Old Pictures from Celestia (locked)

[t00fri]

My latest ArcBuilder world:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/maastrichian/430596431/

I used a random select and copy method to create the texture on this one. I'm probably going to take a bit of a break on these worlds; after a while, the Earth-like worlds tend to look alike, and while I still have several to make, per ArcBuilder setting parameters, I also have many non-Gaian worlds that I need to make. I think I'll experiment with those for a while.

...John...

John,

let me ask you a stupid question from time to time...:

Since you explained to me some time ago what the ArcBuilders Universe actually is, I am now wondering what the final aim might be.

You explained to me that progress in building new worlds is slow, since for you and your wife there are lots of other distractions (like work for example).

But given that you have a persistent tendency to add more worlds to your Universe, it seems to me that your present way of proceeding is highly uneffective.

OK, you might reply that you are not a computer buff, but would it hurt your artistic feelings if the computer would eventually take over in generating new worlds according to certain /pseudo scientific/ composition rules??

Looking at your lovely photographs of our planet, I (implicitly) understand that you like to put your "own hands" at all your newly created worlds? Right?

On the other hand I judge from your displayed images that your working resolution is rather modest. Certainly not the >=64k kind of thing that I like to deal with
So this looks like perfect terrain for an "obediant" computer

Bye Fridger

[Dollan]

John,

let me ask you a stupid question from time to time...:

Since you explained to me some time ago what the ArcBuilders Universe actually is, I am now wondering what the final aim might be.

The actual, final aim is to simply create an indepth setting where I might have a large range of stories, hopefully for eventual publication in one form or another. What I'm creating in Celestia serves as visual "candy", as it were, for the website where I have all of the information.

You explained to me that progress in building new worlds is slow, since for you and your wife there are lots of other distractions (like work for example).

But given that you have a persistent tendency to add more worlds to your Universe, it seems to me that your present way of proceeding is highly uneffective.

**chuckles** That's a kind way to put it! I get distracted way too easily, always wanting more. But I do have a *core* set of concepts and materials, not online, which keeps me on track towards my eventual goal.

OK, you might reply that you are not a computer buff, but would it hurt your artistic feelings if the computer would eventually take over in generating new worlds according to certain /pseudo scientific/ composition rules??

The more than the computer could do, with higher detail, the better. I try to keep these worlds inline with certain precepts that I might have about them, but the end results are almost always much different than what I set out to create.

Looking at your lovely photographs of our planet, I (implicitly) understand that you like to put your "own hands" at all your newly created worlds? Right?

I try. For instance, I may have a sketch somewhere of a continental arrangement that I would like to use. But, in the end, I may not always succeed in that, for various reasons.

On the other hand I judge from your displayed images that your working resolution is rather modest. Certainly not the >=64k kind of thing that I like to deal with
So this looks like perfect terrain for an "obediant" computer

Well, let *me* ask a dumb question. How does one start creating such high resolution worlds? I've worked so long with rather poor computers, now that I have a Pentium D, I'm at a loss as to how to break out of that "rut", as it were.

...John...

[t00fri]

Well, let *me* ask a dumb question. How does one start creating such high resolution worlds? I've worked so long with rather poor computers, now that I have a Pentium D, I'm at a loss as to how to break out of that "rut", as it were.

...John...

Unfortunately, I don't know. I never create worlds .

I just happen to work with very large realistic textures of the planets. I certainly know how to manipulate these.

Whenever I spend a thought about "creating worlds", I get reminded of my old, nasty joke that this was like painting Christmas balls...In other words, /creating/ ball-shaped objects are a little too restrictive geometries for my taste

What I could find much more inspiring was creating detailed /landscapes/ on alien planets. There I could play with light and shadows "and all the tricks" that I once learned when taking painting lessons for more than 8 years with a pretty good professional painter.

The kind of things Runar is very good at....

Bye Fridger

[Spaceman Spiff]

Dione (2183_6655_4.tif) and Enceladus (2184_6666_4.tif) from Ciclops

Excellent pics, John! Yet... did anyone else find that imagevenue.com throws up some dodgy ads? I just got 888.com trying to hijack my browser!

Spiff.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Dallas, your screenshots are pretty awesome. I especially like the one with the spaceship and the star in the background.

Me too. The only problem is every time I see it, the theme to "The Black Hole" starts in my head.

Ah... the Cygnus X-1. Is it actually a model there?

Spiff.

[Dollan]

The latest ArcBuilder world, Pretarus: http://www.flickr.com/photos/maastrichian/434374953/

A relatively dry world, but one which still has a "mature" ecosystem. I tried to give it something of a "dusty" appearance, even with its single body of water.

I have to say, I really love these new atmospheric declarations. They're fun!

Please feel free to leave comments, as always.

[buggs_moran]

Dallas, your screenshots are pretty awesome. I especially like the one with the spaceship and the star in the background.

Me too. The only problem is every time I see it, the theme to "The Black Hole" starts in my head.

In case anyone doesn't know that theme song
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6973653146

Neat little documentary too...

[t00fri]

Honestly I am rather put off by the style of presentation of this broadcast:

-- what is this squeeking wind noise good for that is associated with those rotating "monster" black holes?? Who needs this cheap thrill stuff?

-- what is that PR-type voice of the narrator good for? His voice sounds like typical voice patterns heard in advertisements for toilette articles...

-- what is this mystic scifi touch good for in reports about very basic scientific phenomena?

etc.

Wow....but it seems people like this sort of presentation.

Bye Fridger

[buggs_moran]

-- what is this squeeking wind noise good for that is associated with those rotating "monster" black holes?? Who needs this cheap thrill stuff?

-- what is this mystic scifi touch good for in reports about very basic scientific phenomena?

Well to both of your quotes...many times they need these things for effect. Experts like yourself and laypersons like me don't need them. It is truly just an attention grabber for those who have little knowledge of the universe. For instance, those who think the solar system is a galaxy, or that Jupiter has a surface, or those that do not understand the grand scale of things, etc. I often find that shows like this (for me it was Sagan's Cosmos series) are good for getting people oriented, then you move them to "higher" learning over time. I am just a high school level teacher, but as a result of some of the things I learned from these "shows" at a younger age, I now find reading real scientific journal articles and books very enjoyable. Granted, there is much I do not fully grasp... As campy as those shows are, they do serve a purpose to the vastly undereducated masses. I have shown some to my students, I often point out errors and facts (like the sound in space bit).

-- what is that PR-type voice of the narrator good for? His voice sounds like typical voice patterns heard in advertisements for toilette articles...

Good for? Well, nothing really.

-Buggs

[Christophe]

Wow....but it seems people like this sort of presentation.

I find you a bit harsh on this one, sure there is a lot of distracting visual and sound effects, but at least there are no glaring mistakes and it gives some basis of cosmology. Considering the abyssal level of knowledge of the general public in this area, I say it's better than nothing.

One quick example, this happened last year on the French "Who wants to be a millionaire", the question was:
* What gravitates around the Earth
the answers were:
- The Moon
- The Sun
- Mars
- Venus

The guy doesn't know and asks the audience:
- The Moon - 42%
- The Sun - 56%
- Mars - 2%
- Venus - 0%

He ends up answering the Sun and leaves the show with 1500?‚¬.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8493010508114425938&hl=en

appalling...

[Johaen]

Wow....but it seems people like this sort of presentation.

I find you a bit harsh on this one, sure there is a lot of distracting visual and sound effects, but at least there are no glaring mistakes and it gives some basis of cosmology. Considering the abyssal level of knowledge of the general public in this area, I say it's better than nothing.

One quick example, this happened last year on the French "Who wants to be a millionaire", the question was:
* What gravitates around the Earth
the answers were:
- The Moon
- The Sun
- Mars
- Venus

The guy doesn't know and asks the audience:
- The Moon - 42%
- The Sun - 56%
- Mars - 2%
- Venus - 0%

He ends up answering the Sun and leaves the show with 1500?‚¬.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8493010508114425938&hl=en

appalling...

That makes me sad.

[t00fri]

I find you a bit harsh on this one, sure there is a lot of distracting visual and sound effects, but at least there are no glaring mistakes and it gives some basis of cosmology.

In general, I am very much opposed to these loud, over-colored, eye-catching science shows for good reasons. One result of contemplating professionally for decades about basic issues of Nature's plot, is that "understanding" requires concentration in an environment of serene tranquility ...Not exactly what these shows tend to go for ...

As to inherent nonsense, it depends on what you call 'mistakes'! For example, I find it quite horrible that these rotating black hole images are overlaid with a squeeking/cushing noise! From now on those above-cited "ignorants" will continue imagining that black holes are making these crunching noises when "eating up" the stuff coming close

There are quite a number of places in the show where it becomes obvious that a more important concern than clean information is to prevent the spectators from zapping on to another channel!

Considering the abyssal level of knowledge of the general public in this area, I say it's better than nothing.

This attitude I do NOT share when it comes to scientific information.

One quick example, this happened last year on the French "Who wants to be a millionaire", the question was:
* What gravitates around the Earth

Actually...unlike I overlooked a subtle meaning of the French word 'graviter', I would respond that the answer depends on the frame of reference and therefore the question was obviously mal-posed.

I am NOT joking here!

Clearly in the rest-frame of Earth, the sun and all planets are orbiting around Earth, however along partly very complex trajectories. So unlike one supplements the kind of gravitating orbit (like e.g. elliptical) to the question, the answer is definitely ambiguous

Bye Fridger

[Christophe]

Actually...unlike I overlooked a subtle meaning of the French word 'graviter', I would respond that the answer depends on the frame of reference and therefore the question was obviously mal-posed.

I am NOT joking here!

Clearly in the rest-frame of Earth, the sun and all planets are orbiting around Earth, however along partly very complex trajectories. So unlike one supplements the kind of gravitating orbit l (like e.g. elliptical) to the question, the answer is definitely ambiguous ;-)

I thought about this too, but I think the choice of word was actually quite good. "What orbitates around the Earth" would have been ambiguous, "gravitates" makes it clear that the body is orbiting due to the Earth's gravitational pull, the correct answer can only be the Moon.

[t00fri]

Actually...unlike I overlooked a subtle meaning of the French word 'graviter', I would respond that the answer depends on the frame of reference and therefore the question was obviously mal-posed.

I am NOT joking here!

Clearly in the rest-frame of Earth, the sun and all planets are orbiting around Earth, however along partly very complex trajectories. So unlike one supplements the kind of gravitating orbit l (like e.g. elliptical) to the question, the answer is definitely ambiguous

I thought about this too, but I think the choice of word was actually quite good. "What orbitates around the Earth" would have been ambiguous, "gravitates" makes it clear that the body is orbiting due to the Earth's gravitational pull, the correct answer can only be the Moon.

I disagree again. As you know, gravitation is an intrinsically symmetrical force between the participating bodies (every body is attracted by mass i.e. no gravitational repulsion exists). The essential asymmetry arises due to the center of gravity being close to the sun as a consequence of the sun's dominant "gravitational charge"=mass. But since by means of frame transformations the dynamics is truly "relative", it would be a misconception to speak of the sun attracting the earth in a frame-independent and thus "physical" sense.

Bye Fridger

[Dollan]

There are quite a number of places in the show where it becomes obvious that a more important concern than clean information is to prevent the spectators from zapping on to another channel!

You will, of course, never see a departure from that where the mainstream media is concerned. If those little things that keep the viewer's attention are dropped, and they do pop to another channel, perhaps to watch American Idol or Survivor, then you will fairly swiftly see the further de-evolution of those channels. Look what happened to The Learning Channel. It used to have wonderful archaeological programming, but it became sterile, and now is a haven for shows that range from how to dress to how improve your pantry.

And once again, I would like to apologize to the world for American Idol and Survivor.

...John...

[Christophe]

I disagree again. As you know, gravitation is an intrinsically symmetrical force between the participating bodies (every body is attracted by mass i.e. no gravitational repulsion exists). The essential asymmetry arises due to the center of gravity being close to the sun as a consequence of the sun's dominant "gravitational charge"=mass. But since by means of frame transformations the dynamics is truly "relative", it would be a misconception to speak of the sun attracting the earth in a frame-independent and thus "physical" sense.

Of course you are right, but it is logical when considering the gravitational interaction of two bodies to use the center of mass of the system as a reference point. And when that point happens to be inside one of the two bodies then it is natural to consider the smaller one gravitating around the larger one.

Otherwise, you can nitpick even more, the original question is not ambiguous, it doesn't make sense at all since you can't isolate the gravitational interaction of two bodies, the word "gravitate" can't be given a scientificaly accurate definition.

Regardless, I don't think the guy went into that kind of thinking to answer that the Sun is gravitating arround the Earth.

[t00fri]

...
Regardless, I don't think the guy went into that kind of thinking to answer that the Sun is gravitating arround the Earth.

We certainly agree about that

Yet our little dispute is a good example that apparently "simple and obvious" questions in physics often have a considerably more sophisticated hidden background. And moreover that it needs moments of "serene tranquility" rather than "crunching sounds and exploding colorfulness" , ...to sort it all out transparently.

Bye Fridger

[Chuft-Captain]

And once again, I would like to apologize to the world for American Idol and Survivor.

John,
why not just cover all the bases and apologize for "American"...

[Dollan]

John,
why not just cover all the bases and apologize for "American"...

Eh... let's not go there. It just doesn't work for this forum...

[t00fri]