We are nothing

[kylos]

Technically isn't even a proton a composite? A human definitely is.

Yeah, it's not a very clearly defined term (and probably not very scientific), but I think since the post was referring to objects or collections that act as a whole, the differentiation is reasonable, as it eliminates such measurements as diameter of the universe, the diameter of the milky way large gas clouds (though perhaps VY Canis Majoris could be considered a gas cloud), etc.

Even if you include the extreme ends of the data listed on the chart, it won't change too much the scale below (smallest goes from 10^-15 to 10^-35 and the upper goes from 10^12 to 10^53)

Anyway, based on the wiki data, here is a log scale comparing the relative dimensions I mentioned in my prior post.

 

[velocityg4]

Yeah, think of what we were capable 800 years ago... pretty much nothing except jousting. And at the rate that technology is accelerating, I have a feeling that we will occupy more places than earth in 800 years. Not to mention that if the population keeps expanding the way it does... the earth will be a very unpleasant place to live.

Yet another reason to get rid of any Government Healthcare, Welfare and heck lets throw in foreign aid/relief/charity.

However for the size comparison what I do not get is how they actually know the size of these objects. From what I have seen these stars show up as extremely small blurry specs, so how in the heck are they able to figure out Mass, Volume, Age, Distance, composition etc...? Maybe the star is actually closer and smaller or further and larger.

 

[kylos]

However for the size comparison what I do not get is how they actually know the size of these objects. From what I have seen these stars show up as extremely small blurry specs, so how in the heck are they able to figure out Mass, Volume, Age, Distance, composition etc...? Maybe the star is actually closer and smaller or further and larger.

Very carefully. At least part of the info is based on spectral analysis, which is basically looking at the color produced by the star to determine its chemical composition. From the chemical composition and other factors, they can make approximations of density and mass. Of course this is all based on the assumption that other factors scientists are not aware of do not have an effect on the data used. Motion relative to nearby bodies also can produce useful information.

But you might infer from the wiki article on VY Canis Majoris that such calculations are only rough approximations. In that article, it is stated that some scientists put it at 600x the diameter of the sun, while others put it closer to 2000x the diameter of the sun.

 

[velocityg4]

Very carefully. At least part of the info is based on spectral analysis, which is basically looking at the color produced by the star to determine its chemical composition. From the chemical composition and other factors, they can make approximations of density and mass. Of course this is all based on the assumption that other factors scientists are not aware of do not have an effect on the data used. Motion relative to nearby bodies also can produce useful information.

This is what has truly perplexed me. The information is generally presented to the public, through the media at least, that these are accurate and absolute figures. How could they know whether there is some medium between us and the stars distorting the readings we get. It is possible color shifts seen are the result of interference causing what appears to be a red shift to infact not be but just some diffusion like the blue we get in our atmosphere.

As I recall the light year distance system was changed years ago because it was determined that gravity can bend the trajectory of light. So presumably that star can be much larger and further off if there is some unseen and massive gravitational force between us and our view of the star.

 

[kylos]

This is what has truly perplexed me. The information is generally presented to the public, through the media at least, that these are accurate and absolute figures. How could they know whether there is some medium between us and the stars distorting the readings we get. It is possible color shifts seen are the result of interference causing what appears to be a red shift to infact not be but just some diffusion like the blue we get in our atmosphere.

As I recall the light year distance system was changed years ago because it was determined that gravity can bend the trajectory of light. So presumably that star can be much larger and further off if there is some unseen and massive gravitational force between us and our view of the star.

I very much understand where you're coming from. A lot of science really does seem to be educated speculation, especially when it is dealing with information that cannot be directly observed, ie. observed over large distances and times. It doesn't mean that scientists don't have a good basis for their ideas, but that over time they are likely to change, sometimes dramatically.

That's not to put down the value of science, because we do learn new things with useful applications through its practice. However, it must be thoroughly vetted before we even begin to rely on it.

And I suppose we'll always have cases where an over-enthusiastic scientist will overstate what his research shows and the media will pick up on it and trumpet it far and wide without serious discussion of all the potential factors that might affect the interpretation. I guess my perspective is that I enjoy scientific reseach, but I feel that it should be viewed as research and not as 100% truth as seems to happen commonly enough.

 

[KevAllen83]

Good grief, that thing is massive.

~ahem~ "That's what she said!!!"

Finally, The Office quotes will finally pay off!