←back to thread

First images from Euclid are in

(dlmultimedia.esa.int)
1413 points mooreds | 8 comments | 21 Oct 24 20:15 UTC | HN request time: 1.249s | source | bottom
Show context
neom ◴[22 Oct 24 00:08 UTC] No.41909872[source]▶
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. :)
replies(18): >>41910015 #>>41910437 #>>41910440 #>>41910444 #>>41910670 #>>41910845 #>>41911871 #>>41912134 #>>41913189 #>>41913514 #>>41913608 #>>41914208 #>>41914357 #>>41916581 #>>41918228 #>>41919777 #>>41924732 #>>41925552 #
1970-01-01 ◴[22 Oct 24 13:45 UTC] No.41914208[source]▶
The actual problem is that we were made early enough to begin to understand the full scale of it, but we're still not mature enough to go out there and explore it. Therefore, you can reason that now is the right time to get behind anything that pushes us beyond the Earth.
replies(3): >>41915296 #>>41915719 #>>41916607 #
mr_mitm ◴[22 Oct 24 15:32 UTC] No.41915296[source]▶
These distances are well outside the scope of exploration. Getting to the next solar system is already a seemingly insurmountable challenge. Getting to the next galaxy? Forget it. Getting to these galaxies we see in the picture? Absolutely no way. I know people like to be optimistic about these things but it's honestly pure wishful thinking.
replies(2): >>41915377 #>>41915425 #
1. seanw444 ◴[22 Oct 24 15:41 UTC] No.41915425[source]▶
This is short-sighted. Maybe not in our lifetimes. If it were 1902, you'd probably be mocking the Wright brothers.
replies(2): >>41915570 #>>41915961 #
2. mr_mitm ◴[22 Oct 24 15:54 UTC] No.41915570[source]▶
No, I wouldn't be. The speed of light is a much more fundamental limitation than anything we have ever seen before. It's probably the single most fundamental and most sure fact that we know of, besides perhaps the quantum nature of reality.

And I have heard it all before: worm holes, warp drive, etc pp. A fun exercise, but not rooted in reality at all.

All you can do is to appeal to completely unknown, unimaginable magical breakthroughs, which are inherently difficult to discuss, so I don't think this will be very fruitful.

replies(1): >>41924882 #
3. dreamcompiler ◴[22 Oct 24 16:27 UTC] No.41915961[source]▶
There are three levels of difficulty in innovation: New Engineering, New Science, and New Fundamentals.

What the Wright Brothers did was the easiest of the three: New engineering. It didn't contradict anything then known in accepted science.

Fusion energy is being studied now, and it's substantially more difficult than what the Wright brothers did because it requires New Science. But it doesn't violate any of the accepted fundamentals of the universe, so it will probably happen eventually.

Now we come to the most difficult of the three: New Fundamentals. Traveling to other galaxies falls in this category. For it to work we would have to discover some brand new principle that makes the universe work, and that principle would need to be so radical that it makes what we now know about the laws of physics wrong.

That's not likely to happen. By comparison, the Wright brothers' invention was for all practical purposes inevitable; people had been flying heavier-than-air craft like gliders and kites for hundreds of years. All that was needed was an energy-dense power plant.

replies(3): >>41916436 #>>41917670 #>>41918617 #
4. 1970-01-01 ◴[22 Oct 24 17:17 UTC] No.41916436[source]▶
IF you believe the whistleblowers, all the tech already exists.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-house-overs...

replies(1): >>41918644 #
5. seanw444 ◴[22 Oct 24 19:16 UTC] No.41917670[source]▶
Well, fortunately, our rock-solid science has some major holes to be patched. There's no way to guess what consequences those will have to our understanding of what we're limited to exploring.
6. JohnBooty ◴[22 Oct 24 20:57 UTC] No.41918617[source]▶

   There are three levels of difficulty in innovation: 
   New Engineering, New Science, and New Fundamentals.
Wow, I've never seen this put so succinctly before.
7. JohnBooty ◴[22 Oct 24 21:00 UTC] No.41918644{3}[source]▶
While the claims of the whistleblowers may or may not be true, your link is sworn Congressional testimony from credible sources.

So, despite the stigma attached to all things UAP/UFO, I think it should be upvoted and not downvoted.

8. cbolton ◴[23 Oct 24 13:28 UTC] No.41924882[source]▶
"Completely unknown" is the main point here. I don't think categorical statements make sense when they are based only on what we know.

The Wright brothers seem like a poor example. But consider the slowing down of time near mass, the tunnel effect, superconductors, super fluids... There are many examples of things that make absolutely no sense in the context of older theories. I don't think our theories are the final ones just because we can explain most things that we have observed so far.

Sure I find it hard to imagine how individuals could travel to another galaxy, absent something like usable wormholes. But some kind of giant world moving through space over the span of millions of years, why not?

The point of these discussions is not to find the correct answer about what will happen. It's just fun to dream and imagine the possibilities, precisely because nobody has the answer (and certainly not those who pretend to know what's possible).