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.

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.

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?

So because black holes are weird, you think all stars aren't actually there and are just holograms? Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. And anybody who disagrees with you is a marxist or something... you've completely lost it.

The church of rational science is pushing "weird black holes" like idiots at the wheel of science, but I'm the one who has it lost? What have you got for all that deep space belief? Alien scifi multiverse cartoon fantasies, 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.

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

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.

Nice attack with that "flat earth" you're already in hell so i can't tell you anything. Everything exists just as you've proven 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

Downvote for sharing ideas and questioning the the unquestionable, that's what we need! Thankful for these marxist moderators!

Ignorance is not "questioning the the unquestionable". We have ways to measure the distance to things in space. They're not perfect, but they're not, as you suggest, useless either.

You can't prove those measurements are not refraction of light on a surface. The wavelength of light changes when it passes through anything.

In other words, even background radiation and redshift are not provable as NOT being caused by, for instance, the surface of a bubble refracting light in a closed system. That would also explain why there is light going in every direction, aka "everything is moving away from each other" heat death religion.

That's not science, but guesswork built on basic assumptions that are not provable, it's all measurements in a void. If the universe was proven to be a closed system, all that science and your whole cosmology goes in the bin.

Here's the great part: nobody else has to prove it's "not refraction of light on a surface", whatever that means in this context.

We got models. They work pretty good as far as we can measure. That some other model could potentially explain the same measurements doesn't change that fact.

If someone proposes some other model that explains something better, ie with same or better accuracy and/or with less assumptions, then great!

You say that while letting the modelers of your cosmology get away with the most egregious science man ever witnessed. The models do wonders for technology on earth, but they do not produce any meaning out of the sky, only fantasies built on mathematical aberrations. On the contrary, and contrary to your favorite Razor, these models only make the wildest claims about the universe possible.

Occam's Razors says your cosmology is wrong. It's too convoluted, it has to explain the craziest singularities, which are not observable, yet it cannot explain real observations, like missing energy sources and background radiation. No math changes these facts. It's all in your head.

It's hilarious that you think only Marxists could disagree with you. You're downvoted because most of us think your comment is too nonsensical to be worth debunking.

You can't debunk me, you just think you can. You are a believer with no original thoughts, pushing back at ideas that challenge what you have been told.

What can you say that proves ANYTHING one way or another? You have nothing.

Ah, yes, the descent into epistemological nihilism. "Can we really know anything for sure, man?" That was pretty fast, actually, it usually takes longer than half an hour.

Anyway, that's a great example of the kind of thing that, indeed, makes conspiracy theories very hard to debunk: at this point you've practically admitted you're not interested in reason. That's why it's not worth it to try. Hence, the existence of the downvote button.

Nice fake words, who cares Marxist? I'm absolutely the opposite of agnostic "We can't prove anything", I'm telling you that you can indeed know, if you stop believing the fake science pictures.

I'm not saying "we can't know" i'm saying YOU CANT KNOW based on your sophistry and unscientific beliefs. You can't think far enough to reason that what I'm saying INVALIDATES YOUR SCIENCE. Start from there. Validate your science against what I have said in these comments (you have to aggregate it across all the others I just debunked).

Out of morbid curiosity, I actually did read the rest of your comments. I still don't see anything besides "light could be refracted in ways that confound your model" and "infinity is non-physical". And also getting more explicit with the conspiracy rhetoric. I'm prepared to believe you didn't realize it, but that's pretty much exactly the epistemological nihilism I expected. I very much doubt whatever wacky theory you think replaces standard cosmology can survive the tests you're trying to apply here, where it has to be absolutely immune to arbitrarily complex confounding factors in observation. Which means by your standards, it's impossible to know anything.

Instead, in the real world, we go with Occam's razor until we get evidence strong enough to shake us out. It's not perfect, but it beats the crap out anything else we've tried.

FWIW, you're probably not completely wrong about infinity. I rather suspect singularities are not physical, and quantum gravity will erase them. I know there are some mainstream physicists agree. Cosmological distance and event horizons are here to stay, though.

Also, still not a Marxist. That only gets funnier every time you repeat it.

> it has to be absolutely immune to arbitrarily complex confounding factors in observation.

> Occams Razor

Pick one.

My goal is not making you believe my cosmology. So your argument about what I believe to know doesn't matter. My goal is to bust the cosmology everybody is being told. I'm using examples from mine to invalidate the standard, because all I know is the truth, why would I make this up?

You think the cosmology in question satisfies Occam's Razor because it's simple to you based on what you have learned and been told. Sure the model does some neat things, and all of them down here on Earth. Yet the system is clearly anything but simple, it's AN INFINITELY OPEN SYSTEM allowing for a lot of "things that need to be explained". Occam's Razor is precisely why you should be suspicious.

If my cosmology is simpler you won't believe me still. You can't believe anything else until you you cease believing that any real science has ever been done on the cosmos. Observation alone not 'nuff.

FWIW, my cosmology explains "dark matter" and the appearance of an expanding universe, in very simple terms. The missing energy source is gain from feedback, simple as. Expansion is a mirage of light convolution, all the way until it's noise, and noise points in every direction; that also explains background radiation, it's the noise floor. (NOTE: The standard model does not prove "everything in the universe is moving away from each other", it extrapolates that from the appearance of redshift in all directions; expansion is not "observed").

A new cosmology doesn't have to explain everything that the standard model does, because most of that is black hole fiction.

The funny thing about my mention of marxism is that most of the cosmological pushback I got came under that comment rather than my first one. It was the marxism that that did it lmao.

My question to all similar conspiracies, sure I can assume US could be evil and corrupt, but then you have their enemies like China and Russia , you have other more neutral countries like EU or India , why are all of this scientists in this conspiracy?

And how is it possible that the conspiracy groups can't gather some money to raise a balloon and prove the earth is flat or buy access to an Earth based telescope and prove their ideas using evidence?

It's not about conspiracy. Christianity isn't a conspiracy. It's about belief, dogma, and for folks of a certain nature, REAL SCIENCE.

NASA is just a church pushing doctrine. I'm challenging their dogma. If it had been the Vatican or Putin, my argument would be the same.

If you know some math, then what primary terms or axioms are you chalanging? Or you even challange logic?

Also maybe you are the only one alive and we all the rest are your dream? We can\t prove to you it is not true so if you are dogmatic about things then we are wasting our time trying to use reason here.

You have to read this whole thread now. Infinity is the main problem, Math wise. The standard model is not only incomplete science, it is totally mucked math. Infinity isn't real, but is being used as such in the model, so that's regress/tautology.

I already told another marxist i'm not arguing for not-knowing, I'm arguing against believing dogma, I'm invalidating your science first, then we can get to mine. You are arguing for your beliefs in the face of invalidation, so you come up with arguments claiming i don't think we can know anything. I didn't say that.

So, why not do something actually constructive/

Like the math people have branches of geometry where the parallel axiom is not used. So is there a different model that works? Because all scientists will say "this is our model" and you can have different equivalent models, so what is your model, does it work and what it predicts? What experiment you need done to prove it?

Destroying modern cosmology is constructive! They can't lose their cosmology, because hundreds of years will come due if that happens. Because theirs spins whole fake world, but it really provides no meaning, only fantasies (aliens, black holes, worm holes, weird mathematical phenomena played out in the model).

The modern scientific and academic system is hundreds of thousands of people who are not there to challenge knowledge, but play with models for tax dollars. I'd rather destroy their models and send them home than prove my own, for they would only appropriate mine into their models, and continue their deception with more power for knowing the truth.

I could tell you the truth, and we could work to validate it, but you won't believe me without what, science based on measuring the sky? Yet you buy their science which I can invalidate, and you can't validate beyond pointing to "what scientists believe". So that tells me, there's no point in making a better model right now. One good shot will kill their cosmology, and then the bottom will be out and we can put the cosmos back, together.

You can wait and see tho, stay believing we will go to Mars, you will die with that dream unrealized. Were you born yesterday you will die before humans go to mars. Unless you think Mars is WAR, like people did before rulers changed the meaning of things. In that case, we are definitely going to Mars.

Galileo was the point when the narrative changes from "we matter to god as the center of the universe", to this heat death nihilism. Why, because telescopes? I don't buy it. They could have smote Galileo and kept the old doctrine intact. I suspect something bigger...

So you have shit, you read a blog about some mathematical paradoxes about infinity and now think you somehow are smarter then everyone else.

Models are evaluated by how well they predict the reality but models are not the reality. So you can complain that Newton model for mechanics is imperfect but as long as it does the job for me and you bring nothing better I will still use it productively.

I am trained in math not cosmology so I wanted to get a link to read about your better model.

Models don't predict anything about space or the universe. We can't do anything out in the universe, only down here in earth atmospheres. You'd rightly assume somebody daft if they suggested using economic models on the universe, but not quantum physical models.

I'm not pushing my models or cosmology, I'm destroying the lie of academic cosmology based on weak rational sciences. I cannot convince you of another cosmology if you can't disbelieve what you've been told. You believe science has actually been done on the cosmos, because measurements.

You believe big bang, black holes, entropy and heat death, and infinite space, rather than reckoning those are things that disprove. You believe thermodynamics is universal and eternal, despite the fact that life itself breaks with them, and is older than most of your "stars" in "space". You deny your own existence to believe in scifi universality.

No internet link is going to convince you otherwise.

My guess is that you think God created everything around 5000 years ago in 6 days right?

tl;dr Mysticism around the science has to be dispelled before people will even consider another cosmology. That's detective work, not scientific modeling. Science is ideological at the point.

That is cheap words, show me a better mathematics or a better science or a better model. Black holes were proposed by theory and thought experiemnts and then we found them, this tells me the model were good. Now your move, tell me what your model predicts and let's see if you can prove it.

You found a black hole? Show me the black hole, I want to see it! Is it next to the big bang? Is it closer the infinitely expanding edges of the universe?

If you believe in black holes and big bangs you will believe anything. But you won't believe in another cosmology until you disbelieve anything approaching real science has been done on the universe.

You have no proof of black holes, you have never seen one. You were told that some calculations based on a model prove it, and have seen artists renderings, so you believe.

I copied from another commend of mine the following, which explains things that these astrophysicist still can't with their models. Simpler too. You should know that all the standard model does is explain. You could use the same maths and readings that they do to surmise another conclusion, maybe you will try yourself one day.

My cosmology explains "dark matter" and the appearance of an expanding universe, in very simple terms. The missing energy source is gain from feedback, simple as. Infinite Expansion is a mirage of light convolution until it's noise, and noise points in every direction; that also explains background radiation, it's the noise floor (ie. it's not the actual background farthest reaches, the noise is everywhere near and far).

Occam's Razors says your cosmology is wrong. It's too convoluted, it has to explain the craziest singularities which are not observable, yet can't explain real observations like missing energy and background radiation. No math changes these facts.

Can you link to your super simple model? Does it have a name? I would read about it/ I read a book that was promoting the idea that the universe is a cellular automaton, I like interesting ideas but they must also have some inteligent stuff in it , even if our universe is not based on your cosmology maybe it is a valid thing that an universe could be based on.

Don't tell me you think the moon is still there when you're not looking at it. :D

Fast forward 500 years and no return to the moon. Do you still believe?

Wait until Elon's starships are used for World War and never go that mirage called Mars!

Are the Marxist moderators in the room with us right now?

You'd never know, that's how they operate. I can't even downvote, so whoever can is on another level. A level that guarantees they know more than me. Cuz marxist always know better, that's their whole philosophy wrapped up.

Those darn Woke Marxists at it again, this time denying you a downvote button, and me too! Now I know who to blame at least. NASA and the Marxists in leagues with hackernews.

Right, if you and I had posted enough chum for updoots by the general public, who are all geniuses, you and I would have scored enough points for a downvote button. News Leaderboard Meritocracy, that's how truly great science works!

As long as the public believes! That's the way science should work. No, that's how marxism works, sorry I was confused there...

You 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.

What'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.

> 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-elep...

Then 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.

Not even wrong.

THANK YOU.

I’m sorry, but where are you getting the jump to Marxism?

Moderation is marxist, that's it. At least this forum doesn't delete content like the platforms. Talk about burning libraries!

You posted 28 flamewar comments in this thread and broke the site guidelines every which way. That's way beyond the pale. We ban accounts that do this. Please don't do it again.

Btw, users downvoted you, not moderators, and one of the site guidelines specifically asks you not to go on about downvotes.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

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.

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).

Obviously the Hubble is still doing useful science, but since the JWST is operating now every time I see a Hubble thing it makes me wonder what the JWST would see.

There's some really good explanation of the difference in the two systems in this NOVA episode: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/ultimate-space-telescope...

Note, this site imports javascript from about 24 domains! I wouldn't touch it without a noscript pole.