Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scale of the Universe

htwins.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 83 posts

Re: Scale of the Universe

#11

Post by jmsduran »

giantrobothead wrote: post #4

When I was a little kid, I used to lay in my bed, in the dark, and think about the size of the room around me. Then I'd think of the size of my house, then the size of my hometown, then the size of my home state, then the size of the United States, then the size of the planet, and so on until I couldn't conceive of the scale of what I was trying to envision. It was at once exciting and absolutely terrifying. This doe…

Fascinating! Since childhood to this day, I use that same technique to ease myself into falling asleep. Personally, I see it as more relaxing than terrifying.

Re: Scale of the Universe

#12

Post by loceng »

fideloper wrote: post #2

Trying to comprehend the scale of the universe is deeply unsettling, especially when thinking about our minute, insignificant part of it. Anyway, I hope the startup you're killing yourself over is going well!

I disagree that any part of the universe is insignificant. We're all important.

Re: Scale of the Universe

#14

Post by fdej »

Very well done.

It actually always baffles me that so much of biology takes place on scales that are very close to human perception. When looking at microscope images, the sizes of things become very abstract. Atoms and cells might as well be of the same size.

But a 0.1 mm object is perceptible to the naked eye. This resolution is just an order of magnitude too crude to see individual cells (the human egg cell is just barely visible to the naked eye), and two orders of magnitude cruder than the resolution limit of optical microscopes. Imagine how differently science might have progressed if we had known about cells before inventing the microscope!

Re: Scale of the Universe

#17

Post by fideloper »

TheSOB888 wrote: post #8

That largest bacterium's size is incorrect. It shows a chain of them as 750um, but in reality just one can become that large. In the picture, they look as big as a human ovum at 120um, but obviously that's not accurate.

You hope it's not accurate :D

Re: Scale of the Universe

#18

Post by deletes »

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #15

Not a plug for Nikon, but their version of this concept is far superior IMO: http://www.nikon.com/about/feelnikon/universcale/

Much better design. But really lacks on objects on the large scales and the automatic pop-ups make the thing almost unbearable to explore.

Re: Scale of the Universe

#19

Post by deletes »

thangalin wrote: post #9

A few of my 3D renders on the topic of scale: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Star-sizes.jpg - http://davidjarvis.ca/dave/gallery/star-sizes/ It is incredible to consider that the largest known stars are the size of the Solar System.

The pictures of the largest stars are not realistic, since they show a clear border of a solid object. In reality the out parts are more like a very thin atmosphere. The average density of the whole star is almost vacuum( 1000 times less than earth atmosphere ).

Re: Scale of the Universe

#20

Post by hadem »

thangalin wrote: post #9

A few of my 3D renders on the topic of scale: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Star-sizes.jpg - http://davidjarvis.ca/dave/gallery/star-sizes/ It is incredible to consider that the largest known stars are the size of the Solar System.

What software did you use to render these images? They look nice.
Post reply on HN