Thanks to whoever linked directly to the video! It’s so refreshing when you go straight to the action - like that one time you went to the movies and the movie.. just, started.
Beautiful scenes!
First images from Euclid are in
341–350 of 404 posts
Re: First images from Euclid are in
#342Some 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. :)
This one makes me emotional, greatly helped by the Vangelis soundtrack:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoW8Tf7hTGA
Re: First images from Euclid are in
#343This is the most beautiful thing I've ever seen in my whole life. I'm just over here worried about small nothings and now I'm filled with an overwhelming feeling that I should be a part of something much larger. Truly inspiring, and a little bitter sweet. :)
[deleted]
Re: First images from Euclid are in
#344Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a lot of subtle meaning layered into that: Cleverness: I'm funny and I'm confident enough in it to risk doing it publicly Status: The statuses of you and Bob allow you to play a joke on them. Often such jokes are a public demonstration of status, like children do more explicitly and often unconsciously in the schoolyard. Empathy: 'I say suffering is funny'; it asserts a willingness to violate a taboo, be une…
Yes, none of that meaning is apparent to Bob, which is my point.
I think it is apparent to Bob and to everyone else, implicitly but unmistakeably; it's a message on many levels.
Re: First images from Euclid are in
#345Earlier quoted context omitted.
Climate change, even in the worst case, won't come remotely close to eradicating all life. It won't even eradicate humans (though it'll suck for people living on the coasts or in Florida). Even the very worst imaginable catastrophe wouldn't eliminate the various single-celled organisms and extremophiles. But there are a lot of larger species that are at risk. Maybe I'm just species-ist, but I'm more concerned about t…
> Climate change, even in the worst case, won't come remotely close to eradicating all life. It won't even eradicate humans (though it'll suck for people living on the coasts or in Florida). Even the very worst imaginable catastrophe wouldn't eliminate the various single-celled organisms and extremophiles. I have heard intelligent people claim a good few times now, and feel like it's obviously unscientific. It seems…
Well, this planet's been hit by asteroids including the massive one that made the Chixhulub crater, and life persisted. I think the idea that some life wouldn't survive all but the most catastrophic event (i.e. something liquifying the entire crust) is honestly nuts. Pumping a bunch of CO2 into the atmosphere isn't going to destroy life; there's plenty of plants and bacteria that thrive with lots of CO2, even if humans don't.
Re: First images from Euclid are in
#346Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it spent 1.5 billion years trapped in a low energy trap. Only the unusual process that brought proto-mitochondria inside bacteria made it interest. The branches that didn't follow have remained trapped with a severe limit upon their complexity.
Then use that as one of the four critical parameters. E.g.: You might believe that some variability in conditions (hot-house Earth, iceball Earth) is required to "kick start" evolution. Okay, then simply pick out the subset of the parameter space with that amount of variability.
But we literally don't know the variability. Unlike the numbers of stars in the universe or the number of planets, which we have some statistically board observational evidence for, we have no such statistical evidence for the development of high energy microbiology. We have 1/1 examples. And we don't know if that's because it was inevitable and the eukaryotes have just outcompeted everything else or if it was exceedingly rare. It could be a coefficient of effectively 0 on the whole the thing.
Re: First images from Euclid are in
#347Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do know one thing: fairy tales are not real.
To be fair, as a christian I don’t believe in goblins and unicorns. I do believe in something though. I suppose you do too, and in the end our core beliefs might not even be that different.
But that’s just where you happen to draw the line and is not really relevant. You do believe in whatever your bestiary happens to contain, like magical burning bushes, giants, and super-strong men with magical hair. Whether a goblin is in there or not is an implementation detail.
Re: First images from Euclid are in
#348Earlier quoted context omitted.
Douglas Adams keeps coming up in this thread, but this sounds a lot like the Total Perspective Vortex.
Can you elaborate on this?
The Total Perspective Vortex was a machine built with the intention of showing beings the infinity of creation, which became used as a method of torture.
Re: First images from Euclid are in
#349If you'd prefer not to watch a video, try this page [1] that has images. Hopefully there will be a zoomable image (like Google Maps) eventually. [1] https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Euclid...
If the raw data is available, a slippy map server is very easy to spin up.
Re: First images from Euclid are in
#350Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once we have fusion reactors, it won't be.
Fusion reactors won't really help. Sure, you can accelerate indefinitely - but only at maybe 1G or a bit more if you don't want to kill the occupants. Then you have to flip and decelerate. Unless we find a way to freeze/stasis people, the limits are still shockingly small. We'd need to start cracking some kind of jumping/FTL/etc technology to have any hope of real exploration.
Accelerating indefinitely with reaction drive is impossible. You have to take fuel along, and then fuel to accelarate that fuel. The rocket equation means that get quickly get enormous numbers. Like you have to take Jupiter along for fuel.