6 ms·
Is nobody else suspicious that NASA mostly publishes pictures with vague claims about them? Increased resolution is not providing any new clues or inspiration
by NHQ 4y ago
Is nobody else suspicious that NASA mostly publishes pictures with vague claims about them? Increased resolution is not providing any new clues or inspiration about "the universe". It seems to me like propaganda for a nihilist cosmology.
Considering that the Big Old Bang and Heat Death are based off plugging Infinity into quantum models, and therefor not real, these new images may not even be of objects lightyears away (also a model). They can't prove they are not zooming on something closer.
- MichaelCollins 4y agoCloser than a light year? Parallax would easily give it away. No way.
- NHQ 4y agoA hologram can show parallax, so can an iPhone screen. What have you proved?
- maweki 4y agoA distant object would have an absence of parallax.
- NHQ 4y agoA close object with nothing behind it also has an absence of parallax. So those pics could be holograms on the surface of a bubble. Also, if that astral body is a gazillion miles away, how are you going to get two perspectives on it to see if there is parallax or not? Even if you do that, you can't prove it's not a hologram.
- ChrisClark 4y agoThere is always something behind a close object when you're looking into space. Because the universe exists, despite your typical flat earther denial of it.
- MichaelCollins 4y agoStars do show parallax, but the amount of parallax they show is consistent with the stars being much further than 1 lightyear. And "proof"? Proofs are for mathematics. Holograms, iphone screens... what are you even on about? Are you alluding to the firmament, e.g. the idea that stars are merely dots of light painted on a surface very near to earth? Have you been reading the bible or something? Read this instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax If you're going to wander off into lala land, you at least owe it to yourself to understand the theories and evidence you are casually discarding.
- NHQ 4y agoNo, I'm using the science holography, which is realer than your galactic parallax. Even your own science can't hide all truth, look at "black holes" what's on the surface precisely before the model breaks apart and gets all woo woo? A hologram, that's what. You believe in singularities, but want to accuse me of going bible? Please! Your black holes, heat death, and big bang are all singularities of MATH EQUATIONS, with zero evidence of being real! Edit, in fact all those singularities are gone if you take infinity out of the equation. Infinity is also not real. Can you prove infinity is real?
- MichaelCollins 4y ago[flagged]
- NHQ 4y agoThe church of rational cosmology is pushing "weird black holes" like idiots at the wheel of science, but I'm the one who has it lost? What is your reward for that deep space belief? Alien scifi, multiverse cartoon physics, dubious lunar landings, pretend martian colonization, NASA gimmick pics. Heat death and the big bangerino. I've gone and changed my own mind, please let me back into the cult.
- dang 4y agoPlease don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes everything worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- NHQ 4y ago[flagged]
- maweki 4y agoYou seem to think that modern cosmology is little more than uneducated guesswork, which is blatantly false. That explains my downvote at least. Not a moderator, but a marxist though.
- NHQ 4y agoWhat's the opposite of uneducated guesswork? Indoctrination. Pretty easy to get there once you build models and everybody stays learning within the model. But models aren't real, and never will be. The quantum never becomes real, it's a toy car, a model that works on small things correctly. Believing it also gets the big things correct is a truly a stretch, and just plain dumb. Nothing about these cosmos is verifiable, it's all extrapolations and interpolations, in other words rationalization for the unprovable.
- magicalhippo 4y ago> But models aren't real, and never will be. Of course they aren't real, that's the entire point. A model is a simplified mathematical description which, within a specified domain ie range of input values, is able to provide predictions. The models we care about provide useful predictions, ie ones that match measurements to a sufficient degree, with a limited number of inputs[1]. [1]: https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2011/06/21/how-to-fit-an-elephant/ https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2011/06/21/how-to-fit-an-elep...
- NHQ 4y agoThen scientists plugged infinity into the model, which is not "a range of input values", and what popped out? Black holes, big bangs, heat death, an endlessly expanding universe. Without infinity, cosmology as you believe it is cooked. Infinity is just a way of pretending it's not a closed system. Anything is possible in an infinitely open system.
- legosexmagic 4y agoyou are suspicious because the government agency tasked with photographing space is publishing photographs of space?
- NHQ 4y agoThe pictures are the end of the road for billions in R&D, to say nothing of the academic costs studying unverifiable cosmology. Tasked with?? Is that all it's for, pictures that add zero new information? NASA might as well be the Vatican making smoke signals behind closed doors, and then revealing new doctrine as a result.
- legosexmagic 4y agocongress is funding nasa because voters generally like it when nasa gets funding.
- NHQ 4y ago
- armchairhacker 4y agoThe pretty pictures you see in articles are just the tip of the iceberg, which are published instead of in-depth data and technical explanations because the former generates clicks and the latter doesn’t. Looking closely at the data from Hubble/Webb is how scientists prove (e.g. [1]) and disprove/adjust (e.g. [2]) the quantum models you speak of. [1] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp29hu.html https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp29hu.html [2] https://www.techtimes.com/articles/20846/20141124/hubble-observations-disproves-leading-theory-about-how-clusters-of-stars-form.htm https://www.techtimes.com/articles/20846/20141124/hubble-obs...
- NHQ 4y agoSee my other comments, but measuring light does not prove anything. Light can be refracted in ways unknown to your model, which would bring distant objects closer, invalidate singularities (big bang, heat death). Another model turns those pictures into smudges on a lens instead of unfathomably distant objects, some of which also completely break your model!! Staying WITHIN THE MODEL for all validation is precisely how you come these silly conclusion about the universe (big bang, heat death).