5 ms·

It is always mind-blowing to remember that in the astronomical scale, it is impossible to know things that are happening right now or relatively recently by our

It is always mind-blowing to remember that in the astronomical scale, it is impossible to know things that are happening right now or relatively recently by our standards unless there is information traveling faster than the speed of light, which is something that at this point remains purely in the realm of science fiction as far as we know.

andsoitis 4y ago
For this reason, I also don’t see how we could ever travel at faster than light speeds because we wouldn’t have the information that we won’t crash into something at the other end.
- cronix 4y ago
  Yes, but I think once we reach that point we'd also be sending out some sort of mapping probes to gather data so you know where obstructions are. And since lots of things don't just sit still, they'd have to be constantly reevaluated somehow. Maybe sensors sending out data of what lies ahead kind of like our GPS. It will be an interesting issue to solve if we make it that long. But looking at how we're doing in our infancy with "self driving," we quite a long ways off lol.
- mrtweetyhack 4y ago
  [dead]
- geonnave 4y ago
  In the Dune novel, the solution for this was a kind of evolved/specialized human kind that was able to see a bit into the future (with the help of a "drug", the Spice). Only this kind of "human" could be a pilot of a faster-than-light spaceships.
- oneshtein 4y ago
  FTL rocket will be able to hit photons emitted from objects, thus it will be able to see in the direction of movement. Headlight will not work, of course.
themitigating 4y ago
A new conspiracy theory claims that the government or whatever is lying about the distance from the earth to the sun. I think for less intelligent people the size of the universe and its objects is too much to handle
- mistermann 4y ago
  I think it could be argued that in certain specific scenarios, this shortcoming (in normal scenarios) can be advantageous, such as thinking outside the boundaries or constraints of a box, where the constraints happen to be incorrect but culturally axiomatic and are thus insurmountable for normal, "proper" thinking people. Having observed many thousands of discussions about "conspiracy theory" or "just wrong" (but the normal person can't explain why it is wrong, in fact) topics, I am very confident in this belief. And now having also had some similar conversations with ChatGPT, which is able to overcome with ease many mistakes that humans make, yet cannot overcome others, I am even more convinced.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    Thinking outside the box sounds like coming up with new ways of doing things or being creative. I don't see how this is related to conspiracy theories, people are just mostly just hearing them from other people
- junofan 4y ago
  Here’s NASA misstating the distance between the Earth and the Sun: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/YOSS_Act1.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/YOSS_Act1.pdf Obviously the Earth’s orbit is noncircular. Is that what you mean?
  - labster 4y ago
    At some astronomical scales numbers like this don’t matter. Sure, if you’re doing parallax calculations you need precise orbits, but most of the time you can assume π = 3.
  - 4y ago
anyfoo 4y ago
It's even more mind-blowing to remember that on that scale, the concept of "things happening at the same time" does not exist, because the reference frames don't allow for it. That's so bizarre: Stand here, thing A happened before thing B. Stand over there, thing B happened before thing A. Stand at this other place, now they did happen at the same time, but only for you! Nobody's more right than the other. Universally, "same-timeness" (simultaneity) does not exist. So, by asking for: > to know things that are happening right now or relatively recently by our standards You're really only asking for your particular flavor of "right now or relatively recently".
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
  Where they stand does not matter. If those three observers do not move in relation one to another, they will see events in the same order.
  - anyfoo 4y ago
    You're right. I meant they are each standing in their own reference frame, so effectively they are moving with reference to each other, but I guess that wasn't entirely clear. For example: One observer is on Earth, the other on another planet outside the solar system.
  - Sebb767 4y ago
    This is actually not true. Look at the following constellation: A--1--B--2--C Imagine 1 and 2 are satellites and observer B launches a rocket at both of them at the same time. From B's perspective, both satellites explode at the same time. A, however, will see 1 explode before 2. C, on the other hand, will see the reverse, that 2 explodes first. There's no right ordering here, just different reference frames.
analog31 4y ago
It's mind boggling for me too, and I even took special relativity in college. The only reassurance is that for now, it's not of too much practical importance. The limitation of traveling at the speed of light is not a technological barrier for us yet, likewise the posted speed limits are not a limitation when I'm on my bicycle.

andsoitis 4y ago

For this reason, I also don’t see how we could ever travel at faster than light speeds because we wouldn’t have the information that we won’t crash into something at the other end.

cronix 4y ago
Yes, but I think once we reach that point we'd also be sending out some sort of mapping probes to gather data so you know where obstructions are. And since lots of things don't just sit still, they'd have to be constantly reevaluated somehow. Maybe sensors sending out data of what lies ahead kind of like our GPS. It will be an interesting issue to solve if we make it that long. But looking at how we're doing in our infancy with "self driving," we quite a long ways off lol.
mrtweetyhack 4y ago
[dead]
geonnave 4y ago
In the Dune novel, the solution for this was a kind of evolved/specialized human kind that was able to see a bit into the future (with the help of a "drug", the Spice). Only this kind of "human" could be a pilot of a faster-than-light spaceships.
oneshtein 4y ago
FTL rocket will be able to hit photons emitted from objects, thus it will be able to see in the direction of movement. Headlight will not work, of course.

themitigating 4y ago

A new conspiracy theory claims that the government or whatever is lying about the distance from the earth to the sun. I think for less intelligent people the size of the universe and its objects is too much to handle

mistermann 4y ago
I think it could be argued that in certain specific scenarios, this shortcoming (in normal scenarios) can be advantageous, such as thinking outside the boundaries or constraints of a box, where the constraints happen to be incorrect but culturally axiomatic and are thus insurmountable for normal, "proper" thinking people. Having observed many thousands of discussions about "conspiracy theory" or "just wrong" (but the normal person can't explain why it is wrong, in fact) topics, I am very confident in this belief. And now having also had some similar conversations with ChatGPT, which is able to overcome with ease many mistakes that humans make, yet cannot overcome others, I am even more convinced.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Thinking outside the box sounds like coming up with new ways of doing things or being creative. I don't see how this is related to conspiracy theories, people are just mostly just hearing them from other people
junofan 4y ago
Here’s NASA misstating the distance between the Earth and the Sun: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/YOSS_Act1.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/YOSS_Act1.pdf Obviously the Earth’s orbit is noncircular. Is that what you mean?
- labster 4y ago
  At some astronomical scales numbers like this don’t matter. Sure, if you’re doing parallax calculations you need precise orbits, but most of the time you can assume π = 3.
- 4y ago

anyfoo 4y ago

It's even more mind-blowing to remember that on that scale, the concept of "things happening at the same time" does not exist, because the reference frames don't allow for it. That's so bizarre: Stand here, thing A happened before thing B. Stand over there, thing B happened before thing A. Stand at this other place, now they did happen at the same time, but only for you! Nobody's more right than the other. Universally, "same-timeness" (simultaneity) does not exist. So, by asking for: > to know things that are happening right now or relatively recently by our standards You're really only asking for your particular flavor of "right now or relatively recently".

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
Where they stand does not matter. If those three observers do not move in relation one to another, they will see events in the same order.
- anyfoo 4y ago
  You're right. I meant they are each standing in their own reference frame, so effectively they are moving with reference to each other, but I guess that wasn't entirely clear. For example: One observer is on Earth, the other on another planet outside the solar system.
- Sebb767 4y ago
  This is actually not true. Look at the following constellation: A--1--B--2--C Imagine 1 and 2 are satellites and observer B launches a rocket at both of them at the same time. From B's perspective, both satellites explode at the same time. A, however, will see 1 explode before 2. C, on the other hand, will see the reverse, that 2 explodes first. There's no right ordering here, just different reference frames.

analog31 4y ago

It's mind boggling for me too, and I even took special relativity in college. The only reassurance is that for now, it's not of too much practical importance. The limitation of traveling at the speed of light is not a technological barrier for us yet, likewise the posted speed limits are not a limitation when I'm on my bicycle.