The Earth compared to The Universe The Earth is the 5th largest planet in the solar system, with a radius of 6,378km and a circumference of 40,075km at the equator. It is the third planet from the sun and the densest in the solar system. To the everyday individual, the Earth seems a rather large place, as it is home to 8.7 million (plus or minus 1 million) known species and about 7.4b+ (and increasing) people. This is a to scale picture of the size of the Earth compared to the size of the Sun. The picture also shows the rare occurrence of a Solar Flare. Solar Flare's have the potential to release energy equivalent to well over a million 100 megaton hydrogen bombs. The magnitude and power of this is made evident in the picture above as the size of the Solar Flare is many times the size of the Earth. Luckily, the material ejected in these rare phenomena is dispersed across the solar system because of stellar winds. The Sun is 1,391,000km in diameter, which is 109 times the diameter of the Earth. The Sun is so large, that about 1,300,000 Earth's can fit inside of it. Even though the Sun is absolutely massive compared to Earth, there are stars out there much larger than the sun. The above picture shows the size of the Sun compared to Arcturus and the size of Arcturus compared to VY Canis Majoris. Arcturus is over 16,000 times larger in volume than the Sun and has a diameter of about 36 million kilometers. VY Canis Majoris is an astounding 2.9 billion times larger in volume than the Sun with a diameter of about 1.977 billion kilometers. It is one of the largest stars ever discovered in our galaxy. Our Galaxy, the Milky Way, is approximately 100,000 light years in diameter, which is roughly 950,000,000,000,000,000 kilometers. It contains between 200 billion and 400 billion stars, along with billions and billions of planets. This is a picture of one of the largest known galaxies, IC 1101. IC 1101 is over 6 million light years wide and is full of metal rich stars. Some of these stars are over seven billion years older than the Sun, which gives the Galaxy a Golden Yellow appearance. At the center of this supergiant Galaxy, it has a bright radio source which is associated with an incredibly large black hole. The Hubble Telescope took this picture, it contains thousands of Galaxies. Each Galaxy contains billions of stars, which are all orbited by their own planets. All this was seen in a small patch of the sky. The size of the whole Universe is unknown, and will remain that way for a long time. This is because, the size including both the observable (parts we can see) Universe and the parts we can't see of the Universe is probably infinite.
I wanted to make a thread like this awhile back but didn't. Google search earth compared to the universe for the whole thing.
It's not a probability ...statistically it's impossible that there ISN'T other life out there. There's prob planets that supported life for tens maybe hundreds of million years before there was life here on Earth... ...I imagine we're like Ameoba or Bacteria to other possible/probable life forms.
Statistically Impossible? Says who? According to what math? 60 years ago there was only a few parameters for life to exist. As we study OUR planet for OUR life, the parameters are well over 100... just to have a planet, to have our existence possible.
The real question is, in knowing this information, how does the earth benefit? One could say that if we are so small, what is the point of fighting to save the planet? Others could say that it is irrelevant and useless to know the extant of the universe when we have so many problems on our own planet that need to be focused on. I, myself, find the information fascinating. However, while it is amazing, I would like to see how the earth benefits from this knowledge.
This is a topic I love The universe is something we as humans will never truly know the full extent of, no matter how long we live or how advanced technology gets. It truly is a small world, but the mind cannot fathom the true size of the universe. What is within the observable universe is absolutely gorgeous, and I hope that we can explore the stars within my life span.
Says this guy.... ...along with almost every prominent scientist, physicist, & astronomer since 1961
Quotes off the internet LOL do you even understand what it says? As more parameters are set into place to have life like ours, we see less and less and less and less contenders to contain life. We assume a lot about those galaxies. We assume they have "normal" planets. We assume they have the proper elements. We ASSUME they contain life. All this assumption, and no proof. You want to talk about statistics? The simple fact that we're here... and out of all the planets we've detected, no life... Ever consider, we're the only ones out here?
The Drake equation states that: where: N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which we might hope to be able to communicate and: R* is the average rate of star formation in our galaxy fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets fl is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life fc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space. Arbitrary at best The integers that are plugged into this equation are often subject to wide interpretation and can differ significantly from scientist to scientist. Even the slightest change can result in vastly different answers. Part of the problem is that our understanding of cosmology and astrobiology is rapidly changing and there is often very little consensus among specialists as to what the variables might be. Consequently, the Drake formula relies on 'stabs in the dark.' This makes it highly imprecise and unscientific. The margin of error is far beyond what should be considered acceptable or meaningful. No accounting for cosmological development or time Another major problem of the Drake Equation is that it does not account for two rather important variables: cosmological developmental phases and time (see Cirkovic, "The Temporal Aspect of the Drake Equation and SETI"). More specifically, it does not take into consideration such factors as the age of the Galaxy, the time at which intelligence first emerged, or the presence of physiochemical variables necessary for the presence of life (such as metallicity required to form planets). The equation assumes a sort of cosmological uniformity rather than a dynamic and ever changing universe. *Knowledge* See I can copy paste too!
The Drake Equation certainly has its flaws. However, it is right in assuming near-certainty of life elsewhere in the universe. You could have a million parameters for life (our specific kind of life, not assuming that there's other life that could survive different conditions), and still be near-certain of it existing. There are just too many chances, too many stars, too many galaxies, too many planets. Also, we've detected quite a few exoplanets, and quite a few Earth-like candidates. That being said, we lack the precision of being able to detect much about them, let alone if there are any signs of life. So it's disingenuous to say that since we haven't found anything yet (and there is the Wow! Signal) that we won't ever.