a little (universal) perspective

genkaku

THE SCALE OF THE UNIVERSE.

riverflow

^^^ not as cool as that interactive program, but this is still an awesome video:



[LINK]

...and, while not to correct scale, the opening scene to Contact (based on Carl Sagan's novel) is brilliant-- it's the audio collage that impresses me especially... and all that silence:



[LINK]

anataman

Yep we are nothing! Thanks for that :-)

MaryAnne

this could put betaboy over the edge you know....


(JK, Betaboy! JK)

BhikkhuJayasara

Haha all miniscule scales.... Compared to the multi-verse :-D

David

Jayantha said:

Haha all miniscule scales.... Compared to the multi-verse :-D

Just a fragment of one of an infinite amount of possible multiverses.

David

anataman said:

Yep we are nothing! Thanks for that :-)

Yep, we are everything... Thanks for that as well.

(There's no such thing as nothing)

DairyLama

riverflow said:

...and, while not to correct scale, the opening scene to Contact (based on Carl Sagan's novel) is brilliant-- it's the audio collage that impresses me especially... and all that silence:

Yes, that's an excellent sequence. Jodie Foster is excellent too....

David

What I like and find funny about the possibility of a multiverse is that it means there must be the possibility of a multitude of multiverses.

And it would still be just the one universe.

oceancaldera207

For a long time I wondered which direction in the sky the center of the universe was. (The direction of the big bang explosion). It turns out that there is no center, no point from which it originated. Instead, it appears that what appears to be empty space between the galaxies is actually propagating, thus all the distant objects outside our local galaxy group appear to be moving away from us, no matter where they are.

I was also surprised to learn that time is not constant, but rather is warped by gravity. Even something kind of small like the earth has a small warping effect on spacetime.

oceancaldera207

ourself said:

Yep we are nothing! Thanks for that :-)

Yep, we are everything... Thanks for that as well.

(There's no such thing as nothing)



When we more closely examine conceptualization and related thought processes based on sensory input both statements 'we are everything' and 'we are nothing' are perfectly equal in both validity and invalidity.
The communication 'there is no such thing as nothing' is equally valid to the communication 'there is no such thing as anything (or everything).' The latter can be said to be true since all communications emerge from conceptualizations which are inaccurate representations of reality.
The former can be said to be true because the term 'nothing' is always a moniker of a concept which, as previously mentioned is a priori non representative of reality.
The former and latter can be said to be *essentially* untrue because saying it is true is only referencing a concept which is non representative of reality. In addition, the term truth and its meaning is a representation of a concept, which is non representative of reality.
As you might see, the subtlety of language and the fragile nature of the principles being intimated are why we see so many apparent intentionally contradictory couplets in Mahayana prajnaparamita sutras.

David

oceancaldera207 said:

ourself said:

Yep we are nothing! Thanks for that :-)

Yep, we are everything... Thanks for that as well.

(There's no such thing as nothing)

When we more closely examine conceptualization and related thought processes based on sensory input both statements 'we are everything' and 'we are nothing' are perfectly equal in both validity and invalidity.
The communication 'there is no such thing as nothing' is equally valid to the communication 'there is no such thing as anything (or everything).' The latter can be said to be true since all communications emerge from conceptualizations which are inaccurate representations of reality.

I despise being "that" guy but that sentence is self defeating. Inaccurate representations is not the meaning of "nothing". If there was nothing then there would be no representation whatsoever. There would not even be an illusion because for an illusion to work, there must be something receiving faulty information.

And even information (faulty or true) is not nothing.

The former and latter can be said to be *essentially* untrue because saying it is true is only referencing a concept which is non representative of reality. In addition, the term truth and its meaning is a representation of a concept, which is non representative of reality.
As you might see, the subtlety of language and the fragile nature of the principles being intimated are why we see so many apparent intentionally contradictory couplets in Mahayana prajnaparamita sutras.

I have to politely disagree. We can easily get most of us to attest to the fact that we are here right now. What here and now is could be completely up for grabs but one thing is clear... Something is definitely going on around here.

Even if it isn't really what we perceive it to be.

The sentence below this one is true
The sentence above this one is false

Jeffrey

Awareness meets its mother, pure reality.

~my sangha liturgy

oceancaldera207

It's a difficult job to thread the needle. In order to communicate the result of the ultimate ineffectiveness of conceptualization, and 'name', we must not budge on this point that the label, 'real' or 'exists' do not correspond to anything. A practice with this understanding will blossom widely, and be much more free of entropy and a desire for a static state.

oceancaldera207

I love relativity. If I told you that measurements such as length and width are not constant, but vary according to who is observing it and how fast each party is moving, would you believe me ? An object moving quickly in space will appear to itself to have a different length than what it does for us on earth. And both measurements are correct.

And I said that time is not constant but can dilate with speed or gravity depending on who is looking at it would you believe me? So two identical clocks on different gravitational bodies will have two separate time readings and both will be correct.
In fact, if GPS satellites didn't account for the 'warp' in spacetime around the earth, they wouldn't be accurate.
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html

anataman

oceancaldera207 said:

I love relativity. If I told you that measurements such as length and width are not constant, but vary according to who is observing it and how fast each party is moving, would you believe me ? An object moving quickly in space will appear to itself to have a different length than what it does for us on earth. And both measurements are correct.

And I said that time is not constant but can dilate with speed or gravity depending on who is looking at it would you believe me? So two identical clocks on different gravitational bodies will have two separate time readings and both will be correct.
In fact, if GPS satellites didn't account for the 'warp' in spacetime around the earth, they wouldn't be accurate.
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html

Yes I believe you as I have just read Einstein's general and special theories of relativity. Space can be measured with a clock don't you know. Only my one needs new batteries. I'm lost in space-time right now so will get back to you when I've recharged them - reuse recycle that's me.