←back to thread

First images from Euclid are in

(dlmultimedia.esa.int)
1413 points mooreds | 2 comments | 21 Oct 24 20:15 UTC | HN request time: 0.426s | source
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 #
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 #
1. 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 #
2. 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).