EPTThe most important image in history - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
gLyo
United States2410 Posts
| ||
|
koreakool
United States334 Posts
| ||
|
Doctorasul
Romania1145 Posts
| ||
|
boghat
United States2109 Posts
This was my desktop wallpaper for awhile at one point. | ||
|
StylishVODs
Sweden5331 Posts
 | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
| ||
|
lugggy
450 Posts
If you are aware of the huge gap between what people could understand about the evolutionary history of life on Earth, you should probably add to that, even moreso, how few people acknowledge basic facts available in Astronomy. It's even easier to see people say Big Bang is "just a theory" than to see people say that about Evolution. | ||
|
AngryLlama
United States1227 Posts
| ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
Nice write up as well for that matter. As for most important picture I have another candidate by space telescope COBE showing the fluctuation in the cosmological background. Basically it is a picture of the universe a tiny fraction of a second after big bang.  I was assigned to write a popular science article on it a year ago, when some guys were awarded the Nobel price for it. I'll post it ẃhen I get home from work in a few hours. Possibly in a new thread. | ||
|
alpskomleko
Slovenia950 Posts
Then there's some major stuff to talk about, like for example the reason the universe is so cold, and the direct implications this has for the development of life. | ||
|
Bub
United States3518 Posts
On January 29 2008 01:40 alpskomleko wrote: Yes, I have read quite a lot about the cosmic background radiation. It's funny how everything is interconnected once you spend some time on it, for example the tiny fluctuations in that radiation show the temperature fluctuations in space, for example the major difference between hot stars and the cold nothingness of space, and it also indirectly proves the big bang theory by showing the initial conditions short after the symmetry break, when tiny areas of density fluctuations rapidly expanded, and which was of major importance for the latter formation of gas clouds which in turn produced stars; i.e., if the density was to remain uniform across the universe, nothing at all could have emerged. Then there's some major stuff to talk about, like for example the reason the universe is so cold, and the direct implications this has for the development of life. ![[image loading]](http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/503/ruseriouskx3.jpg) | ||
|
pyrogenetix
United Arab Emirates5090 Posts
suddenly i feel so so small. so insignificant. =( | ||
|
azndsh
United States4447 Posts
| ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32027 Posts
| ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
| ||
|
Flaccid
8828 Posts
![[image loading]](http://progressiveboink.com/justin/Futurama/god2.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://www.ssfuturama.cz/stuff/wallpapers/waiting_for_god800.jpg) We are looking AT GOD, PEOPLE! | ||
|
nA.Inky
United States794 Posts
It simply means that if I were starving, I would feel very bad that billions of dollars were being spent on space equipment and things of that nature. The sense of injustice would be profound. The situation is so much more sad when I consider how incredibly powerful and capable humans are. We can put people on the moon if we want to. We can leave the Earth. We can fly around in giant metal machines. We can create nuclear explosions. We can do so much. And yet we choose not to address poverty, inequality, and widespread injustice. This isn't saying that people who support research like what the hubble is involved in are callous or cruel. It's just saying that we ought to collectively consider our values. Why should we put space exploration before the wellbeing of life on Earth? Afterall, Earth is where we live, and the people of Earth are our brothers and sisters. Space isn't going anywhere. | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
Also, I would like to point out that technologies that have come out of space exploration, such as advances in storing food for long periods of time in potentially hostile environments, have made a lot of people a lot better off than they would otherwise be. Don't get me wrong, I am a supporter of feeding people, but saying technology spending is standing in the way of caring for our poor only shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32027 Posts
On January 29 2008 04:26 nA.Inky wrote: I have to agree with Luddite's position: we should take care of ourselves here on Earth before we go spending fortunes to look into space. Do not mistakenly think this means that people like myself do not appreciate what this image means, or that we do not appreciate the vastness of the universe. It simply means that if I were starving, I would feel very bad that billions of dollars were being spent on space equipment and things of that nature. The sense of injustice would be profound. The situation is so much more sad when I consider how incredibly powerful and capable humans are. We can put people on the moon if we want to. We can leave the Earth. We can fly around in giant metal machines. We can create nuclear explosions. We can do so much. And yet we choose not to address poverty, inequality, and widespread injustice. This isn't saying that people who support research like what the hubble is involved in are callous or cruel. It's just saying that we ought to collectively consider our values. Why should we put space exploration before the wellbeing of life on Earth? Afterall, Earth is where we live, and the people of Earth are our brothers and sisters. Space isn't going anywhere. Soooo many technological advances have come from NASA and space exploration! | ||
|
Bub
United States3518 Posts
| ||
| ||
