Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

First images from Euclid are in

dlmultimedia.esa.int

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 404 posts

Re: First images from Euclid are in

#211

Post by alok-g »

conductr wrote: post #169
gary_0 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that the speed of light is the speed of causality, technically it's not really 420 million years in the "past" in any meaningful sense. The present is relative, not universal. The collected light we see in our telescopes is a lie about a particular universe that will never be, at least in any tangible way. On a cosmic scale, every spot in the universe sees its own unique sequence of events going on around it, a…

I’ll admit I’m severely undereducated in this stuff, probably less than an average high schooler these day but nevertheless I feel like I’ve considered this before and never knew it had a name. Which makes me feel not completely stupid. > whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time – is not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame. But What I don’t understand about this is why is “tim…

>> In my mind, the events do happen at the same time and just are unable to be observed as such.

Not so, I would say.

Space and time are inherently linked under special (and General) relativity. For two observers who have relative motion between them, the space (distance between two 'events') and time (between the said events) are both different.

When some poem or a song talks about the universe being frozen at a given instant of time, that can be only in a given reference frame. There's no absolute time for the universe.

Re: First images from Euclid are in

#213

Post by alok-g »

wayoverthecloud wrote: post #55
neom wrote: post #10

Some of that zooming in made me feel pretty damn uncomfortable. It really is f'ing massive out there huh. Makes me wonder what this is all about, I'm sure it's something, I wonder what. :)

I think that too. That it's surely meant to be something. But sometimes I think what does "meaning" even mean? Does universe really have any "meaning", the term that humans invented and that even they are unsure of? Then, I think it's a big randomness, a random accident, a big joke, just happening with nothing to make sense of.

>> I think it's a big randomness

+1. A big randomness, following the laws of Physics that are themselves possibly rooted in something.

With that big randomness, by some chance, intelligent life has happened that can wonder.

Where's more to be uncovered are in the laws of Physics (and why are they what they are), and thereby better matching the probabilities of the said randomness.

Re: First images from Euclid are in

#214

Post by layer8 »

neom wrote: post #10

Some of that zooming in made me feel pretty damn uncomfortable. It really is f'ing massive out there huh. Makes me wonder what this is all about, I'm sure it's something, I wonder what. :)

It’s even more “massive” down below. There are only 27 orders of magnitude between human size and the size of the observable universe, but 35 orders of magnitude between human size and the Planck length. ;)

Re: First images from Euclid are in

#215

Post by layer8 »

wayoverthecloud wrote: post #55
neom wrote: post #10

Some of that zooming in made me feel pretty damn uncomfortable. It really is f'ing massive out there huh. Makes me wonder what this is all about, I'm sure it's something, I wonder what. :)

I think that too. That it's surely meant to be something. But sometimes I think what does "meaning" even mean? Does universe really have any "meaning", the term that humans invented and that even they are unsure of? Then, I think it's a big randomness, a random accident, a big joke, just happening with nothing to make sense of.

Or it might be the necessary logical consequence of having anything at all.

Re: First images from Euclid are in

#216

Post by codeulike »

wayoverthecloud wrote: post #55
neom wrote: post #10

Some of that zooming in made me feel pretty damn uncomfortable. It really is f'ing massive out there huh. Makes me wonder what this is all about, I'm sure it's something, I wonder what. :)

I think that too. That it's surely meant to be something. But sometimes I think what does "meaning" even mean? Does universe really have any "meaning", the term that humans invented and that even they are unsure of? Then, I think it's a big randomness, a random accident, a big joke, just happening with nothing to make sense of.

There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

- Douglas Adams

Re: First images from Euclid are in

#217

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

imchillyb wrote: post #66
wayoverthecloud wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that too. That it's surely meant to be something. But sometimes I think what does "meaning" even mean? Does universe really have any "meaning", the term that humans invented and that even they are unsure of? Then, I think it's a big randomness, a random accident, a big joke, just happening with nothing to make sense of.

So many rules, laws, and systems for all of this to be random. Seems a waste of good code if everything is random. Is an ecosystem random? What happens when one outside force is added to an ecosystem? There's plenty of examples around the globe of this. Life doesn't 'find a way' and balance. The ecosystem is damaged, and often times destroyed by adding a single non-native species. That doesn't seem random does it? Ra…

Every part of the ecosystem, at any point in history, has co-evolved to be the state it is in - it's an intricate network all balanced to co-exist. If you change any part of the this ecosystem then the rest will have to adapt to the change, but evolutionary timescales are relatively long, and it's not going to settle down to where it was before. Whether you regard a new balance as simply that, or as the old balance being destroyed is just your choice of description.

Using the term "error correction" incorrectly assumes there is some "correct" state to return to, but nature is indeed random and continuously evolving, and there is no privileged "correct" state, just the ever-evolving current state.

Re: First images from Euclid are in

#218

Post by protonbob »

elteto wrote: post #209
valval wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

How arrogant and silly to look at these incredible pictures and think “Yep, this was all made for ME. I am the center of the universe!”.

Q1: What is the chief end of man? Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him for ever.

The Christian belief is that creation was made for God and not the other way around. It's actually profoundly not focused on the self.

Re: First images from Euclid are in

#219

Post by SJC_Hacker »

conductr wrote: post #169
gary_0 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that the speed of light is the speed of causality, technically it's not really 420 million years in the "past" in any meaningful sense. The present is relative, not universal. The collected light we see in our telescopes is a lie about a particular universe that will never be, at least in any tangible way. On a cosmic scale, every spot in the universe sees its own unique sequence of events going on around it, a…

I’ll admit I’m severely undereducated in this stuff, probably less than an average high schooler these day but nevertheless I feel like I’ve considered this before and never knew it had a name. Which makes me feel not completely stupid. > whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time – is not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame. But What I don’t understand about this is why is “tim…

> But What I don’t understand about this is why is “time” framed as observer based? In my mind, the events do happen at the same time and just are unable to be observed as such. I feel like time is a figment of our imagination, it’s just a measurement. In my pea brain time makes sense more as a constant and the other things are something else that impacts the latency of observance

Its a logical consequence of the speed of light being constant in all inertial reference frames, regardless of the velocity.

This is an axiom of special relativity, but it has also been verified at (admittedly low) relative velocities.

That in itself is somewhat absurd, but it leads to further absurdities when you do the math. In order for the speed of light to remain invariant, you can no longer speak of an absolute (preferred) frame of reference.

You can of course, privilege certain reference frames e.g. Earth, but its rather arbitrary.

Post reply on HN