund (Sweden) on 2003-02-06 02:44 [#00542896]
Points: 865 Status: Lurker



From my childhood up until I was 23 I thought about things
like these 10^23 times.


 

offline Ceri JC from Jefferson City (United States) on 2003-02-06 02:55 [#00542909]
Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Followup to jupitah: #00542701 | Show recordbag



The distance between the moon and us and us and the sun are
probably related due to the fact they are both orbits-
orbits can only occur within a particular "window" of
distance from the centre of the orbit. Too far away and it'd
fly out of orbit, too near and it'd just fall down to the
centre of the orbit.

The things you mentioned about "atoms are something like
10^-23 times smaller than us and
the universe is something like 10^23 times larger than us"
is quite interesting though.


 

offline bill_hicks from my city is amazing it is calle on 2003-02-06 03:05 [#00542919]
Points: 4286 Status: Lurker | Followup to Ceri JC: #00542909



"something like" leaves a fair bit of leeway either end
though.


 

offline Ceri JC from Jefferson City (United States) on 2003-02-06 03:16 [#00542926]
Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Followup to bill_hicks: #00542919 | Show recordbag



Fair point. I think the point he was making is that we're
roughy "in the middle" of the scale of size of things.


 

offline jupitah from Minneapolis (United States) on 2003-02-06 15:54 [#00543918]
Points: 3489 Status: Lurker | Followup to Ceri JC: #00542909



that's not so because you must consider density. an object
of equal mass, lesser diameter and thus greater density
could occupy the same orbit and it wouldn't occupy the same
amount of sky as the sun.


 

offline jupitah from Minneapolis (United States) on 2003-02-06 15:59 [#00543926]
Points: 3489 Status: Lurker | Followup to bill_hicks: #00542919



the "something like" is only due to my memory. the person
who passed this information to me wasn't giving any leeway.


 

offline Cheffe1979 from fuck (Austria) on 2003-02-06 16:24 [#00543946]
Points: 4630 Status: Lurker



atoms are somewhat 10^-12 times smaller than we (the cores
10^-16) and the universe is at about 10^40 times larger. but
maybe it's that weird system of units you use over there ;)


 

offline gr3nt from Edmond (Bulgaria) on 2003-02-06 16:27 [#00543947]
Points: 2 Status: Regular



the smaller particles we find, the bigger the universe
seems, and we - even more insignificant


 

offline _user from rostov-on-don (Russia) on 2003-02-06 16:41 [#00543964]
Points: 1260 Status: Regular



that's great, but actually i need some time to translate &
realize this. so i've saved this page and i'll read it
offline...i like such things...


 

offline nacmat on 2003-02-06 16:50 [#00543974]
Points: 31271 Status: Lurker



best thread in a month


 

offline nacmat on 2003-02-06 16:53 [#00543975]
Points: 31271 Status: Lurker



I enjoyed reading it... very interesting, but my poor
english wont let me explain clearly what I think


 

offline _user from rostov-on-don (Russia) on 2003-02-06 17:04 [#00543981]
Points: 1260 Status: Regular | Followup to nacmat: #00543975



yeah, i'm quite agree with you


 

offline roygbivcore from Joyrex.com, of course! on 2003-02-06 17:06 [#00543982]
Points: 22557 Status: Lurker



hurrah!


 

offline roygbivcore from Joyrex.com, of course! on 2003-02-06 17:07 [#00543983]
Points: 22557 Status: Lurker



my mind has been pretty fucked lately, regarding the
universe. like how can there be an end to it? but how can
there not?


 

offline AphexAcid from Sweden on 2003-02-06 17:08 [#00543986]
Points: 2568 Status: Lurker



I know the answer of that secret, Roygbivcore, but I will
not tell you, because I promised my mother.


 

offline fleetmouse from Horny for Truth on 2003-02-06 17:17 [#00544003]
Points: 18042 Status: Lurker | Followup to roygbivcore: #00543983



It's okay to not have answers to some questions.

It's okay to doubt.

To try to work out all the universal answers with our
current data set encourages a superstitious cargo cult
mentality.

We know some things and speculate about others, and some
things are just so far over the horizon that they are best
left to science fiction writers.


 

offline jupitah from Minneapolis (United States) on 2003-02-06 18:38 [#00544076]
Points: 3489 Status: Lurker | Followup to roygbivcore: #00543983



i used to think about that a lot as a kid... along with
trying to grasp the concept of there being no beginning of
time, or there being one. i was obsessed with infinity.


 


Messageboard index