Why is it so hard to find a pic of solar system in scale for both DISTANCE and SIZE?

[Zeze]

This pic is wiki is blatantly wrong for distance in scale. If this were true, our sky would be covered by the face of the sun.

 

[lxskllr]

I'm guessing it would be practically impossible. Scaled to distance, the size would be meaningless, and scaled to size, you couldn't fit it in a reasonable space.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Here.

 

[Jeff7]

Here.

Very nice.


By volume, space is mostly space. The matter content is quite exceptionally insignificant.


Just within the Solar System, the planets are insignificant. More than 99% of the mass is in the Sun. The planets are just the leftover snippets of material. Of that amount, Jupiter holds a majority stake by itself.

 

[Squisher]

Diameter of sun is 800K miles, distance to Neptune is 2.8 billion miles.

A 12" tall piece of paper would be ~3500 feet long

 

[OCGuy]

Sometimes you have to measure from the balls.

 

[JManInPhoenix]

Here.

cool site :thumbsup:

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Here's another physical exercise you could engage in to come up with a true scale model of the solar system. With an 8" ball representing the sun, Earth will be 26 yards away, Pluto will be over half a mile away, and the actual end of the solar system would be over 2,000 miles away (although there's not much in it past Pluto). It is, to use the absolutely appropriate and literal term, astronomical in scale.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Here's an interesting thought. The area between atoms is mostly space, too, just like outer space. Theoretically, if you consider two objects sitting on top of each other, if the atoms were to align just right, the objects would just fall into each other.

 

[MongGrel]

Sometimes you have to measure from the balls.

He said balls.

:biggrin:

 

[blankslate]

Here's an interesting thought. The area between atoms is mostly space, too, just like outer space. Theoretically, if you consider two objects sitting on top of each other, if the atoms were to align just right, the objects would just fall into each other.

Impossibru...

Oh and

Here.

I imagined the reason was something like that but seeing it really put to scale was interesting.



....

 

[gorcorps]

Here's an interesting thought. The area between atoms is mostly space, too, just like outer space. Theoretically, if you consider two objects sitting on top of each other, if the atoms were to align just right, the objects would just fall into each other.

No they wouldn't

Google crystal structures, then Google Van Der Waals force

 

[The Boston Dangler]

i thought you were demanding a a 1:1 picture of the solar system

 

[Red Squirrel]

No they wouldn't

Google crystal structures, then Google Van Der Waals force

That's why I said theoretically. There are forces at work that would stop it from happening, but if you go by strictly the size of the atoms alone, it could happen.

This explains it better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kypne21A0R4

 

[BoomerD]

Here.

That's nicely done...but where are all the UFO's that are hanging out waiting to invade? Are they just too small to show up on that "map?"

"That's NOT a moon!"

 

[gorcorps]

That's why I said theoretically. There are forces at work that would stop it from happening, but if you go by strictly the size of the atoms alone, it could happen.

This explains it better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kypne21A0R4

theoretically doesn't mean what you think it means

It's impossible in every single way. It's impossible from a macro level and a micro level. Even at atomic level it's impossible. Oh sure, if you ignore all of the science that prevents it from happening then it's totally possible... but then you're not talking about theory at all.

Scientific theory is explanations based on experimentation and laws that have already been proven. Based on certain physical interactions, you can pose a thought like, "given that X happens, and Y happens, then Z should happen as well". But as your video told you, we already know why it can't happen. Those laws are already in place and that knowledge is already scientifically sound. So there's nothing "theoretical" about what you said... it's just flat out wrong

It sounds like I'm being harsh but I'm not meaning to. I'm trying to get people to stop devaluing the term "theory"

 

[BoomerD]

theoretically doesn't mean what you think it means

It's impossible in every single way. It's impossible from a macro level and a micro level. Even at atomic level it's impossible. Oh sure, if you ignore all of the science that prevents it from happening then it's totally possible... but then you're not talking about theory at all.

Scientific theory is explanations based on experimentation and laws that have already been proven. Based on certain physical interactions, you can pose a thought like, "given that X happens, and Y happens, then Z should happen as well". But as your video told you, we already know why it can't happen. Those laws are already in place and that knowledge is already scientifically sound. So there's nothing "theoretical" about what you said... it's just flat out wrong

Laws are made to be broken!!

 

[halik]

Here.

that is awesome

 

[DrPizza]

Here.

That's awesome!

 

[DrPizza]

Here's an interesting thought. The area between atoms is mostly space, too, just like outer space. Theoretically, if you consider two objects sitting on top of each other, if the atoms were to align just right, the objects would just fall into each other.

theoretically doesn't mean what you think it means

It's impossible in every single way. It's impossible from a macro level and a micro level. Even at atomic level it's impossible. Oh sure, if you ignore all of the science that prevents it from happening then it's totally possible... but then you're not talking about theory at all.

Scientific theory is explanations based on experimentation and laws that have already been proven. Based on certain physical interactions, you can pose a thought like, "given that X happens, and Y happens, then Z should happen as well". But as your video told you, we already know why it can't happen. Those laws are already in place and that knowledge is already scientifically sound. So there's nothing "theoretical" about what you said... it's just flat out wrong

It sounds like I'm being harsh but I'm not meaning to. I'm trying to get people to stop devaluing the term "theory"

If my understanding of quantum mechanics is correct, then he's technically right. There's a finite possibility that it would happen. The probability is simply so small though, that if we filled the universe* with objects resting on one another, it would likely never happen in the span of time from the big bang, until the universe dies a cold death.

*You know what I mean.

 

[gorcorps]

If my understanding of quantum mechanics is correct, then he's technically right. There's a finite possibility that it would happen. The probability is simply so small though, that if we filled the universe* with objects resting on one another, it would likely never happen in the span of time from the big bang, until the universe dies a cold death.

*You know what I mean.

But from a quantum mechanics point of view, the atoms wouldn't be "passing through" as described... right?

I dunno, I'm tired and grumpy and probably shouldn't on here. Sorry squirrely

 

[Anubis]

 

[Bateluer]

Don't worry, guys. I'm working on a warp core design for FTL travel. Just check out my Kickstarter page. Contributions over 1M US dollars get you a reserved first class seat on the maiden voyage.