Live data from Hacker News

First images from Euclid are in

dlmultimedia.esa.int

261–270 of 404 posts

Re: First images from Euclid are in

#261
post #214
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. ;)

It could really be much larger beyond the observable horizon though? But I guess we will never know.

Re: First images from Euclid are in

#262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do people actually call the Sun "Sol"? I thought that was more of a video game thing.

The Romance languages use that name (or something very closely related). English uses "Sun", but just as it borrows a ton of stuff from Latin/French/etc., it also borrows "Sol" for its word "solar". Also, Captain Archer in Enterprise used the name Sol when making contact with aliens.

And in Germanic mythology the personification of the sun is Sól.

In PIE it's sunnōn. In some languages that evolved to some variation of sun or son, in some to became sol (notably Latin). And many use both variations in some capacity

Re: First images from Euclid are in

#264
post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!”.

How arrogant for anyone to look at these incredible pictures and think they know ANYTHING at all. We may be the center of it all, we may not, this may be a massive simulation, or a massive random accident. The only correct answer is to admit we know nothing. Humans are so fixated on knowing everything.

I do know one thing: fairy tales are not real.

Re: First images from Euclid are in

#265

Fun to imagine someone or something out there mapping us as well. What a cool video. I think one of the best things about space travel will be the loss of ego we go through when we really understand how vast the world is.

Douglas Adams keeps coming up in this thread, but this sounds a lot like the Total Perspective Vortex.

Re: First images from Euclid are in

#266
post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It actually is incredibly human-centered, to the point that humans were made in _his_ image and the Sun is supposed to turn _around_ the Earth.

But all this makes sense when you realize it’s a primitive human myth made by primitive people with limited understanding of the universe and the world around them.

Re: First images from Euclid are in

#267
post #241

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.

I don't think the universe can have "meaning" in the human sense, because any potential "meaning" is outside of our field of observation or understanding. If something indeed created the universe or some definitive sequence of events spurred it into existence, I think that would constitute "meaning" enough for humans to be satisfied. But there is almost certainly not way to observe that fact because it is outside of…

I think this is why Christians posit that the Creator actually entered into humanity, so we could understand--or at least be as much less wrong in our speculations as we can handle, small as we are.

They even got as far as describing God as "uncaused causality" centuries ago, which lined up pretty well with the translation of the name God reportedly gave one of their forbearers from a burning bush, "I am who am," or colloquially, "I'm the one who just is. I am being-itself, not contingent in any way, outside your concepts of 'before' or 'contingent upon.'"

Re: First images from Euclid are in

#269
post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, creation was made for one god, which happens to look just like us and never once mentions other peoples. To be a Christian astronomer you have to believe one of these: 1. God is wasting the vast, vast, vast majority of the universe on emptiness while he focuses on his fave planet. 2. The universe is full of humans, in which case Jesus is presumably getting re-crucified every few seconds to absolve new groups. O…

Oh I do think it’s special. But thinking of the universe as a waste because there are lots of uninhabited planets is pretty human focused. Why would it be a waste for an infinite god with infinite amount of attention to spend time creating a large universe?

Re: First images from Euclid are in

#270
post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It actually is incredibly human-centered, to the point that humans were made in _his_ image and the Sun is supposed to turn _around_ the Earth. But all this makes sense when you realize it’s a primitive human myth made by primitive people with limited understanding of the universe and the world around them.

Not to get to into the weeds but being made in the image of God does not necessarily involve physical appearance. Also, it has nothing to do with being heliocentric or geocentric.

I don’t really get the point that you’re making.

Post reply on HN