Ultimate space simulation software

 
User avatar
JackDole
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Posts: 1864
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Location: Terra

General suggestions for SpaceEngine

09 Oct 2020 21:05

Scienceboy999 wrote:
Source of the post Hello. I have noticed a problem with the maffei group of galaxies. It appears as if Maffei 1 and Maffei 2 were incorrectly placed, as they are hundreds of millions of lightyears behind the rest of the group, but in the correct direction.

This will be fixed in the next update.
JackDole's Universe 0.990: http://forum.spaceengine.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=546
JackDole's Archive: http://forum.spaceengine.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=419
JackDole: Mega structures ... http://old.spaceengine.org/forum/17-3252-1 (Old forum)
 
A-L-E-X
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Posts: 2205
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

General suggestions for SpaceEngine

09 Oct 2020 22:17

I have an idea- enable high res cubemaps of planet surfaces.  I have been able to do very high res cubemaps of star clusters or orbitting above a planet but not at the surface.  I did both 4 megapixel (2x2) and 16 megapixel (4x4) cubemaps but it wont work from the surface of a planet, can that be changed? Also what software can I use to combine the cubemaps into a single immersive image?
 
User avatar
Zebra Zed
Observer
Observer
Posts: 14
Joined: 22 Oct 2020
Location: Bournemouth, UK

General suggestions for SpaceEngine

22 Oct 2020 12:23

I have been thinking of that it would be cool if the multiverse was added in Space Engine. I would like to travel to other universes just as I do travel to other galaxies. That would be dazzling to explore other universes. Each universe would be a bubble in its own universe.
 
User avatar
longname
Explorer
Explorer
Posts: 166
Joined: 13 Apr 2017
Location: ∞/The Multiverse/The Universe/Local Cluster/The Milky Way/Orion Arm/Sol System/Earth-Moon/Earth/UK

General suggestions for SpaceEngine

24 Oct 2020 11:11

Zebra Zed wrote:
I have been thinking of that it would be cool if the multiverse was added in Space Engine. I would like to travel to other universes just as I do travel to other galaxies. That would be dazzling to explore other universes. Each universe would be a bubble in its own universe.

The Multiverse has not been confirmed to exist.
[dah<500,26>dah<180,14>dah<180,21>dah<500,19>dah<180,26>dah<500,21>]
 
User avatar
Zebra Zed
Observer
Observer
Posts: 14
Joined: 22 Oct 2020
Location: Bournemouth, UK

General suggestions for SpaceEngine

24 Oct 2020 17:12

I know that. However, it would be cool to have to travel in the Multiverse in Space Engine.
 
Nahor
Space Tourist
Space Tourist
Posts: 30
Joined: 09 Dec 2016

General suggestions for SpaceEngine

24 Oct 2020 17:59

Zebra, we don't know if the multiverse exist, much less how it looks like. So the best that could be done is something that look the same as our own universe. And so there wouldn't be anything to gain from having it.
 
User avatar
FastFourierTransform
Pioneer
Pioneer
Posts: 302
Joined: 17 Nov 2016

General suggestions for SpaceEngine

25 Oct 2020 03:48

There are many "multiverse theories", which one should be picked? Also if what you want is just a new bunch of galaxies outside the square cube of SpeceEngine this is not such an improvenet anyway. The multiverse is an hypothesis (many in fact) that has yet not been supported by any evidence. We could also have unicorns in SpaceEngine but the core idea of the project is to make a scientifically accurate planetarium. I can guarantee you that you will never have sufficient time to explore even a single galaxy in SpaceEngine, there's no reason whatsoever for the multiverse in this game.

Also, welcome to the forum. Please, before asking so many questions make sure they are new by using the search tool.The multiverse concept in SpaceEngine was debated before and there are no plans to implement it.
 
A-L-E-X
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Posts: 2205
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

General suggestions for SpaceEngine

25 Oct 2020 08:35

The multiverse is more likely than not ....and we already have lots of not real exoplanets in the system so a multiverse could be added also.  Besides, some noted cosmologists like Penrose, Smolin and others say they have ways to prove it is real by analyzing CMBR data,  Comparing it to unicorns is being completely disingenuous so I dont think you can make that kind of comparison in any kind of intellectually honest way.  We already have wormhole add-ons in the program so it wouldn't take much to have another universe with different laws of physics on the other side (changing the value of the alpha fine structure constant, or having a contracting universe rather than an expanding one, for example.)

And thanks for the link, Doc is one of my favorite people and he presents some really good ideas about how (what I call omniverse rather than multiverse) would work.  And of course, Wat, too, he brought up Poplawski, who I also happen to agree with, as well as ER=EPR!  Good times.
 
User avatar
FastFourierTransform
Pioneer
Pioneer
Posts: 302
Joined: 17 Nov 2016

General suggestions for SpaceEngine

25 Oct 2020 09:21

A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post  I dont think you can make that kind of comparison in any kind of intellectually honest way


I mean, unicorns are quite plausible in this universe, they don't violate any physical laws and make quite a lot of sense in biology. Even in our planet evolution could have brought them, they are just... horses with a horn. I think the comparison is unbalanced aswell, the multiverse defies many more aspects of our current knowledge and ask for far more suppositions (even if I agree that it is scientifically debatable, not like the unicorns).

And now seriously, there are many plausible ideas out there but in the realm of hypothesis almost everything is possible. Until there is not the slightest evidence I really can't expect a scientific mind to accept this as realistic. Also, there are many different theories of the multiverse; in some it is just the same spacetime but patches outside our observable horizon, in others is just an philosophical interpretation, a reaction against the difficult idea posed by quantum mechanics that different quantum states can be in superposition. In other theories the multiverse is a set of non-interacting entities with different dimensionality. Which theory should SpaceEngineer should choose? They are all plausible and many contradicting between each other.

And in some multiverse theories the laws of physics change. Good luck trying to simulate/recreate millions of different universes with random physical laws and expect to see the result of the evolution of matter under those conditions. I mean, this is just like asking SpaceEngineer to do a set of completely different programs as detailed and complicated as SE but with phenomena and elements that have to be presupposed. In essence you want many different fantasy games, not a software that depicts the current knowledge about the universe.

A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post changing the value of the alpha fine structure constant

This is exactly the issue. Changing that value changes the way matter condenses, there might be many universes where light can't even travel a nanometer, universes where many different things might happen but they are totally devoid of any visual input for the player. You can't just touch these parameters and expect wonderfull things, the vast majority of situations would be incomprehensible, the controls would have to adapt to new topologies which would make you unable to understand even what you are doing inside the game. I really don't think it is a usefull concept at all. And why is this? Because in a "statistical physics" way of thinking it is easier to find boring equilibrium, high entropy situations than ones like ours where entropy was low at the begining and complexity could arise as that increased (and by complex I don't mean galaxies and sentient beings, I mean even something as "simple" as a molecule).

A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post We already have wormhole add-ons in the program

Indeed those are addons. You can create addons of a giant homer simpson or a space unicorn if you want. That's the reason they are addons, and not incorporated by default. But here we are asking about changeing the physics engine, visualization and object interaction. How such a suggestion should be taken?

A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post we already have lots of not real exoplanets in the system so a multiverse could be added also.

Exoplanets are known to exist, statistical data can be extrapolated with fairnes to generate a realistic representation of the universe in this respect. Our current knowledge on the existence of planets around other stars is so well established that the absence of procedurally generated exoplanets in SE would be a step towards fantasy. On the other hand, the multiverse is not an established evidence-based theory, there are many incompatible proposals and frequently requires not-known physics or even new-physics (which exoplanets certainly don't). In short, it is speculative, and no scientific mind, not even Penrose, Smolin or Poplawski, would ever say that they know it exists, they speculate (which is very very fine) and they make it clear that it is all speculation. From that speculation advances might come in the future, but for now the multiverse remains a speculation (just like when people speculated that Terra Australis had to exist because in that way the planet was balanced, but no honest individual ever thought he had seen its coasts).

We can all love the idea, which is certainly a fun concept, but, if this is presented as a suggestion for SE, we have to 1) understand that it is not a "scientific theory" per se, but just an hypothesis, and thus it goes against the whole zen of SE of having a realistic planetarium-like software, 2) believe there's a plausible way to program this for milissencond renderings without having to redo the entire engine and start from scratch (in essence, a totally different game), 3) believe that this is even reasonable for Vladimir to code in a life, 4) believe that it would be worth it as a feature considering what people would do (almost never explore the multiverse because the vast majority of cases are just random boring thermal-equilibrium baths of particles or universes that last less than a millisecond in which case you wouldn't explore a thing, or have no light-source so anything to see, or simply would ask for features on this universe that are still in the qeue forever now that the multiverse "has to be done") and 5) even if we assume is true, we have no clue whatsoever as to how realistically depict the different scenarios without brute force simulation of their entire evolution under different set of physical laws (something that SE doesn't even does for our universe and set of physical laws by the way, since it is extremely time-consuming and requires computational capabilities humanity as a whole doesn't have yet).
 
A-L-E-X
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Posts: 2205
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

General suggestions for SpaceEngine

25 Oct 2020 11:56

FastFourierTransform wrote:
A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post  I dont think you can make that kind of comparison in any kind of intellectually honest way


I mean, unicorns are quite plausible in this universe, they don't violate any physical laws and make quite a lot of sense in biology. Even in our planet evolution could have brought them, they are just... horses with a horn. I think the comparison is unbalanced aswell, the multiverse defies many more aspects of our current knowledge and ask for far more suppositions (even if I agree that it is scientifically debatable, not like the unicorns).

And now seriously, there are many plausible ideas out there but in the realm of hypothesis almost everything is possible. Until there is not the slightest evidence I really can't expect a scientific mind to accept this as realistic. Also, there are many different theories of the multiverse; in some it is just the same spacetime but patches outside our observable horizon, in others is just an philosophical interpretation, a reaction against the difficult idea posed by quantum mechanics that different quantum states can be in superposition. In other theories the multiverse is a set of non-interacting entities with different dimensionality. Which theory should SpaceEngineer should choose? They are all plausible and many contradicting between each other.

And in some multiverse theories the laws of physics change. Good luck trying to simulate/recreate millions of different universes with random physical laws and expect to see the result of the evolution of matter under those conditions. I mean, this is just like asking SpaceEngineer to do a set of completely different programs as detailed and complicated as SE but with phenomena and elements that have to be presupposed. In essence you want many different fantasy games, not a software that depicts the current knowledge about the universe.

A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post changing the value of the alpha fine structure constant

This is exactly the issue. Changing that value changes the way matter condenses, there might be many universes where light can't even travel a nanometer, universes where many different things might happen but they are totally devoid of any visual input for the player. You can't just touch these parameters and expect wonderfull things, the vast majority of situations would be incomprehensible, the controls would have to adapt to new topologies which would make you unable to understand even what you are doing inside the game. I really don't think it is a usefull concept at all. And why is this? Because in a "statistical physics" way of thinking it is easier to find boring equilibrium, high entropy situations than ones like ours where entropy was low at the begining and complexity could arise as that increased (and by complex I don't mean galaxies and sentient beings, I mean even something as "simple" as a molecule).

A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post We already have wormhole add-ons in the program

Indeed those are addons. You can create addons of a giant homer simpson or a space unicorn if you want. That's the reason they are addons, and not incorporated by default. But here we are asking about changeing the physics engine, visualization and object interaction. How such a suggestion should be taken?

A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post we already have lots of not real exoplanets in the system so a multiverse could be added also.

Exoplanets are known to exist, statistical data can be extrapolated with fairnes to generate a realistic representation of the universe in this respect. Our current knowledge on the existence of planets around other stars is so well established that the absence of procedurally generated exoplanets in SE would be a step towards fantasy. On the other hand, the multiverse is not an established evidence-based theory, there are many incompatible proposals and frequently requires not-known physics or even new-physics (which exoplanets certainly don't). In short, it is speculative, and no scientific mind, not even Penrose, Smolin or Poplawski, would ever say that they know it exists, they speculate (which is very very fine) and they make it clear that it is all speculation. From that speculation advances might come in the future, but for now the multiverse remains a speculation (just like when people speculated that Terra Australis had to exist because in that way the planet was balanced, but no honest individual ever thought he had seen its coasts).

We can all love the idea, which is certainly a fun concept, but, if this is presented as a suggestion for SE, we have to 1) understand that it is not a "scientific theory" per se, but just an hypothesis, and thus it goes against the whole zen of SE of having a realistic planetarium-like software, 2) believe there's a plausible way to program this for milissencond renderings without having to redo the entire engine and start from scratch (in essence, a totally different game), 3) believe that this is even reasonable for Vladimir to code in a life, 4) believe that it would be worth it as a feature considering what people would do (almost never explore the multiverse because the vast majority of cases are just random boring thermal-equilibrium baths of particles or universes that last less than a millisecond in which case you wouldn't explore a thing, or have no light-source so anything to see, or simply would ask for features on this universe that are still in the qeue forever now that the multiverse "has to be done") and 5) even if we assume is true, we have no clue whatsoever as to how realistically depict the different scenarios without brute force simulation of their entire evolution under different set of physical laws (something that SE doesn't even does for our universe and set of physical laws by the way, since it is extremely time-consuming and requires computational capabilities humanity as a whole doesn't have yet).

Genetic engineering can probably make them (unicorns) a reality :P  Besides, weren't unicorns based on some physical creature that actually exists?  Maybe the narwhal (though I dont see how people in Europe, where I assume the legend originated, would have access to arctic whales, unless the unicorn legend originated somewhere in Scandanavia?)
About multiverses/omniverses, does it really defy any current knowledge?  I dont think at this point we have any strong evidence one way or the other.  We have some weakly positive evidence in the form of dark flow, and in the form of the anthropic principle, which is what Smolin argued.
I read Smolin's book a few years ago, it's a viable possibility

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_natural_selection
 
Smolin, Susskind and Poplawski's ideas are all interconnected.
 
 
When Smolin published the theory in 1992, he proposed as a prediction of his theory that no neutron star should exist with a mass of more than 1.6 times the mass of the sun.[citation needed] Later this figure was raised to two solar masses following more precise modeling of neutron star interiors by nuclear astrophysicists. If a more massive neutron star was ever observed, it would show that our universe's natural laws were not tuned for maximal black hole production, because the mass of the strange quark could be retuned to lower the mass threshold for production of a black hole. A 1.97-solar-mass pulsar was discovered in 2010.[4]
In 1992 Smolin also predicted that inflation, if true, must only be in its simplest form, governed by a single field and parameter. Both predictions have held up, and they demonstrate Smolin's main thesis: that the theory of cosmological natural selection is Popper falsifiable.
This idea was further studied by Nikodem Poplawski.[5]
I wont repost Poplawski's conjecture in how to unify quantum mechanics and relativity, it's pretty well known and is included in your link ;-)  Suffice it to say that we probably wont know which idea is correct until we have a good working theory of quantum gravity.  But I do find the idea of a big bounce, imaginary time and a pre big bang universe, as well as universes with different laws of physics quite elegant in resolving a number of paradoxes, including the weird value of the cosmological constant and some of the inconsistencies with observations vs the inflationary approach and as a way to resolve the issue of singularities, which usually signifies that the original theory has a "hole" in it (pun fully intended!) that needs to be resolved
edit:  I will post this since there seem to have been some revisions to his concept as well as a new way to test it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikodem_Pop%C5%82awski
Nikodem Janusz Popławski (born March 1, 1975) is a Polish theoretical physicist, most widely noted for the hypothesis that every black hole could be a doorway to another universe and that the universe was formed within a black hole which itself exists in a larger universe.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] This hypothesis was listed by National Geographic and Science magazines among their top ten discoveries of 2010.[8][9] Popławski appeared in an episode of the TV show Through the Wormhole titled "Are There Parallel Universes?" and in an episode of the Discovery Channel show Curiosity titled "Is There a Parallel Universe?",[10] which were hosted by Morgan Freeman and aired in 2011. He was named by Forbes magazine in 2015 as one of five scientists in the world most likely to become the next Albert Einstein.[11]
 
....
 
Analogously, the Big Bang is replaced by the Big Bounce before which the Universe was the interior of a black hole.[15] This scenario generates cosmic inflation, which explains why the present Universe at largest scales appears spatially flat, homogeneous and isotropic.[16][17] It may explain the arrow of time, solve the black hole information paradox, and explain the nature of dark matter.[18] Torsion may also be responsible for the observed asymmetry between matter and antimatter in the Universe.[19] The rotation of a black hole could influence the spacetime on the other side of its event horizon and result in a preferred direction in the new universe. Popławski suggests that the observed fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background might provide evidence for his hypothesis.[20]

Hawking hypothesized "imaginary time" as a way to iron out the initial singularity and if that is correct, there was no singularity, but a bounce from a previous universe to the current one.


Yes it's a nice intellectual exercise but it's in vain until we have more ability to examine the very first moments of time (maybe by more closely examining the cosmic microwave background.)
 
Here's a conjecture, a "what if" scenario.  What if beginning or end has no real meaning, if both time and space are cyclical?  If reality has a looping structure (not necessarily repeating, but a closed loop like a spiral that changes somewhat with each new iteration and in which the "effect" becomes the "cause") then it's possible that there was never a start but just a continuation.  And what if the weird value of the cosmological constant has something to do with that and it's something which is slowly trending downward with each iteration of the cycle (if that's the case that would imply it's a finite cycle though.)  It seems to defy common sense, but I think common sense breaks down on these cosmic levels, where the very small and very large seem to be closely intertwined.

^by the way I read in that thread that SpaceEngineer has plans to actually make the universe in Space Engine cyclical in the sense that when you move far enough in one direction you do end up back where you started?  I like that idea--infinite but bounded!  I like it as a concept for time also.  But in my concept, although the universe would be cyclical, no iteration of the cycle would be like any other, so instead of circular, the universe would be more like a spiral.
What you stated about different tiers of multiverse/omniverse is quite correct, but rather than considering them all being completely different theories or conjectures, I suggest combining them all under one umbrella as Max Tegmark did.  In this way you could have universes with the same physical laws but different timelines (maybe inflation caused this?) and universes with different laws of physics as well as different interpretations of quantum mechanics all under the same umbrella.  They would just exist on different tiers or layers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Mathematical_Universe
Our Mathematical Universe is an excellent read!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multivers ... our_levels
Tegmarks has a hierarchy of four levels in his model.  Under those, Brian Greene proposes his own model which has nine tiers or layers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multivers ... nine_types
I think both of these (especially Tegmark's) address all the different "theories" you mentioned and unify them under one umbrella.  I find Tegmark's "ultimate ensemble" intriguing in the sense that it is his own idea, and has a layer all its own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathemati ... hypothesis

The big bounce/big crunch idea has been a popular one since Loop Quantum Cosmology was proposed.  Gravity becomes a repulsive force in 2 dimensions so if the universe can contract to that level (and there is very high energy cosmic ray evidence that the universe was 2 dimensional at its current beginning), instead of being a singularity, the universe can rebound at a size of about 10 planck lengths.


According to Penrose, there could actually be information transfer between a previous iteration of this universe and the current one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal ... mi_paradox
In 2015, Gurzadyan and Penrose also discussed the Fermi paradox, the apparent contradiction between the lack of evidence but high probability estimates for the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations. Within conformal cyclic cosmology, the cosmic microwave background provides the possibility of information transfer from one aeon to another, including of intelligent signals within information panspermia concept.[11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_panspermia
The concept is invented and coined by Vahe Gurzadyan,[1] which then is attributed by Stephen Webb as Solution 23 to Fermi paradox:[2]
"The Armenian mathematical physicist Vahe Gurzadyan has posited an interesting hypothesis: we might inhabit a Galaxy “full of traveling life streams” – strings of bits beamed throughout space."
Background
....
 
Information panspermia has been discussed by Gurzadyan and Roger Penrose[3] within the scheme of Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, i.e. the possibility of transmission of information from pre-Big Bang aeon to ours via the cosmic microwave background radiation.[4][5]
 
....
 
This concept assumes a different strategy of the study of the cosmic signals based on universal compressing and decoding principles.[6] Information panspermia is discussed in: [7]
"Gurzadyan’s idea offers a straightforward practical consequence: we should study alleged SETI signals from the point of view of the algorithmic information theory and we should try to identify and decode possible bit strings hidden in the noise."
And after discussing all of those, I quite agree with you there is no way Space Engine or any other program that currently exists could model all of that on any desktop computer, I think you would need a Cray supercomputer to do that and maybe not even then- next generation quantum computers may be able to do it (after all, isn't reality considered to be one giant quantum computer)?!  And it might be a lot of extra work for a very small result, as you stated most of the universes probably wouldn't even make it past the initial phase (though Smolin's Cosmic Natural Selection may have something to say about that, as his idea was that universe's like ours would be more likely to "give birth" to baby universes more like ours [transfer of "cosmic DNA?- ironic that it is in the form of a double helix, which is how I view a universe/antiverse pair, with opposing arrows of time {but each forward relative to themselves}], therefore, with time, universes that exist for long periods of time and are more complex and are more welcoming to life would tend to dominate while the other ones would die out before they ever had a chance to "procreate".)
But instead of going to all those extremes, if we just narrow ourselves to the poster's question: can a different universe be simulated in Space Engine?  I would say yes if we limit ourselves to the following parameters: make it a universe like ours and have an entrance/exit region at the other end of a wormhole (which are already available via add-on.)  We could create an extra parameter that would use a single variable to make the universe different from ours in some fun random way.  I would leave that to the programmers :P  But having a single variable that changes completely randomly with each entrance or exit from the wormhole would be a fun addition to the simulation I would think.....
Also, I quite agree that it does not rise to the level of theory (and I think all of the cosmologists I mentioned would agree with that) that's why I was careful in using words like "idea" and "conjecture" (and conjecture is really the proper word for it, that or "hypothesis.")  I think it will present an interesting area of research, especially for very high energy colliders and quantum supercomputers, and since the ideas are Popper falsifiable (well, many of them are), we should be able to eventually determine which ideas hold water and which do not.
A parallel idea that could be simple enough to add is a map of the CMBR (I thought of this because of Penrose's idea that irregularities in the CMBR may eventually serve as proof/disproof of his concept of Conformal Cyclical Cosmology.)  This additional layer may be something worth exploring (the way I look at it, is it's like looking at a fossil record of the whole universe- or current iteration at least- and that may offer some intriguing clues as to the possible existence of a pre-Big Bang universe as well as possible interactions with adjacent universes.)
 
User avatar
JackDole
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Posts: 1864
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Location: Terra

General suggestions for SpaceEngine

25 Oct 2020 23:31

A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post Besides, weren't unicorns based on some physical creature that actually exists?  Maybe the narwhal (though I dont see how people in Europe, where I assume the legend originated, would have access to arctic whales, unless the unicorn legend originated somewhere in Scandanavia?)


The unicorn was created by a translation error in the Bible.
The term "Re'em" has been translated as 'Monoceros' (unicorn) in the Greek translation. But what is meant by this animal is the aurochs. It has two horns, but was always shown in profile in earlier pictures, so that only one horn could be seen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re%27em
JackDole's Universe 0.990: http://forum.spaceengine.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=546
JackDole's Archive: http://forum.spaceengine.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=419
JackDole: Mega structures ... http://old.spaceengine.org/forum/17-3252-1 (Old forum)
 
talley
Observer
Observer
Posts: 2
Joined: 26 Oct 2020

General suggestions for SpaceEngine

26 Oct 2020 02:20

PlutonianEmpire wrote:
Anthony96 wrote:
A app for android and iPad

Not quite possible. It would require a total rewrite of the entire thing, AND, mobile devices have nowhere near the graphics power of a proper PC.

The next best thing would be a 3rd party app or utility that could let you access your computer remotely from your device and play SE that way. There, the only limitations would be network speeds and data capping, afaik.:) 

As you said it is possible with a third party app, So is it ok to use third party apps?
 
A-L-E-X
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Posts: 2205
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

General suggestions for SpaceEngine

26 Oct 2020 05:43

JackDole wrote:
A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post Besides, weren't unicorns based on some physical creature that actually exists?  Maybe the narwhal (though I dont see how people in Europe, where I assume the legend originated, would have access to arctic whales, unless the unicorn legend originated somewhere in Scandanavia?)


The unicorn was created by a translation error in the Bible.
The term "Re'em" has been translated as 'Monoceros' (unicorn) in the Greek translation. But what is meant by this animal is the aurochs. It has two horns, but was always shown in profile in earlier pictures, so that only one horn could be seen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re%27em

Oh that's interesting and a great piece of detective work on your part, JD! :-)  Was the auroch a creature used during early "bull fights" and to help farmers?  I believe it is extinct now.
 
User avatar
JackDole
Star Engineer
Star Engineer
Posts: 1864
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Location: Terra

General suggestions for SpaceEngine

26 Oct 2020 09:57

JackDole's Universe 0.990: http://forum.spaceengine.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=546
JackDole's Archive: http://forum.spaceengine.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=419
JackDole: Mega structures ... http://old.spaceengine.org/forum/17-3252-1 (Old forum)
 
User avatar
Zebra Zed
Observer
Observer
Posts: 14
Joined: 22 Oct 2020
Location: Bournemouth, UK

General suggestions for SpaceEngine

26 Oct 2020 14:09

It would be great to see complex life on habitable Earth-like planets. I mean life like animals such as birds, cats, dogs, rabbits, elephants etc. That would be cool to explore in Space Engine.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest