381–390 of 404 posts
If 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...
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. ;)
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.
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.
It's not a joke, because jokes have underlying meaning. It is somewhere between a "random accident" and the only way it could have possibly been given the constraints of fundamental physics. I suspect that everything that could possibly be, is , but it's random that you are you and I am me and we find ourselves here in this corner of this galaxy in this part of the universe which might itself be the inside of a giant…
Do the captured elements move a lot during this snapshot? since it will take months? Is the difference significant?
For closer objects this shift is useful, as it's the only way to directly measure the distance to a object: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax_in_astronomy Every other method for estimating distances to astronomical objects (standard candles, redshift, etc) are based on parallax measurements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could really be much larger beyond the observable horizon though? But I guess we will never know.
It could also be much smaller below the planck scale, but not causally connected to our level. That is, nothing in known physics prevents their being entire universes of particles that are so small that it is impossible to ever detect them with any of the Standard Model particles.
(Or randomly and very seldom but often enough in vast interstellar space to give rise to dark matter like phenomenon?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, you'd need to get quite far from the Sun to use it as a lens - about 650 AU is where it starts becoming practical. It would also not be re-orientable, so any "telescope" launched to that location would only be able to observe a single target. (But, notably, it is far easier to send a probe to a far point in our own solar system than it is to send it to another star entirely.) There's a paper that goes into much…
"It would also not be re-orientable, so any "telescope" launched to that location would only be able to observe a single target." I just presume that such observation spacecraft makes sense to be made as a rather long term investment than some one-time fly-by thing like New Horizons, so the sensible thing to do is to have it in an orbit around the Sun at that (≥650AU) distance and to take multiple observations. Of co…
The other nice thing about being on an escape trajectory is that because of how gravitational lensing works, rather than a focal point you get a focal line. So as the probe continues moving away from the sun, it can continue imaging its target (and the image quality may get better as it gets further out, since the ring gains more separation from the surface of the Sun.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need mirrors, you just need to get in front of the photons. A time machine or warp drive will do :) Also the past is the only thing you can perceive, there effectively is no now.
Is there a science fiction universe that explores a hypothetical warp drive that lets you travel very far relatively quickly, but the travel is only possible with simultaneous backwards time travel that's proportionate to the distance traversed? So you can hop across star systems but can't do a roundtrip A -> B -> A without significantly shifting time from the point of view of A backwards (irreversibly from the point…
- I leave Earth and travel 1ly at speed c
- I arrive one year later
- An Earth telescope will see the destination as it was when I left
- It will take another year to see me arrive
So in a way that's already happening because I'm traveling quite quickly - twice as fast as it seems from Earth's perspective - and I arrive in what appears from Earth to be the past.