I always liked http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fKBhvDjuy0
Scale of the Universe
51–60 of 83 posts
Re: Scale of the Universe
#52When 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.
For me, terrifying can be read as a synonym for thrilling. It didn't scare me so much as fill me with awe, and delight, and any number of contradictory feelings.
Unfortunately, nowadays, I fall asleep much too quickly to contemplate the nature of universal size like I used to be able.
Re: Scale of the Universe
#53When 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…
It is terrifying, which is interesting to analyze. Why should it be? Must be something deeply ingrained in us humans.
I tend to think that it is instinctual, probably related to the vastness of the thing, and the fact that it is simply beyond our ability to grasp completely.
Re: Scale of the Universe
#54Not 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.
If the pop-ups make the thing unbearable, how could it have a better design?
Re: Scale of the Universe
#55For anyone with access to an Oculus Rift, I can't recommend "Titans of Space" highly enough. It brought me to tears. The sense of scale you get is utterly amazing.
Re: Scale of the Universe
#56Is there not a virtual world which can represent a contiguous series of locations larger than that of Minecraft?
Going from the center of an MC map to the edge would take over a month of continuous walking [1], so I don't think there's much motivation to create anything larger. I have never heard of any situation anyone even reached the end of an MC world without explicitly teleporting there, although one man had been traveling there for the last 3 years [2].
[1] http://minecraft.gamepedia.com/Far_Lands [2] http://farlandsorbust.com/
Re: Scale of the Universe
#57Trying 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!
> to comprehend the scale of the universe is deeply unsettling, especially when thinking about our minute, insignificant part of it
Humans are 10^27 times smaller than the observable universe, and 10^24 times bigger than the neutrino, presently the smallest observable thing, and 10^35 times bigger than the smallest theoretical distance, the Planck length. That puts humans around the center of the Universe's scale, hardly minute and insignificant, and one could argue on that basis the human brain, even mind, is at the conceptual center of the Universe!
Re: Scale of the Universe
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We are, as far as we can tell, the only thing that actually notices the universe! Yes, but that could be quite common as well. The universe could be littered with intelligent beings who all think exactly this.
Consciousness and life are two miracles of existence that neither the galaxies, nor the atoms seem to manifest. Probably most life forms on earth are not conscious either. From that point of view we seem to be a miraculous needle in the haystack of the universe as we know it.
At this point I think current opinion is that pretty much all mammals are consciousness. It's not that rare.
Re: Scale of the Universe
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Much better design. But really lacks on objects on the large scales and the automatic pop-ups make the thing almost unbearable to explore.
If the pop-ups make the thing unbearable, how could it have a better design?
You are proposing a false dilemma.
Re: Scale of the Universe
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consider also that not only are we very, very, minute and insignificant; we are also exceedingly brief!
We might be insignificant on a physical scale but that's not the right measure to use. We are actually very very significant. We are, as far as we can tell, the only thing that actually notices the universe! This whole enormous universe? It's for us. (And other intelligences, if they exist.)
> We are, as far as we can tell, the only thing that actually notices the universe!
Note that the dung beetle uses the Milky Way to navigate! :)
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/24/dung-beet...