Hacker News Reader

Comment by NHQ | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

The 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

[2] https://www.techtimes.com/articles/20846/20141124/hubble-obs...

See 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).

Closer than a light year? Parallax would easily give it away. No way.

A hologram can show parallax, so can an iPhone screen. What have you proved?

A distant object would have an absence of parallax.

A 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.

There 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.

Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes everything worse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Stars 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 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.

No, 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?

you are suspicious because the government agency tasked with photographing space is publishing photographs of space?

The 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.

congress is funding nasa because voters generally like it when nasa gets funding.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com