Comparing the Macro to the Micro

R

reactor1967

Quantum Scribe
Here is a question I have been trying to get my mind to grasp. How small is a planet like earth when compared to the entire universe? What I come up with is that there really is no comparing the two when it comes to size. The only thing I could think of would be maybe comparing an electron to the size of the earth or comparing an electron to the size of the solar system something on that scale. It is a mind boggling question. What would the scale be like between the earth and the entire universe? And so, how small are humans in that picture?
 
I think human size is about halfway between atomic and universal size. Sort of average-- which is about what you would expect. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/devil.gif
 
Reactor,

If you compare the radius of the visible universe, about 45 billion LY, to the radius of the Earth the result is that the radius of the universe is about 19 orders of magnitude (powers of 10) larger than the Earth.

If you compare the radius of the Earth to the classical radius of a proton the Earth is larger than the proton by about 23 orders of magnitude.

The comparison is pretty good even though the Earth is about 10,000 times larger than a proton as compared to the Earth-Universe ratio. When you're talking about 20 or so orders of magnitude 10,000 times larger is almost "equal".
 
Reactor,

If you compare the radius of the visible universe, about 45 billion LY, to the radius of the Earth the result is that the radius of the universe is about 19 orders of magnitude (powers of 10) larger than the Earth.

If you compare the radius of the Earth to the classical radius of a proton the Earth is larger than the proton by about 23 orders of magnitude.

The comparison is pretty good even though the Earth is about 10,000 times larger than a proton as compared to the Earth-Universe ratio. When you're talking about 20 or so orders of magnitude 10,000 times larger is almost "equal".
Click to expand...

Thank you Darby.
 
Reactor,

You're welcome. As you can see, you're original instinct on the relative sizes was pretty close.
 
Isn't the idea to simply "agree" upon a scale?
That is, once one major point of conjecture is proven;

Finite Vs. Infinite

Without that defined it's quite meaningless.

Even with that defined, if there are an infinite number of possible parallel universes for example, everything is quite small, even a singular universe in comparison.

So in reality - with as much as we know, for now isn't it really just the agreeance upon a scale to visual a sense of greatness vs. the miniscule for sake of metaphor or mind's eye?

We can give any scale or ratio that gives a "sense" of significance, IE;
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000^100,000,000,000 : 1

Though we all know 3 + 3 = 6

3 dogs plus 3 cats does not equal 6 dogs or cats, but rather animals - which is only a generalization, and shows an original flaw in context to the assignment of value.

So in retrospect, I guess it's good to keep some things not defined, and just generalized

Though how long do we wait before revisiting?

I guess that's what we call advances in science and new discoveries.
It will be interesting to see what Hubble's successor will soon show, I hope it gets as much financing as possible from as many sources as possible.
(Wonder if they'll design it to try and reflect the known danger of space junk now? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif )
 
I guess that's what we call advances in science and new discoveries.
It will be interesting to see what Hubble's successor will soon show, I hope it gets as much financing as possible from as many sources as possible
Click to expand...

Even with Hubble and its successor(s) understanding this universe completely may be a long time off and the people alive now may not live long enough to learn a lot of its truths. But, it is still interesting to ponder it.
 
The universe is easy to understand. Humans, on the other hand, not so much.
Click to expand...

Well I have always enjoyed watching people try to work together. You have the people who try to lead even if they have no leadership ability then they try to bully. The people that want to lead don,t want to work they just want to lead for there own reasons. Then there are the people that follow the leader. Those are the interesting people. They are kind of like a school of fish following the leader. They don,t care who is the leader as long as everyone in the group is following that one person. Then there are the people that do the work. They are the loyal ones just doing their jobs. They don,t care about the leaders or the followers there are just there because they have to be. Put all these people into one room at a work place and that is your normal every day work environment. I left out one or two people because they are the ones that come and go. They serve only a short term purpose. And put a few leaders together then you have conflict which will resolve itself sooner or later. Of course now we could break these people down into there own different groups but no need to go there.

But people all share the same qualities. They will survive at the expense of others that is mostly always a given. They tend to only care about the ones in their group or family. Kind of like a wolve pack. The ones outside of the pack are for competing against or beating in some way. The people in the group have a pecking order. Each group of people have what is normal and un-normal for their group. What is normal in one group of people is un-normal in another group of people. People with or without laws will always do very bad things to other people. That is human nature.
As a human it is hard for me to understand how we hold society together at all. I am pretty sure we will destroy each other and maybe our planet too.

And with most people I found that feelings are a wast of energy. It is best not to love or hate. Not to care or be angry or show anger. At the same time though not to show indifferentiance but rather to be polite and comunicate and work effectly with them. Then go home and forget about them and do it again the next day. And one thing with people leave work at work and home at home. Ever mix the two very much and it usually spells trouble some where down the road. If nothing else ones personal life gets spread at work. I knew a director once that made a habit of letting his wife visit him at work. Well she talked it up with the secretaries and before long everyone knew every little thing about him. It is amazing how females can do that. So, he had to stop letting his wife come to work and had a very frank talk with the secretaries. The giggles died down and the talked stopped but the damage was done.

So people may be smart but down deep inside people are just acting out the way animals do in the wild but doing so in their own little manners. The universe on the other hand does not care. It has no sense of right or wrong and anything goes. I have much more respect for my universe than I do for my fellow mankind. But, we are a creation of our universe. We are being tested. If we fail the test we will no longer be allowed to exist by our universe. You see, in our universe the smart and strong survive and the weak and stupid die. That is one of the laws of our universe.
 
I love a good stereotype, but don't you agree that the environmental variables associated with each task in said group schema could alter the outcomes on an individual basis greatly?
IE;
One person whom is a part of the school of fish during one work exercise may act very differently if there is lack of interest or area of expertise as compared likewise with said variable change?

I suppose we would all have to be on agreeance on an unspoken topic in direct relevance to the aforementioned; otherwise once again the generalization would just be too broad for speculation ^^

Makes me wonder in a very general sense, in and of itself; if pattern is key, or if variable?
Now there's an interesting conjecture...

/ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
reactor,

Ever mix the two very much and it usually spells trouble some where down the road. If nothing else ones personal life gets spread at work. I knew a director once that made a habit of letting his wife visit him at work. Well she talked it up with the secretaries and before long everyone knew every little thing about him. It is amazing how females can do that. So, he had to stop letting his wife come to work and had a very frank talk with the secretaries. The giggles died down and the talked stopped but the damage was done.
Click to expand...

You know, I read your post a couple of days ago and was just going to let it go. But upon reading it again, I'm sorry. I feel compelled to respond.

The paragraph is stated in the omniscient voice - all knowing - a typical device used in novels. The omniscient voice requires that you either are God, was a percipient witness to the events described, based the statements on rumor or made it up. There is no other alternative.

How did you know that she "talked it up with the secretaries". Did you work in the secretarial pool? How do you know that he "stopped allowing" his wife to visit? Did one of them confide in you personal and confidential spouse-spouse communication? How do you know that he had a "frank conversation" with the secretaries? Were you present? And what's so amazing about "females" in the sense that they communicate in some particular manner at work? How is it different from male communication? Do you spent a great deal of time hanging out in the secretarial pool at work?

Do I have a point? Yep. I read for content. I question what appear to be spurious statements especially when they are used as the justification for a straw dog argument. Come on, Reactor. There are just a few more classifications, styles and motivations among leaders than proffered in your thesis. Maybe you're just reflecting a lack of experience with a wide range of leadership styles rather than making a valid statement about the general world of leadership.
 
I agree, there's so many unspoken variables in each personal perception of a situation and not to mention personal interaction nuances that are, for lack of a better way to put it, custom to every distinct relationship.
Stereotyping; what a beast, but I think we all fall victim to it from time to time.
Though the thought of breaking a stereotype while conscious of a somewhat negative one at that - might be rewarding; anything that remains in popculture (not necessarily perceived or being as negative mind you) for any duration reasonably is, or becomes the meaning of a stereotype - so to try and do this 100% of the time would be very taxing.
I think it's a positive reminder that while some of us may be speaking with 'cruise control' on, there are those of us diligent to still use a 'manual transmission'.
- great metaphor eh? lol.

Though I'm not quite sure about the "speaking in the God sense" - when there are definately those of use that communicate differently (some of us prefer to be more visual with metaphors, other straight to formula of logic, etc);
I find it's a stereotype of communication classification in and of itself, whereas I would surmise the speaker was counting on the respondent to get a general sense of empathy from what was communicated, at least in this example.
Once again, I guess that comes down to the mutual respect for another's perceived POV on life and the individual experience.
Not to mention that God is alot of different things to alot of different people.
Modern Polytheism VS. Monotheism

Reference Source

Polytheism still represents much of the world today. Except for the monotheistic (belief in one God) religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, most of the world's religions are overwhelmingly polytheistic. Polytheism characterizes the beliefs of Hinduism, Mahayana Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism and Shintoism in the East, and also contemporary tribal religions in Africa and the Americas.

(I had to check that website I quoted to make sure there wasn't a different modern term being accepted for "Polytheism" - as well I do not personally endorse any of the mentioned religious practices necessarily, the purpose of it's inclusion was strictly for unbiased exemplification /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif )

Great food for thought guys (& gals
).
 
it would be like comparing nothing to something.
Click to expand...

For such a "at first glance" - seemingly simple statement, that one actually made me think ^^
Is half of something as well half of nothing?
Hear me out, I know it sounds silly but -
It seems really quite relative (as most things in life)
IE:
- If you take a known quantity of only ONE (one distinct unique unit that is of existence)
- Halve it by dispelling the other half out of existence by whatever effective means
Now prior to the above steps, one would have laid out the "idea" of a unit of measurement;
the full area, and the outcome based on incremental assignment.
After the outcome, if the object were indeed the only one of it's existence - we would then have half of something and half of nothing to base prior measurement and observation on, would we not?

I wonder if Plato and Socrates would have fun with this one lol.
 
Though I'm not quite sure about the "speaking in the God sense" - when there are definately those of use that communicate differently (some of us prefer to be more visual with metaphors, other straight to formula of logic, etc);
Click to expand...

The "God sense" that I was refering to was limited to the omniscient POV narrative form used in many novels. The narrator is able to see all character actions and describes all of the inner motivations and thoughts of the characters. Obviously, in the real world no one has that ability.

If works quite well in telling a fictional story. But when a non-fiction story teller uses the technique that's the time for the reader to question just how the writer came into posession of the details. It usually comes down to an expression of an opinion rather than a fact.
 
I always use first person unless using metaphors
(second person is more suited for that I find)
Third person about oneself I find annoying lol.

^^

Would what we were speaking about be regarded as speaking in the 4th? (little humor there
)
 
Back
Top