Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #586053 > unrolled thread

similarity of observable universe and interior of the Earth

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  similarity of observable universe and interior of the Earth Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-29 07:27 +0200
    Re: similarity of observable universe and interior of the Earth Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 23:05 -0700
      Re: similarity of observable universe and interior of the Earth "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 10:49 -0700
    Re: similarity of observable universe and interior of the Earth Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-29 16:38 +0300
      Re: similarity of observable universe and interior of the Earth Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-05-30 07:12 +0200
        Re: similarity of observable universe and interior of the Earth Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-31 11:59 +0300
          Re: similarity of observable universe and interior of the Earth Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-06-01 07:43 +0200

#586053 — similarity of observable universe and interior of the Earth

Hi NG

If you compare the illustrations:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beobachtbares_Universum#/media/Datei:Observable_universe_logarithmic_illustration.png

and this one

https://d1u2r2pnzqmal.cloudfront.net/videos/pictures/23609/normal/vlcsnap-2019-03-27-12h32m47s375.jpg?1581417855

you find similarities in two illustrations, which show entirely 
different things.

The first one is a depiction of the entire universe in logarithmic 
scales and other one depicts the interior of the Earth.

Now, why is that? Why does the inner Earth look like the outer universe?


TH

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#586055

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 2:27:36 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Hi NG 
> 
> If you compare the illustrations: 
> 
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beobachtbares_Universum#/media/Datei:Observable_universe_logarithmic_illustration.png 
> 
> and this one 
> 
> https://d1u2r2pnzqmal.cloudfront.net/videos/pictures/23609/normal/vlcsnap-2019-03-27-12h32m47s375.jpg?1581417855 
> 
> you find similarities in two illustrations, which show entirely 
> different things. 
> 
> The first one is a depiction of the entire universe in logarithmic 
> scales and other one depicts the interior of the Earth. 
> 
> Now, why is that? Why does the inner Earth look like the outer universe? 
> 
> 
> TH

** https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beobachtbares_Universum#/media/Datei:Observable_universe_logarithmic_illustration.png **

Artist's rendering of the observable universe in logarithmic scale and centered on the solar system. Shown are the inner and outer planets of the Solar System, the Kuiper Belt, the Oort Cloud, Alpha Centauri, the Arm of Perseus, the Milky Way, the Andromeda Nebula, neighboring galaxies, filaments and voids, the cosmic background radiation, and the plasma state just after the Big Bang.

OK, the artist is an idiot on acid.

The logarithmic scale fails to represent NOW, as it didn't discount time flow. Only used what is thought (by some) that is distance,
never caring the effect of time flow. So, for representing BB event and evolution, at least the inverse pic is required (in going out, 
and out coming to the center).

If you want a better depiction, in 2 1/2 D, try this:

- Imagine zero as a point at the center.
- Depict evolution as consecutive spheres that grow from the center outwards.
- Each outer layer, due to the growth, form a bigger sphere that contain everything that previously existed, inside.
- Use the increasing radius as an axis time.
- Stop when you reach 14 billion years.
- Now, try to locate the Solar System somewhere in the outer surface.

That's a better representation of the universe containing space and time.

But this is me believing that a BB existed, which I don't.

For me, the universe is infinite, perennial and pseudo-static. 

We can observe around us in a length dictated by the smallest signal that can be detected by any array of instruments.

And it's spherical.

If you move 5 billion ly in any direction, a new sphere with such limited radius of observability is available. And so, and so, ......

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586076

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 11:05:02 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 2:27:36 AM UTC-3, Thomas Heger wrote: 
> > Hi NG 
> > 
> > If you compare the illustrations: 
> > 
> > https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beobachtbares_Universum#/media/Datei:Observable_universe_logarithmic_illustration.png 
> > 
> > and this one 
> > 
> > https://d1u2r2pnzqmal.cloudfront.net/videos/pictures/23609/normal/vlcsnap-2019-03-27-12h32m47s375.jpg?1581417855 
> > 
> > you find similarities in two illustrations, which show entirely 
> > different things. 
> > 
> > The first one is a depiction of the entire universe in logarithmic 
> > scales and other one depicts the interior of the Earth. 
> > 
> > Now, why is that? Why does the inner Earth look like the outer universe? 
> > 
> > 
> > TH
> ** https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beobachtbares_Universum#/media/Datei:Observable_universe_logarithmic_illustration.png ** 
> 
> Artist's rendering of the observable universe in logarithmic scale and centered on the solar system. Shown are the inner and outer planets of the Solar System, the Kuiper Belt, the Oort Cloud, Alpha Centauri, the Arm of Perseus, the Milky Way, the Andromeda Nebula, neighboring galaxies, filaments and voids, the cosmic background radiation, and the plasma state just after the Big Bang. 
> 
> OK, the artist is an idiot on acid. 
> 
> The logarithmic scale fails to represent NOW, as it didn't discount time flow. Only used what is thought (by some) that is distance, 
> never caring the effect of time flow. So, for representing BB event and evolution, at least the inverse pic is required (in going out, 
> and out coming to the center). 
> 
> If you want a better depiction, in 2 1/2 D, try this: 
> 
> - Imagine zero as a point at the center. 
> - Depict evolution as consecutive spheres that grow from the center outwards. 
> - Each outer layer, due to the growth, form a bigger sphere that contain everything that previously existed, inside. 
> - Use the increasing radius as an axis time. 
> - Stop when you reach 14 billion years. 
> - Now, try to locate the Solar System somewhere in the outer surface. 
> 
> That's a better representation of the universe containing space and time. 
> 
> But this is me believing that a BB existed, which I don't. 

The Big Bang was the absolute beginning. It started with dimension.
> 
> For me, the universe is infinite, perennial and pseudo-static. 

Have you measured infinity? And what created it?
God creates gravity.
> 
> We can observe around us in a length dictated by the smallest signal that can be detected by any array of instruments. 
> 
> And it's spherical. 

How do you know it is an infinite sphere?
That puts us in an island universe instead.

> 
> If you move 5 billion ly in any direction, a new sphere with such limited radius of observability is available. And so, and so, ......

The finite universe will continue to expand.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586063

On 2022-05-29 05:27:30 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Hi NG
> 
> If you compare the illustrations:
> 
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beobachtbares_Universum#/media/Datei:Observable_universe_logarithmic_illustration.png 
> 
> 
> and this one
> 
> https://d1u2r2pnzqmal.cloudfront.net/videos/pictures/23609/normal/vlcsnap-2019-03-27-12h32m47s375.jpg?1581417855 
> 
> 
> you find similarities in two illustrations, which show entirely 
> different things.

If you look up the universe does not look like the first pictore.
If you look down the Earth does not look like the second picture.
What you see if you look down is very different from what you
see when you look up.

> Now, why is that? Why does the inner Earth look like the outer universe?

It doesn't. Earth is nearly round and our ability to observe the deep sky
is nearly round but their deviation from perfectly round is different.
An important difference is that the universe is mainly transparent but
Earth is not.

Mikko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586116

Am 29.05.2022 um 15:38 schrieb Mikko:
> On 2022-05-29 05:27:30 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
>> Hi NG
>>
>> If you compare the illustrations:
>>
>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beobachtbares_Universum#/media/Datei:Observable_universe_logarithmic_illustration.png
>>
>>
>> and this one
>>
>> https://d1u2r2pnzqmal.cloudfront.net/videos/pictures/23609/normal/vlcsnap-2019-03-27-12h32m47s375.jpg?1581417855
>>
>>
>> you find similarities in two illustrations, which show entirely
>> different things.
>
> If you look up the universe does not look like the first pictore.
> If you look down the Earth does not look like the second picture.
> What you see if you look down is very different from what you
> see when you look up.

The interior of the Earth does not look like the universe, but the 
pictures about do.

The illustrations depict certain ratios, like the thickness of the crust 
in respect to the radius.

Now similar ratios occur in both pictures.

My question was, why the inner Earth would show similar behavior than a 
logartithmic depiction of the universe.

...


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586195

On 2022-05-30 05:12:30 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 29.05.2022 um 15:38 schrieb Mikko:
>> On 2022-05-29 05:27:30 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>> 
>>> Hi NG
>>> 
>>> If you compare the illustrations:
>>> 
>>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beobachtbares_Universum#/media/Datei:Observable_universe_logarithmic_illustration.png 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> and this one
>>> 
>>> https://d1u2r2pnzqmal.cloudfront.net/videos/pictures/23609/normal/vlcsnap-2019-03-27-12h32m47s375.jpg?1581417855 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> you find similarities in two illustrations, which show entirely
>>> different things.
>> 
>> If you look up the universe does not look like the first pictore.
>> If you look down the Earth does not look like the second picture.
>> What you see if you look down is very different from what you
>> see when you look up.
> 
> The interior of the Earth does not look like the universe, but the 
> pictures about do.
> 
> The illustrations depict certain ratios, like the thickness of the 
> crust in respect to the radius.
> 
> Now similar ratios occur in both pictures.
> 
> My question was, why the inner Earth would show similar behavior than a 
> logartithmic depiction of the universe.

That the behaviour in the pictures look similar means that the behaviour
in the pctured thigs is not. In the picture of the Earth the scale is
determined by the true structure of Earth. The result happens to be
close to what an artist might consider good, especially as the artist
can choose the colors to compensate any small deviations from ideal
sizes. In the pcture of Universe the relative sizes are not the same
as in the true Universe. The artist has made a choise that results in
a reasonably good looking image, where "good looking" means the same
as in the other picture.

Mikko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586250

Am 31.05.2022 um 10:59 schrieb Mikko:
> On 2022-05-30 05:12:30 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
>> Am 29.05.2022 um 15:38 schrieb Mikko:
>>> On 2022-05-29 05:27:30 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>
>>>> Hi NG
>>>>
>>>> If you compare the illustrations:
>>>>
>>>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beobachtbares_Universum#/media/Datei:Observable_universe_logarithmic_illustration.png
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> and this one
>>>>
>>>> https://d1u2r2pnzqmal.cloudfront.net/videos/pictures/23609/normal/vlcsnap-2019-03-27-12h32m47s375.jpg?1581417855
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> you find similarities in two illustrations, which show entirely
>>>> different things.
>>>
>>> If you look up the universe does not look like the first pictore.
>>> If you look down the Earth does not look like the second picture.
>>> What you see if you look down is very different from what you
>>> see when you look up.
>>
>> The interior of the Earth does not look like the universe, but the
>> pictures about do.
>>
>> The illustrations depict certain ratios, like the thickness of the
>> crust in respect to the radius.
>>
>> Now similar ratios occur in both pictures.
>>
>> My question was, why the inner Earth would show similar behavior than
>> a logartithmic depiction of the universe.
>
> That the behaviour in the pictures look similar means that the behaviour
> in the pctured thigs is not. In the picture of the Earth the scale is
> determined by the true structure of Earth. The result happens to be
> close to what an artist might consider good, especially as the artist
> can choose the colors to compensate any small deviations from ideal
> sizes. In the pcture of Universe the relative sizes are not the same
> as in the true Universe. The artist has made a choise that results in
> a reasonably good looking image, where "good looking" means the same
> as in the other picture.
>

The inner Earth seems to reflect the structure of the universe in 
logarithmic scale.

To me this seems quite astonishing, since that would indicate, that some 
sort or logarithmic relation to the outer universe must be present 
inside the Earth.

This is so, because without some kind of relation, the ratios between 
observable boundaries to the entire radius wouldn't be as similar as 
they are.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Observable_universe_logarithmic_illustration_with_legends.png/600px-Observable_universe_logarithmic_illustration_with_legends.png

and

https://www.weltderphysik.de/gebiet/erde/erdinneres/


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web