similarity of observable universe and interior of the Earth

Discussion:

(too old to reply)

Thomas Heger

2022-05-29 05:27:30 UTC

Permalink

Hi NG

If you compare the illustrations:

Loading Image...

and this one

Loading Image...

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

Richard Hertz

2022-05-29 06:05:00 UTC

Permalink

Post by Thomas Heger
Hi NG
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, ......

mitchr...@gmail.com

2022-05-29 17:49:23 UTC

Permalink

Post by Richard Hertz

** 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).
- 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.

Post by Richard Hertz
For me, the universe is infinite, perennial and pseudo-static.

Have you measured infinity? And what created it?
God creates gravity.

Post by Richard Hertz
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.

Post by Richard Hertz
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.

Mikko

2022-05-29 13:38:52 UTC

Permalink

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.

Post by Thomas Heger
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

Thomas Heger

2022-05-30 05:12:30 UTC

Permalink

Post by Mikko

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

Mikko

2022-05-31 08:59:15 UTC

Permalink

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

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

Thomas Heger

2022-06-01 05:43:50 UTC

Permalink

Post by Mikko

Post by Thomas Heger

Post by Mikko

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.

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.

Loading Image...

and

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

TH