The Size of the Universe:

A quick video compares the size of the Earth to various other bodies in the universe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdkEbfctk8c

We are not even an electron floating around an atom in the universe comparatively speaking!

We are less than a nit on a gnat's nut and that is small!

Shows how insignificant we are in the universe.

When looking at the big picture, we are nothing.

Oh great - now I'm all scared 'n stuff 'cuz those people from KY Cygni are gonna come lube us up to use us for their own evil purposes ...

The teaching company has a really good course on cosmology by professor Mark Whittle of the University of Maryland.

In that course he speaks to the issues of our insignificance with respect to size. He shows various analogies and graphs that really make the viewer stand in awe at how insignificant we are in terms of size.

But then he turns the tables and compares us with the rest of the universe in terms of complexity. The graphs and analogies are just the opposite. Compared with the bulk of the universe we are extremely complex. As much more complex as we are insignificant in size.

So in that sense we are truly a sparkling diamond in the sea of the cosmos.

However, he warns that before we get to arrogant about it, we need to recognize that on that same graph we are basically equal to a cockroach in terms of complexity.

So we go from being totally insignificant, to being extremely special, and then right back to being insignifificant again in terms of living species.

None the less, I found it to be an interesting insight.

Which is more relavent; size, or complexity?

Size tastes GREAT but complexity is less filling!

How do we know there isn't something just as complex in our section of the universe. It may be a couple of hundred light years away (that's not very far when talking about the universe) or in the next galaxy. We don't know, we can't look at things that small yet. Who knows, we could be just an average intelligent life form in this section of the universe, as far as complexity.

Well, obviously we can't know.

The point Professor Whittle was making that based on what we do know, the complexity of living creatures on Earth are far more complex than typical cosmic objects like stars, galaxies, and even planets themselves.

Also, I think that even if life has evolved on every planet in the universe, the conclusion may well be the same. This is because the living mass on planet Earth all taken together, is still quite insignificant compared to the mass of the planet itself.

So if there are complex lifeforms on all planets, this still wouldn't change the results.

The only thing that could change the results is if there exists some form of complex living things that are FAR MORE complex than even us. That most certainly is a possiblity, but there is nothing in science that points to that being the case.

So again, Dr. Whittle is merely giving his data based on what is known, and on what seems reasonable within the scope of the current knowledge. I don't believe he was even attempting to sell it as any sort of absolute conclusion of fact, or anything like that. It was just an observation for looking at things from a different perspective is all.

You make perfect sense. Looking at the mass of everything, our existence, and that of all other known life forms, doesn't change the complexity much at all.

But supposedly, the section of the universe that we live in has the perfect combination of elements, or the so called perfect weather, for life to form. Outside of this section, it is either too hostile or there is not enough of the right elements for life.

So, by Dr. Whittle's view, does this section of the universe have more or similar complexity as the rest of the known universe?

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with what you are talking about. It's my understanding that the entire known universe is isotropic and homogeneous throughout.

To the best of my knowledge there are no "large scale" sections of the universe that are known to be significantly different from any other "large scale" sections. The only differences we see is on galactic levels, and even those differences are quite slight in terms of complexity and can all be sufficiently described and explained by known physics, at least in as much as known physics can be applied to our own galaxy.

That's my current understanding of what the observations are to date.

As far as I know, it's just a theory that this section of the universe is the only section that can harbor life. It is based on the light-wave signatures of galaxies and galaxy clusters to figure out what elements persist in the universe.