A really big question

[worldstarcountry]

486 ly is 29,280,000 au. Clicker is only off by 1000 times. Don't trust a clicker, they lie. They don't work in facts. They only want to make you happy so you won't turn them off. 

Google did the light years to astronomical units conversion. It only knows numbers in the conversion. It doesn't know what answer you want so it can't make things up to make you happy.

Having further checked clickers math. The cell wall will be only  0.000046 light years from the Earth size nucleus which is 2.9 au. If the nucleus was in the place of the Sun, the cell outer membrane would be between Mars and Jupiter, where the asteroids are. 

That is going by the clickers numbers of 10 cm fist, 12742 km Earth, and 343 km London to Paris. Do we need to check those numbers also?

Could you present the math for me? This is the only thing it showed me math wise.

If the nucleus is fist-sized and the cell wall is Paris from London, the scale factor to Earth depends on what you take as “fist-sized.”
Using a typical fist diameter of about 10 cm and London–Paris as about 343 km, the scale is:
343,000 m0.10 m≈3.43×1060.10 m343,000 m​≈3.43×106
So if the fist-sized nucleus were scaled up to Earth’s diameter (≈12,742≈12,742 km), the cell wall distance would scale to:
343 km×12,742 km0.10 m≈4.37×1012 km343 km×0.10 m12,742 km​≈4.37×1012 km
That’s about:

• 4.37×10124.37×1012 km
  
• about 463 light-years
  
• roughly 29,000 AU
  

I have never mathed in those kinds of scales in my life. This thing was working off of rough estimations though, not necessarily exact figures. I asked to to work off the size of a fist, which can vary from person to person and just did a 10cm diameter That  actually seems quite small for a fist, no? That is like a four inch diameter (2.5cm per inch?) of for a fist I suppose that is about correct, since we are not talking hand size.

But after double checking it, which is what I should have did so thank you for pointing out my mistake. I must be getting lazy, the thing has been too effective until  then so I must be developing a lack sense of false security after having used it so effectively for other purposes. I must be careful with that. FWIW, I often run these kinds of questions through a normal search first, which typically lumps the AI response in there as well. But this was a big math question with scales of math I never done before. I am glad you caught it, because that makes  our exercise in universal sizing and energy transmission a little more accurate.

Where  did it go wrong specifically though? I got to calculator and converter websites and I get different values for Au - Ly so now I am getting a pit confused. Was the initial mistake in the scaling of the math or the math itself?

Internet searches just sending me to pages of unit conversion and calculator websites. I was hoping oje of them would have been actual physics or math website or something.

[worldstarcountry]

 
"The faster one goes the slower time ticks for one as seen by others. 
The closer one gets to the speed of light the slower time ticks.
And at the speed of light time stops.
Which means that for a photon from the big bang moving at the
speed of light. When it is absorbed in your retina it is the same instant
that it was emitted at the big bang 14 billion years ago. A photon
released from the big bang may take 13.8 billion years to get to
you. But concerning the photon bamm it is in your retina the same
instant it was emitted."

I want to know if ignorance is really being denied here. :)

Well I went back to your query on page 15 and decided to find out who said it. It appears that the search engine believes we are talking about some called time dilation and references something called the Lorentz factor.

Time dilation by the Lorentz factor was predicted by several authors at the turn of the 20th century.[sup][3][/sup][sup][4][/sup] Joseph Larmor (1897) wrote that, at least for those orbiting a nucleus, individual electrons describe corresponding parts of their orbits in times shorter for the [rest] system in the ratio: 1−v2c2[Image: https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/...1737022128].[sup][5][/sup] Emil Cohn (1904) specifically related this formula to the rate of clocks.[sup][6][/sup] In the context of special relativity it was shown by Albert Einstein (1905) that this effect concerns the nature of time itself, and he was also the first to point out its reciprocity or symmetry.[sup][7][/sup] Subsequently, Hermann Minkowski (1907) introduced the concept of proper time which further clarified the meaning of time dilation.[sup][8][/sup]

Im going to be honest, as someone who never stepped into a college or a physics department or has read that much physics at all, I dont know wtf this is all going on about outside of our little pretend imagination experiments. It did include this fun image though.

[BeyondKnowledge]

Could you present the math for me? This is the only thing it showed me math wise.
I have never mathed in those kinds of scales in my life. This thing was working off of rough estimations though, not necessarily exact figures. I asked to to work off the size of a fist, which can vary from person to person and just did a 10cm diameter That  actually seems quite small for a fist, no? That is like a four inch diameter (2.5cm per inch?) of for a fist I suppose that is about correct, since we are not talking hand size.

But after double checking it, which is what I should have did so thank you for pointing out my mistake. I must be getting lazy, the thing has been too effective until  then so I must be developing a lack sense of false security after having used it so effectively for other purposes. I must be careful with that. FWIW, I often run these kinds of questions through a normal search first, which typically lumps the AI response in there as well. But this was a big math question with scales of math I never done before. I am glad you caught it, because that makes  our exercise in universal sizing and energy transmission a little more accurate.

Where  did it go wrong specifically though? I got to calculator and converter websites and I get different values for Au - Ly so now I am getting a pit confused. Was the initial mistake in the scaling of the math or the math itself?

Internet searches just sending me to pages of unit conversion and calculator websites. I was hoping oje of them would have been actual physics or math website or something.

Let's start from the begining for this shall we. 

Earth radius 6371 km google
Fist 10cm or .01 m  or 0.00001 km stated
London to Paris 344 km google

We will use all km units for the calculations to make it very simple and drop the units until the results.

344/0.00001=3440000

3440000×6371=21916240000

21,916,240,000 km is 146.5 au per Google

146.5 au converts to 0.00232 ly by Google conversion.

Now Pluto is rough average 40 au from the Sun, google. That would make the outer membrane 3.66 time the distance to Pluto. That is in all directions, not just one from the nucleus.


I was off by using the clickers numbers. The clicker just made up things by not understanding radius, diameter, and units of measure. 

Considering it was off by over 400 light years, my initial calculations were much closer and the new ones are accurate. I checked them twice and ignored the clickers numbers that were incorrect.

As the Oort cloud starts at 2000 au, the single cell of 146.5 au in radius is much smaller than our solar system. In fact very many cells that size could fit within the Oort cloud. That is assuming a single cell does not collapse and form a star by its own mass, which it would. Or it might have enough mass for a black hole to be formed, I had not considered that.

[Byrd]

You're too kind, Byrd. Unfortunately I don't have a particular site to recommend. The bit about photonic 'first light' in the Universe is just standard early-cosmic-evolution stuff; I used Wikipedia for checking the sequence of events and the timing.

The description of virtual particle annihilation is probably from A Brief History of Time, where it is introduced in order to explain Hawking radiation. I read it a long time ago, though, so it's a bit spotty.

"Brief History of Time" is one of those books that I say "I should read"...and then I get tempted by cozy mystery books or faffy romances (stress relievers) books.

I'd see if it was available on Audible, but I don't do as well with spoken word books as I do by reading.

[chr0naut]

"Brief History of Time" is one of those books that I say "I should read"...and then I get tempted by cozy mystery books or faffy romances (stress relievers) books.

I'd see if it was available on Audible, but I don't do as well with spoken word books as I do by reading.

One of the suggestions about the first instance of the creation of matter is that there was a 'sea' of virtual particles (evidenced by the Casimir experiment) which normally spontaneously appear and then self-annihilate again without a trace as the two opposites attract each other and negate each other perfectly (or nearly so, there is a "supersymmetry" problem that the universe seems to have heavily favored matter over antimatter).

They hypothesize that, in the same way Hawking radiation is created by the gravitational gradient at the Schwarzschild radius around a gravitational singularity, one v-particle escapes, and the other is captured, somehow, and this leads to an imbalance that we call matter.

Of course, without the vast amount of matter that is required to create the phenomenal gradient in forces that is required to capture one half of the v-particle pair, it isn't actually explicative of how the very first matter could exist. Until someone theorizes or observes something that should be unobservable, this is as mythical as the best ancient legends, that also fail to explain origins with any true scientific rigor.

[Astyanax]

I'd see if it was available on Audible, but I don't do as well with spoken word books as I do by reading.

I wouldn’t. Unless you want to keep rewinding and replaying the same sentence or paragraph over and over (a bit like Chr0naut’s post above  )

[Randyvine]

That's a really nice explanation.  Do you have a preferred site (link) where people could find out more detail?

Indeed and I'm using your post to agree. Whether you're a secular academic or
a full on atheist Jesus freak or intelligent design creationist. One can and should
marvel at mankinds determination to know intimately what he does not. The minds
and the time and patience it takes to bring us thus far to an explaination regarding
our existence in this world. Seem to be hardly noticed by the credit that is truly
deserved. And that says nothing to the tolerence needed to communicate to those
like myself so interested. So shout out to all! Respect.

[Randyvine]

Well I went back to your query on page 15 and decided to find out who said it. It appears that the search engine believes we are talking about some called time dilation and references something called the Lorentz factor.
Im going to be honest, as someone who never stepped into a college or a physics department or has read that much physics at all, I dont know wtf this is all going on about outside of our little pretend imagination experiments. It did include this fun image though.
[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...17e20e.png]

Lol the man quoted was Neil De Grasse Tyson.

Astyanex had this to say about him.

That Tyson man has spread more misunderstanding and confusion about science than Alex Jones. People think he's a scientist; he’s a damn planetarium director. Look for him on Google Scholar and all you get is pop-sci articles.

I had no idea he would come off like that. 

[chr0naut]

I wouldn’t. Unless you want to keep rewinding and replaying the same sentence or paragraph over and over (a bit like Chr0naut’s post above  )

Sorry.

In trying to introduce pop-sci explanations for such things, you can instead leave people believing the metaphors and allegories you have chosen, are really what happens.

But if you try and become highly explicit about things, you end up buried in the jargon or various arcane symbol systems (Feynman, Tensor, Twistor, Goldstone, String Field, On-Shell, Penrose, Z-X Calculus, Hugenholz & etc diagrams).

For those who want to start to push themselves into new mindsets and tools for physics, give Feynman diagrams a look at:




And also the Feynman lectures. He was a truly brilliant communicator.

Feynman's Lectures on YouTube

[BeyondKnowledge]

Lol the man quoted was Neil De Grasse Tyson.

Astyanex had this to say about him.


I had no idea he would come off like that. 

Neil De Grasse Tyson is the televangelist of science. He sounds good but is not really the scientist many think he is.