Skip to main content

For kavips--the scale of the universe

Incredibly well done; press START and move the mouse slowly.

Comments

The Last Ephor said…
OK, so I'm confused or I'm missing something here. According to Wikipedia, the universe is roughly 14 billion years old. It is estimated to be 93 billion light years in diameter. If nothing moves faster than light in a vacuum, how is this so?
Duffy,

The current "standard model" theory is that sometime during the very early universe there was a period of radical "inflation" that blew up the universe like a balloon at much faster than the speed of light.

The theory (first proposed by physicist Alan Guth) gets around the light speed barrier by proposing that nothing actually moves faster than light but that space itself expanded at a rate faster than light.

This left us with a universe estimated to be significantly larger than the visible universe because inflation is proposed to have started before the first stars turn on, during the "dark period" of the universe.

Apparently (and I am certainly no expert on this), the level and isomorphic distribution of the cosmic background radiation supports this theory.

I am sure you are now no longer confused.
NCSDad said…
Sweet graphic though. The kids spent quite a long time with it.
kavips said…
Looking over the previous comments written since you've been back, I was impressed upon how much you had been missed.

Reading about drones and your take on Fisker, it is remarkable to me how those issues had diminished in importance in my universe without an advocate in my universe bringing them up.

The icing was with this post, realizing that despite the immensity of the outer universe, it is our own universes that matter to us....

We often get discouraged and think we are so little, and it is so much work, that we do not matter. The remarkable answer, and it struck me very strong today upon visiting your site, is that we all matter. We matter very much, for what we do has influences that have influences on influences. The subtraction of which, means something that should have happened, won't.

In that regard, we are all immortal, a strand of thread woven into the eternal fabric of time.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...