# HOW BIG ARE WE O/T N/T



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

I found this very interesting. I am surprised that Dwight has not posted this


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

cool! 

Ithaca NY has a scale model of the solar system.. 
the sun is about a foot across, then mercury, venus, earth and mars are nearby..(earth is about the size of a BB) 
then you have to walk several blocks to get to jupiter and saturn..pluto is about a mile away.. 

http://stephenfrug.blogspot.com/2006/12/carl-sagans-ithaca-memorial.html 

(there are a few other scale solar systems around the country..and the world) 

Scot


----------



## Mike O (Jan 2, 2008)

JJ, 

Very cool pictures. Thanks. 

Mike


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

There's a scale model of the solar system in Peoria. The sun is the dome of the planitarium by the river. The planets are scattered throughout the city. Earth is inside a shop near the back. 

Amazing, isn't it? He could have made the earth, and put a heater nearby to keep it warm, but he made it so big it has to be 100 million miles away. And that's an itty bitty one


----------



## Engineercub (Oct 18, 2008)

Is it real or just 1:29 JJ? lol


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Torby on 04/03/2009 7:07 AM
There's a scale model of the solar system in Peoria. The sun is the dome of the planitarium by the river. The planets are scattered throughout the city. Earth is inside a shop near the back. 

Amazing, isn't it? He could have made the earth, and put a heater nearby to keep it warm, but he made it so big it has to be 100 million miles away. And that's an itty bitty one


Peoria used to have the largest scale model of the solar system:

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/11386

but now there is a larger one in Maine!

http://www.umpi.maine.edu/info/nmms/solar/sunnow.htm 

(notice the link "to mercury" at the bottom of the page)

and the largest model of the solar system in the world is in progress in Sweden, but not yet complete:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_Solar_System 
so for now, Maine still holds the record..
http://ttt.astro.su.se/swesolsyst/
http://www.umpi.maine.edu/info/nmms/solar/ 
Scot


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

To put some of this in context, You Are Here:


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Thank you JJ!!!

That is a very interesting series of pictures. The names of the stars I always associate with the books of E.E.Smith Ph.D... I always loved the Rigellians -especially his description of the "normal" mode of Rigellian driving!!! When the driver is blind and deaf and the highly dented car is made of 1.5 inch thick steel. The following line has always been used by my friends as a "tease".


"Atmospheric Vibrations? Atmospheric *VIBRATIONS*?? _Atmospheric_ vibrations???"


regards

ralph


----------



## jlinde (Jan 2, 2008)

That's a wonderful representation - I'd never seen it taken as far as Antares! Perhaps an alternative title for this string could "How small we are." Makes the pre-Copernicus/Galileo "theory" of geocentrism (i.e., that the earth is the center of the universe) seem especially absurd.


----------



## markperr (Jan 7, 2008)

It gives one pause as to his or her relevance in the big scheme of things, eh?

Mark


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Two comments...

Every time I see a new drawing of the Milkway galaxy that shows the relative position of the Solar system, its position is very different from the previous drawing. Sometimes it is shown as being way out on the end of one of the spiral arms and sometimes it is very much closer to the center. Do any astromomers REALLY know where it is?


Seems strange to me that when I look up at the night sky I don't see that huge mass of stars in the center of the Milkyway galaxy. I recognize that there might be more stars in the center of a galaxy, but those drawings always show it as such a huge mass.

Compare the number of stars that the drawings show to lights in a city. "IN" the city you can see the individual lights that are relatively close but the farther away ones are quite dim and indistinct. Fly away from the city and the lights all combine into one mass of lights, but the entire mass becomes extremely small as you move farther away.

That mass of stars in the drawing would have to fill almost the entire night sky during about 1/2 of the year and I have never seen such a mass. Yes, I have been in the totally dark countryside and looked at various times of the year and they just do not exist as the drawing suggests.


One more thing... as to the "center" of it all.

Have you ever played with an old mechanical clock with lots of gears? Two plates with multiple gears suspended on axles between them, each gear meshing with two other gears such that they all turn when one turns. Usually there is a key of some sort sticking out one side to wind the mainspring. Each gear revolves on its own axle and some revolve on just one concentric axle (Hour, minute and second hands).

(Imaging breaking the Escapement mechanism such that when you wind the mainspring the clock will run at max speed to unwind it... this makes it easier to imagine the interactions of the gears... or go get a clock and do it for real!)

If you hang onto the hour hand such that it is the "Center" of this 2 dimensional "Clock universe" that the two plates, axles and gears move in. Everything orbits that "center" while at the same time orbiting on their own (axle).

Now, instead, grasp the key for winding the mainspring. It is turning as the gears turn to unwind the spring. The whole "Clock universe" will now orbit around that "center". If you could extend any of the other axles such that you could hold this "Clock universe" by that point, the rest of the components would orbit that center while still orbiting their own axle.

Toss the whole thing into the air, giving it some spin in some odd direction. There will be a "center" to that spin you just gave it and that would then be the center that the whole thing is orbiting about.

BUT, to any "Clock being" living on any one of the gears, the center of their perceived "Clock universe" would be the axle that their gear is rotating on. 

If the Earth we are living on is rotating on its "axis" then is not the Earth is the center of our Universe?


----------



## GG (Jan 1, 2009)

Now, no one has tried to insert their big boy or triplex... 

shame... would make a difference. 

gg


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Sometimes it is shown as being way out on the end of one of the spiral arms and sometimes it is very much closer to the center. Do any astronomers REALLY know where it is?
Roughly 2/3 the way out from the galactic center. BTW, it was only recently discovered that our Milky Way is a "barred spiral." Older illustrations don't show the bar in the center. 
Seems strange to me that when I look up at the night sky I don't see that huge mass of stars in the center of the Milky Way galaxy.
The intervening distance between Earth and the galactic center is full of dust and gas which blocks much (most) of the visible light. Look at an infrared photo from Spitzer sometime. Even more impressive images will be available once the James Webb telescope launches in 2013 with a 21.5 foot diameter aperture. 
That mass of stars in the drawing would have to fill almost the entire night sky during about 1/2 of the year and I have never seen such a mass. Yes, I have been in the totally dark countryside and looked at various times of the year and they just do not exist as the drawing suggests.
The naked eye with the best visual acuity is limited to seeing magnitude 6.6 to 7.0 under ideal conditions. It takes a 20" scope to see 19th magnitude stars. Fainter stars require en even bigger scope. Bottom line, they are there, but are just too distant and dim for your eye to detect. Also, as I said before, our galaxy is full of dust and gas - the stuff of future generations of stars - which blocks much of the light when looking towards our own galaxy. Much of the really distant stuff we can therefore see is in directions away from the center or above or below same. 
If the Earth we are living on is rotating on its "axis" then is not the Earth is the center of our Universe?
Ahhhh... a philosophical question! This same question was "at the center" of astrology falling into disfavor during "the Enlightenment." A question well worth pondering.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

I am surprised that Dwight has not posted this 
I think I may have a few years back.  Can't remember now.


----------



## Truthman (Dec 13, 2008)

They really don't agree whether or not the earth is or isn't center of the earth. I do think Geocentrists make a great case for the earth being the center of the universe.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

I have known an awful lot of folk that believe the Universe rotates around themselves.









Thus I have come to the conclusion that the Universe is multi-centered....









(Put that in your smoke and pipe it!) Oops... I forgot to add a smelly to soften that Spoonerism. I wasn' trying to be obnoxious, it just comes naturally!







) 











There, that is two of them to make up for it.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

I do think Geocentrists make a great case for the earth being the center of the universe.
Geocentrists as in who? I have never met anyone who still thinks earth is the center of the Universe. Then again, I've never met anyone who still believes the earth is flat either, but I hear they still exist.  I HAVE met people who believe some very peculiar things (by general definition), and I have no doubt that some of my own beliefs would be held to be very peculiar by general definition as well. hehehe
I have known an awful lot of folk that believe the Universe rotates around themselves.
Ain't that the sad truth (boy, could I ever run with THIS one - but I won't get political)!!!! 
Thus I have come to the conclusion that the Universe is multi-centered.... 
More and more, quantum mechanics and cosmology are embracing the idea of a "multi-verse" though there are still several possible definitions. Personally, I find it immensely fascinating that the more we learn, the more "the truth" resembles what mystics have been saying for thousands of years... the real difference being that rather than having an inner experience, science arrives at similar conclusions via complex mathematical equations.


----------



## John Allman (Jan 2, 2008)

Dwight - As Im sure you know, the universe is finite but unbounded. Therefore all places are the center of the universe - including the Earth. Or you can say there is no center of the universe - its all the center. Of course, that is not the context that a geocentrist uses. 

On the other hand, did you know that there are only 10 kinds of people in the world? The ones who know binary, and the ones that don't.


----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

OMG J.J. is learning how to use his computer better. We are all in trouble now!!!!! Hee hee LOL The Regal


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By John Allman on 04/25/2009 8:53 AM
Dwight - As Im sure you know, the universe is finite but unbounded. Therefore all places are the center of the universe - including the Earth. Or you can say there is no center of the universe - its all the center. Of course, that is not the context that a geocentrist uses. 

On the other hand, did you know that there are only 10 kinds of people in the world? The ones who know binary, and the ones that don't.



"finite but unbounded" seems to be a bit of an oxymoron... like "Military Intelligence" or "Jumbo Shrimp", or "Microsoft Works".


It is a bit embarrassing to admit this, after 40 years as a programmer, one who invented programming languages and operating systems and considered himself as a "bit pusher" (machine language programmer) and could add, subtract, multiply and divide in binary (in my head!)... I had to have that (10 kinds of people) joke explained to me!







(Embarrassing, I tell ya, embarrassing!)


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

I had to have that (10 kinds of people) joke explained to me! (Embarrassing, I tell ya, embarrassing!)
"10" in binary 10 = 2 (One in the "two's" place, zero in the "one's" place). Get it? hehehe Had to think about it for a minute. 

"Finite but unbounded" - hmmmmm.... if, as current multi-verse theories propose, our universe exists within one expanding bubble of spacetime among many expanding bubbles of spacetime, is there a boundary? One's common sense would certainly think there would have to be. However, "common sense" seldom seems to apply at scales of the very large and the very small. I don't remember ever seeing that question addressed, and I sure don't have a clue. But the idea that "all places are the center of the universe - including the Earth" is well taken. From a psychological point of view, we each view the world (universe) from a vantage point that we are the center. We really have no choice in the matter, as all the data we take in comes through our own senses. That doesn't mean we are all narcissisists, though in a sense one could also make an argument for that too, depending upon the definition. 

Still, if Geocentrism was the reason certain philosophical ideas fell into disfavor, an argument could be made that this is an invalid reason since, as we've both pointed out, from our point of view, we ARE the center of everything we see and experience, even from a scientific point of view.

Back onto "how big are we", here's an interesting scrap of information from Scientific American... 
*
"The simplest and most popular cosmological model today predicts that you have a twin in a galaxy about 10 to the 10(28) meters from here. This distance is so large that it is beyond astronomical, but that does not make your doppelganger any less real. The estimate is derived from elementary probability and does not even assume speculative modern physics, merely that space is infinite (or at least sufficiently large) in size and almost uniformly filled with matter, as observations indicate. In infinite space, even the most unlikely events must take place somewhere. There are infinitely many other inhabited planets, including not just one, but infinitely many that have people with the same appearance, name, and memories as you, who play out every possible permutation of your life choices.*

*"You will probably never see your other selves. The furthest you can observe is the distance that light has been able to travel during the 14 billion years since the big bang expansion began. The most distant visible objects are now about 4 X 10(26) meters away - a distance that defines our observable universe, also called our Hubble volume, our horizon volume or simply our universe. Likewise, the universes of your other selves are spheres of the same size centered on their planets. They are the most straightforward examples of parallel universes. Each universe is merely a small part of a large "multiverse."*

BTW, this isn't the same kind of multi-verse I was referring to when talking of boundaries. Many theories of the multi-verse exist.

Wow!! An infinite number of JJ's with Train Engineers!!! VERY scary thought!!!  Even stranger, if *"infinitely many that have people with the same appearance, name, and memories as you, who play out every possible permutation of your life choices"* is true, there must be a JJ out there somewhere who always chose to pay attention to the location of his train and has never had a single crash!!! 









(how's that for including trains in even the most remotely off-topic discussion? hehehe)


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

I told the boss we wuz gonna have big trouble moving those by rail!


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Dwight Ennis on 04/25/2009 12:35 PM


I had to have that (10 kinds of people) joke explained to me! (Embarrassing, I tell ya, embarrassing!)
"10" in binary 10 = 2 (One in the "two's" place, zero in the "one's" place). Get it? hehehe Had to think about it for a minute. 

"Finite but unbounded" - hmmmmm.... if, as current multi-verse theories propose, our universe exists within one expanding bubble of spacetime among many expanding bubbles of spacetime, is there a boundary? One's common sense would certainly think there would have to be. However, "common sense" seldom seems to apply at scales of the very large and the very small. I don't remember ever seeing that question addressed, and I sure don't have a clue. But the idea that "all places are the center of the universe - including the Earth" is well taken. From a psychological point of view, we each view the world (universe) from a vantage point that we are the center. We really have no choice in the matter, as all the data we take in comes through our own senses. That doesn't mean we are all narcissisists, though in a sense one could also make an argument for that too, depending upon the definition. " src="http://www.mylargescale.com/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/smile.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" />

Still, if Geocentrism was the reason certain philosophical ideas fell into disfavor, an argument could be made that this is an invalid reason since, as we've both pointed out, from our point of view, we ARE the center of everything we see and experience, even from a scientific point of view.

Back onto "how big are we", here's an interesting scrap of information from Scientific American... 
*
"The simplest and most popular cosmological model today predicts that you have a twin in a galaxy about 10 to the 10(28) meters from here. This distance is so large that it is beyond astronomical, but that does not make your doppelganger any less real. The estimate is derived from elementary probability and does not even assume speculative modern physics, merely that space is infinite (or at least sufficiently large) in size and almost uniformly filled with matter, as observations indicate. In infinite space, even the most unlikely events must take place somewhere. There are infinitely many other inhabited planets, including not just one, but infinitely many that have people with the same appearance, name, and memories as you, who play out every possible permutation of your life choices.*

*"You will probably never see your other selves. The furthest you can observe is the distance that light has been able to travel during the 14 billion years since the big bang expansion began. The most distant visible objects are now about 4 X 10(26) meters away - a distance that defines our observable universe, also called our Hubble volume, our horizon volume or simply our universe. Likewise, the universes of your other selves are spheres of the same size centered on their planets. They are the most straightforward examples of parallel universes. Each universe is merely a small part of a large "multiverse."*

BTW, this isn't the same kind of multi-verse I was referring to when talking of boundaries. Many theories of the multi-verse exist.

Wow!! An infinite number of JJ's with Train Engineers!!! VERY scary thought!!! " src="http://www.mylargescale.com/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/wink.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" /> Even stranger, if *"infinitely many that have people with the same appearance, name, and memories as you, who play out every possible permutation of your life choices"* is true, there must be a JJ out there somewhere who always chose to pay attention to the location of his train and has never had a single crash!!! 









(how's that for including trains in even the most remotely off-topic discussion? hehehe)





I used to read "Scientific American" magazine and really loved it. I felt that I was much more knowledgeable about all sorts of things and so understood so much more than others who didn't read the magazine.









Then two things happened...

1) They had an article about birds and how they learn to not eat poisonous plants. Hmmm... that seemed so logical to me... eat a poison plant... die. Period. Only birds that didn't eat poisonous plants could procreate and thus "Natural Selection" accomplished the fact. Well, apparently there are some that do "learn" this fact by becoming ill and regurgitating the poisonous material. The disturbing part of the article was that they had to demonstrate the action with a silhouette drawing in 4 panels. The drawing was of a small twig with a couple of leaves and some "berries" hanging from one end. The first panel showed a bird alighting on the twig and the caption said so. The second showed the bird bending over to put one of the berries in its beak and the caption said, "The bird eats the berry." The next panel showed the bird just sitting on the twig and the caption said the same thing. The last panel showed the bird bending over with the silhouette of drops coming from the bird's beak. The caption said the bird vomited the poisonous berries.

Why it was necessary to show a silhouette of a bird barfing is beyond me and really made me wonder about the editorial control of the magazine.









2) Then they had an article about computers... something I already knew something about!







Wow, an article that I felt maybe I could really learn more from.









I was shocked at the amount of misinformation and error in the article! Right now I can only remember the worst of the errors. It stated that computers no longer use Binary to do calculations (BTW, this was way back in the 1970's!) It said that computers really work in Octal so that calculations are faster and it takes less memory and circuitry to store and manipulate data.









Now, I can understand that those that know nothing about computers might read that and feel like they know something new. But, those same people would recognized the stupidity of a statement such as, "To save money I buy my milk in single one gallon containers instead of 4 quarts in a single container." Come on, you know that a gallon of milk in one jug is the same as 4 quarts in one jug... they are the exact same thing and take the exact same about of container material because it is just one container amd the qiantity is the same ... right?

Octal is just a convenient way for us humanoids to remember strings of Binary data... it is just grouping 3 Binary bits together so we can remember one name for the value and sequence of three digits instead of remembering the three individual values themselves... remember "one" for "three". Examples.... "101" is named "5", "100" is named "4", "101 100 001 010" is named "5412"... whole lots easier to remember "5412" instead of "101100001010"... but in the computer it is always worked on and stored as the Binary "101100001010"... ALWAYS. It takes just as much computer circuitry and storage to store one Octal value as to store 3 Binary bits. It takes 4 Octal digits to make a 12 bit word, but it takes the same amount of circuitry and storage to store those 12 Binary bits even if we (humans) might like to refer to them as just 4 Octal values.

Today instead of using Octal, we tend to use Hexadecimal to refer to groups of 4 Binary bits, using the letters 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E' and 'F' to represent the values in excess of the digits '0' through '9'. but it is no better for the computer because it still takes the same amount of circuitry to work with 1 Hex digit as to work with 4 Binary digits. It is just easier for us Humanoids to remember a short string of Hex digits instead of a 4 times longer string of Binary digits... i.e.: 

The binary value: "0001 0010 0011 1110 1111 1000 0000 1010" = "123EF80A" in Hex. 

Granted, 8 Hex digits are not "easy" to remember, but they are a while lot easier to remember and write down than 32 Binary digits! But it is no different inside the computer.

Anyway... There were so many errors of a similar nature in that "Scientific American" magazine computer article that it really called into question what I thought I had learned over the years of reading the magazine...Does anyone know any REAL information about Nuclear Energy after reading a Scientific American magazine article about Nuclear Energy? How about how birds learn about poisonous plants? Or, what do you know now about the Universe that has any relationship to reality?

I wonder what would happen if they had an article about "garden trains"?


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

I don't know, considering the distances involved, just how do you really prove that it's not all just an illusion and in fact there really isn't anything out there, past a certain point.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Semper - I think to REALLY understand this stuff you'd have to be able to do the math. Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are the consequences of the equations. Scientific American (and any other magazine for that matter) are trying to "dumb it down" so the average Joe like you and I can understand what's written without the mathematical complexity. While we may, after reading such an article, have a basic comprehension of what the article was trying to describe, we certainly don't "understand" it (as in to stand under and bear the full weight of). Heck, I think even the guys who DO the math will admit they don't really understand half of it.







Regardless, it's still fun to think about isn't it? 
I don't know, considering the distances involved, just how do you really prove that it's not all just an illusion and in fact there really isn't anything out there, past a certain point.
That all goes back to the basic premise that the little corner of the universe we live in isn't in any way unique or special. Based upon that premise, everywhere is just like here and things follow the same laws of physics and behave the same way, so we can extrapolate what we know (or at least, what we THINK we know) about how things work locally to the entire universe.

Actually, I read something the other day that implies we MAY be living in a "special region" after all. If we happen to live in a part of the universe where the matter density is less than average (a LOT less), it's another way of explaining why the supernova data implies the acceleration of spacial expansion - WITHOUT needing "Dark Energy" as the culprit. On the one hand, that does away with a lot of what we don't have a clue about, but on the other calls into question the aforementioned premise, which is one of the cornerstones of our science.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. hehehe

MOND (Modified Newtonian Gravitational Dynamics theory) could explain how stars orbit galaxies without the need for Dark Matter. In some cases, it fits the data better, and predictions it made 30 years ago have now been experimentally confirmed. However, like Dark Matter theory, it too has its problems.

The idea that 96+% of the universe is made of Dark Energy and Dark Matter, stuff we can't see, can't measure, and can't directly detect, and therefore haven't a clue about what they really are shows just how little we really do know, and makes a lot of scientists uncomfortable enough that they're now looking for alternate explanations. 

In the end, they won't figure it all out in my lifetime (a real pity imho). hehehe


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

At times I think that we're just trapped in Nature's version of a laser, and one day we'll get stimulated enough to just pass through the mirror and be on our way.







All operating on the same frequency and in a coherent manner??? nah! That's just wishful thinking.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

When you cannot describe the universe in mathematics it all becomes indistinguishable from religion.









I am very glad that for that portion I DO have it all figured out... and the joy is more that the universe, the multiverse, and in all seven dimensions.


----------



## John Allman (Jan 2, 2008)

the surface of a sphere is finite but unbounded, if you are a two dimensional creature. You can travel in any allowable direction but never come back to exactly the same spot. Therefore it is unbound. What is interesting is that while it appears infinite to the two dimensional creature, it is not. The universe is described mathematically the same way, except it has at least 3 physical, and 1 temporal dimension. 

Its more than enough to give anyone a headache. The money quote is " the universe is not just weirder than you know, it is weirder than you can know." 

And guys - I love it that you liked the joke and had to think about it. That is the point! 

John


----------



## noelw (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By John Allman on 04/26/2009 9:19 AM
the surface of a sphere is finite but unbounded, if you are a two dimensional creature. You can travel in any allowable direction but never come back to exactly the same spot. Therefore it is unbound. What is interesting is that while it appears infinite to the two dimensional creature, it is not. The universe is described mathematically the same way, except it has at least 3 physical, and 1 temporal dimension. 

Its more than enough to give anyone a headache. The money quote is " the universe is not just weirder than you know, it is weirder than you can know." 

And guys - I love it that you liked the joke and had to think about it. That is the point! 

John 

Like John .. Love to joke about it..[/b]



*J.J............ Posted a great article.. And I knew Dwight would come in to explain things.. But being an old guy here, I just have one question????  
*
*J.J .......... Doses this mean with more space you are going to have to lay more track now..?????

Sorry had to put that in.. Nice and interesting post tho.








Noel*


----------

