Powers of Ten™ (1977)

These are all riffs on "Powers of 10", a film made in the 70's for IBM by Charles and Ray Eames: ▶ this video

I think the video I have linked above is Google's tribute to this Power Of Ten video (linked below, thanks to user dtgriscom for sharing the link in another comment), a classic video that demonstrates the scale of the Universe from the micro to the macro perspectives in a scaling increase by a factor of ten for each scene. Power of 10: ▶ this video Another relevant video (thanks to user christev for sharing the link): A Brief History of Geologic Time: link Absolutely humbling to realise how infinitesimally small and irrelevant our existence is, in the grand scheme of theme. Nature and science are amazing.

I think there are a few movies that made me realize how much the space is vast, empty and adverse to life. I think it would be nice for people to take a look at them: - Aniara (2018) - High Life (2018) and maybe in a less artistic view: - Powers of Ten (1977) yt: ▶ this video

I like this work exploring magnitude. The Eames film does this explicitly, “Powers of Ten” (1977) A happy find is an exhibition catalogue on the theme of the numinous pre- and post-photography: Clair, Jean. Cosmos from Goya to De Chirico, from Friedrich to Kiefer: art in pursuit of the infinite (2000) ▶ this video link

Not the same but related? Powers of 10 by Eames ▶ this video Interestingly, that Hawking visualization makes all the same affordances mentioned in the 1 pixel visualization. They show the earth and moon to scale, then the video shows an aerial view with all the planets much too large. Jupiter is 2x the size of the sun. Saturn and its rings 2x that.

Yes, the Eames were much more than furniture designers (often for Herman Miller) - they also made films like the famous "Powers of Ten" ▶ this video

The 1977 film Powers of Ten is short and simple but gives one a better feeling for what infinity represents (40 orders of magnitude isn't much in contrast to infinity, but is very large): ▶ this video There's also an hour-long talk by Prof. Raymond Flood on Cantor's Infinities on YT that covers all the mathematical history.

To build intuition on scaling, the 1997 "Powers of Ten" video is an excellent resource that is still shown in introductory university physics lectures: ▶ this video

I really liked the Powers of Ten article / film / book originated within SA which certainly doesn't justify any current editorial choices, but is I hope a fun video for anyone who hasn't seen it: ▶ this video

For any who haven't seen it, I also recommend Charles & Ray Eaemes' "Powers of Ten" ▶ this video

Thanks, I finally understand the beauty of A4. The rest reminds me of a video I watched in physics class. ▶ this video

Thanks for posting this, haven't seen it before! Original author of the Zoomquilt here. Also noticeable is the Eames' movie Powers of Ten ▶ this video and a similar movie Cosmic Zoom, link . They are both from 1968 and both based on a childrens book about the relative size of things in the universe, to my knowledge the first implementations of an infinite zoom effect.

If you don't mind watching a nearly 50 year old video then I can recommend "Powers of Ten" [0], attempting to visualize the different scales on which things are happening in the universe we know of. It is a very short video, just 9 minutes long. [0] ▶ this video

>Space ▶ this video Made in 1977 and we can already comfortably go two orders of magnitude larger. Not bad.

Wow, it's like the two extreme endpoints of "Powers of Ten". ▶ this video Those two transistors had better be hella good to justify the price difference.

It is, i remember being captivated by this film in the (mid? late?) 90s.. (from the late 70s, pieced together by hand). Never imagined it would be (partly) possible in realtime.. some 10 years later. (eagerly hanging out for orbit view milky way, but probably not in my lifetime) ▶ this video

> You’re free to think about computation as acting on bits… but for those bits to do us any good, they have to actually represent something (e.g., data structures). I suspect this is a case of confusing epistemology with ontology. Galaxies are ontologically composite in that they're the highest holonym in the supervenience hierarchy [0]. Atoms are ontologically fundamental in that they're the the lowest meronym in the supervenience heirarchy. Galaxies are epistemically abstract in that the notion of galaxy is far removed from everyday experience. Atoms are also epistemically abstract in that the notion of atoms are also far removed from everyday experience. What's epistemically fundamental are the immediate objects of our everyday experience, like chairs and food. (My impression of Zen is that it advises to focus more on things like chairs and food [1].) link In the xkcd, which is more "fundamental", Math or Economics? Well, it depends. Likewise, what's more "fundamental", bits or ADT's? Well, it depends. [0] powers of 10: ▶ this video [1] link

The base of that goes back to a very simple realization: On a cosmic scale nothing that we do is of great importance. This planet likely is not as special as we would like to think it is and we are not as special as we like to think we are. We are to the universe as a single bacterium is to us. ▶ this video Is a nice recap of just how vast the universe really is and how utterly insignificant we are within it, in spite of all we're figured out and have achieved collectively. It certainly humbles me.

Isn't that (loosing yourself in the grand scheme of things) the whole point of the animation ? A bit like Power of Ten [1] and Scale of the Universe [2] but with time instead of space. [1] ▶ this video [2] link

(Edit: I'm responding to each question in its own paragraph) What do you mean, 'infinite in dimension'? The universe has only 4 dimensions, 3 spatial, 1 in time. Your question barely makes sense to me. Why do you need to invoke infinite speeds and times? If 2 particles stay in the same place, and do not interact with each other (gravitationally, electromagnetically, etc) then the distance between those 2 particles would increase over time, due to the expansion of the universe. Yes, there is an infinite amount of matter in the universe [1] Maybe. If you pick a random direction and travel really fast for a really long time, the chances of you running into any other matter is extremely remote. [2] [1] link [2] ▶ this video