Talk:Powers of Ten (film)

message: The introductory section is basically just copy-pasted text from the second and third paragraphs from here: http://www.powersof10.com/film, with a few minor changes.
IBrow1000 (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: copied text in intro

message: :An interresting aspect mentioned by Robbert Dijkgraaf is that when one zooms out into the universe one goes back in time and thus the farthest image, of the whole universe, is really one of the universe at the 'time' of the Big Bang, when it was infinitely small. In this sense, the two extremes come together.
That's not interesting; it's contrived for the sake of parading the French proverb les extrêmes se touchent. The largest scale in Powers of 10 is 1026 m, which is certainly not the 'whole universe'. In a square 10 billion light years on a side, the corners are just 7 billion light years from the center, where the Earth is located. That's just half the age of the universe. Most points in the square are considerably closer.—Herbee 00:47, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if the number 1026 is really correct? The largest scale mentioned on the website is only 1025 m. Pity I haven't seen the film.—Herbee 01:03, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
:I am not sure what you mean with that square and the points in it (how can a point be small? It has no dimensions). The comment was not on the the film specifically, but on the notion of zooming out (and thus going back in time - this might need some more explaining) until you reach the furthest point you can reach (whether the film does this or not is irrelevant - maybe that should be stated too), which corresponds with the Big Bang, just before which (there's a little flaw) the universe was immensely small ('infinitely small' is probably wrong). I don't claim to fully understand this (but then, who does?) but this is the best rendition I can give of what Dijkgraaf said. And I do find it an interresting obsevation, in the spirit of the film (mind-boggling aspects of the universe, or what should I call that). DirkvdM 07:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No reaction to this yet, so I'll put it back and see what happens :) . DirkvdM 08:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: big = small

message: I have seen this film (at School and in several museums) but I also recall once seeing a more recent movie that was very similar slightly more polished but in other ways not as good as the original. I think it may have been an IMAX (or another large format) movie. I also recall that instead of squares on the zoom out this other version had circles. Does anyone know about this or other remakes? -Waza 02:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: NASM IMAX Cosmic Voyage.  There have been several other movies and books too. 66.30.119.55 14:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Did I miss something, or is the Earth's diameter no longer greater than 12,700,000m? Aragorn2 12:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Earth is slightly bigger.  The article does seem a bit unclear.  I tweaked it. 66.30.119.55 14:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be relevant to the date discussion below also.  There were at least two versions of the film.  The first, which I saw (repeatedly) at the Air and Space Museum in DC maybe around 77/78 was in black and white, the picnicker was alone without the female companion, a few details like the dna were inferior, and the first narrator may indeed have been a female voice.  I assume it was a prototype for the color version that followed, though the music was identical.  Probably worth adding in, but wanted to check on discussion first.  Chris Rodgers (talk) 06:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Versions or Similar Movies?

message: This article would definitely benefit from images. I imagine the cover jacket of the book or video are considered fair use? 24.63.125.78 14:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: This sounds almost identical to the 1968 Canadian short documentary Cosmic Zoom, which was based on the book Cosmic View.    Pufnstuf 03:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Very Similar to Cosmic Zoom

message: Contact and Men in Black had scenes that involved zooming out from earth to a scale much larger. Should they, too, be listed in this section of this article? --HantaVirus 19:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other  ''Related works and references in pop culture''

message: I'm not sure that the feature film was referencing this short film specifically in that sequence.  I've never seen this short film, nor can I recall having even heard of it until now, but I have seen a sequence before similar to the one in Men in Black, where zooming out ultimately showed something like what was portrayed in the feature film, with the entirety of the known universe as merely some trivial object in a fantastic setting, because I was reminded of it while I watched that part of Men in Black.  Unfortunately right now I can't think of the source or even the details of this alternate reference.  Of course, whatever it was I was reminded of could have been referencing Powers of Ten anyway. B7T 16:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You maybe were thinking of the opening sequence of Contact, where we zoom out from Earth orbit to the edges of the universe and end up in a reflection of the main protagonist's eye. Contact is by now included in the article. Men in Black (released one week earlier than Contact) ends with a zoom out from Earth's surface to (merely) our own galaxy, to reveal it's in a marble some alien is using to play with (see youtube ) --87.239.206.56 (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Men in Black'' reference

message: This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB.
Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 19:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of "needs infobox" tag

message: One thing that has struck me as odd about Powers of Ten is whether we're really "zooming out" and "zooming in" as the article implies. When we travel into the blood vessel, we're not just magnifying / zooming in, but actually travelling INTO the body, no? Coop (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The two are not mutually exclusive. The proton in the C nucleus is intended to be the center point; to look at it from far away, you must emerge from the atom, the human, the Earth's atmosphere, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glengarry (talk • contribs) 21:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Zoom out but traveling in?

message: Are there any free videos to the same effect? With Wikipedia's new powers of video hosting, this would be an encyclopedic project.
The macroscopic part could be rendered quite easily with Celestia or similar, but I am not familiar with software that could be used for the microscopic part. --dab (𒁳) 17:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: free alternatives?

message: Did this article used to have a section for these?
I wanted to add a link to this very popular internet cartoon:
http://xkcd.com/271/
--Adxm (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Many Wikipedians love xkcd, but we don't add mention to articles for every cultural reference (xkcd or otherwise). Only notable instances generally belong. Otherwise Biblical and Shakespearean articles would be 90% "cultural references" sections... :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, "notable" - one of the many subjective inconsistencies that Wikipedia is riddled with. Ah well. Adxm (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it was silently removed in March Kwenchin (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural References

message: There are two citations to the revised book.  The year differs, as well as minor details:  
*Morrison, Philip, et al. Powers of Ten: About the Relative Size of Things in the Universe. Scientific American Books, 1990.
*
Can they be combined into one? If yes, please do so. Lentower (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  conflict in citations? 

message: The article contained a broken link to http://www.powersof10.com , which is a broken link. I deleted the link. User Lentower reverted my edit without explanation. I'm redeleting the broken link. Lentower, please don't make further counterproductive edits without participating in discussion or giving reasons for your actions.--Fashionslide (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The addition of  to my revert of your edit is explanation enough for most editors ( was also in my edit summary). But in looking further, I see that dead links are handled differently in External links sections. I about to revert your last edit with the active link to an archive copy. Did you check for an archive copy before deleting this "broken" link? The information is valuable to Wikipedia's readers. — Lentower (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  broken link

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Powers of Ten (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160214225314/http://www.calacademy.org/exhibits/powers_of_ten/ to http://www.calacademy.org/exhibits/powers_of_ten/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Powers of Ten (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150405133558/http://loop1.aiga.org/content.cfm?ContentID=30 to http://loop1.aiga.org/content.cfm?ContentID=30
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)