DoctorOfSpace wrote:

A-L-E-X wrote:

Source of the post What about such things as gravity and sterile neutrinos?  They would not be tied to any one universe or brane and could thus travel or leak out

Those things are still locked within the expanding shell of spacetime, neutrinos and gravity don't travel faster than light.

A-L-E-X wrote:

Source of the post I love these ideas of yours!  So you favor a cyclic multiverse but noninteracting?

Strictly from our universal perspective I think our universe repeats.  I rather like the elegance pf Sean Carroll's model suggested in his paper here

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0410270

Given enough time and given the current known laws of physics it seems like the universe in the far future can reach an unstable point where entropy can reverse for a moment and the universe can start again.  If this is the case then perhaps our universe is cyclic.  Its elegant in that it has no beginning and no end, no real cost to exist, and the entire system is in balance with itself.  It also seems to suggest there may be a large number, if not infinite, of shells of spacetime from previous universes expanding well outside of our cosmic horizon.  In my mind I see it as a repeating universe forever without any changes, but even if each reboot the universe is slightly different, it still suggests that given enough of these the same universe will form and we will continue to repeat our existence forever.

Could be wrong, probably am, but that makes the most sense to me.

Ah, I guess it depends on which theory you're talking about.  Brane theory holds that gravity leaks into our brane from a different brane and one of the conjectures about sterile neutrinos (this isn't one of the three flavors of neutrinos we've already discovered but a fourth type that is thought to comprise a slice of dark matter) is that sterile neutrinos are not affected by any of the four fundamental forces but gravity because they are not tied down to our brane.
I like cyclic cosmology well and remember Sean Carroll from the Discover blogs.  I like his idea too- it reminds me of a cyclic cosmology theory i've been following that has gathered support- about the universe "coming back empty."  It actually doesn't break the laws of thermodynamics.

By the way interesting convo in the other thread about the likelihood of life- I responded there- we can still have life survive GRB's- it just depends on what kind of life you're talking about lol.

I just read that, it reminds me of something I've been thinking and writing about, except that in mine, it's two universes that are in balance with each other (including each with a reverse arrow of time compared to the other but both forward compared to themselves) that create baby universes and both descend from a larger universe, with the entire structure cyclic both in space and time.

https://originsoftheomniverse.shutterfly.com/927

Interesting how different people think in parallel ways:

https://supermanbatmanalexthegreatest.s ... y.com/2631

I started this a few years ago

I conjecture on a new theory of everything; in my theory each dimension can be analoged to a primary color..... in our universe each spatial dimension would be equivalent to an additive primary color (RGB) with time as the background (Black) with a complementary spacetime which consisted of dimensions that analoged to the subtractive primary colors (CMY) with complementary time as the background (White) as one space expanded the other contracts and vice versa (because the arrow of time flows opposite to each other but forward within each), It's been peer reviewed and it seems there's some excitement over this as this would solve the dark matter / dark energy problem by unifying the strong nuclear force and gravity (the strong nuclear force is carried by gluons and color charge and analoging dimensions to primary colors is gravity's version of color charge) so now we have a strong force-gravity unification and an electroweak unification and we just need to combine those dualities. There are four layers to the omniverse, with universes of different dimensions in each layer (the number of dimensions in each layer bear a pythagorean relationship to the other layers and each universe has a parent superverse from whose parent black hole it was created. If you loop through the entire hierarchy of universes you end up back where you started, so the omniverse is not only cyclical time, but also in space. I guess I'll leave that for a sequel lol. 

BTW if there are multiple timelines they would be created right after the big bang, by the force of inflation and be emergent diverging timelines along two dimensions of time (think cartesian coordinates) and if the cyclic model is correct and dark flow does reverse the expansion of space, the time lines would converge once again with a Big Bounce as the universe deflated (rinse and repeat.) The antiverse would have opposing cycles (because the arrow of time was opposite compared to ours) and if there was someway to construct some sort of device (a la star gate) to tap into the barrier which separates the two (consisting of light, which does not experience the passage of time) than both time and long distance space travel would become possible through the second temporal dimension (which keeps each timeline intact)...... according to Einstein the past, present and future all coexist and it is we who move through them, so theoretically this should be possible. He also stated that the universe (or omniverse on a larger scale) created us in order to understand itself better, forming the framework for a cosmic collective mind which encompasses not only humans, but animals, plants, alien life, even whole planets (Gaia Theory, which has been proven multiple times) and even stars and galaxies, the only difference is the density of the level of consciousness, although planets (for example) are much larger than any single life form, their density of consciousness is much less, with their "memories" (fossil record) spread out over a much larger area, so any one spot (on our scale) is seemingly lifeless. But it's not. The planet consists of a complicated series of checks and balances and delicate interplay between different parts that can and should be considered alive.

i dont know how hard it is to implement but,
how about adding diffraction spikes for stars that can be toggled on and off? I think it would make the visual using the telescope mode much better also screenshots would look more amazing for deep sky objects.
some examples: (screenshots from spaceengine with diffraction spikes)

instead of this:


having this:




if anyone thinks this is the wrong thread you can move it to "General suggestions for spaceengine"
i wasnt sure if i should post it here or there.

Bambusman wrote:

Source of the post i dont know how hard it is to implement but,how about adding diffraction spikes for stars that can be toggled on and off?

Diffraction spikes are already in SE in the graphics settings, the cross like pattern is "Nostalgic" if that is what you want. However they exist only around stars and aren't visible from interstellar space.

Space Engine is the second program of virtual Univers that I use and honestly the shaders and textures are really incredible. I have however one suggestion that could increase the interest of the program. For the moment, we can only see stars move around their barycentre, but what could be really awesome would be to see them move inside the galaxy itself !

I know there is some data from Hipparcos for the local neighborhood velocities and with the futur one from GAIA it will ensure an interest in this way. By the way this was done in the other program that I know. However if one day you manage to do it, please make possible to link constellation together in order to see them evolve by respect to time ! It would be magic !

michaelcretignier wrote:

Source of the post but what could be really awesome would be to see them move inside the galaxy itself !

Biggest problem with that is computer power, if you are ok with 0.1fps then it's a maybe.

DoctorOfSpace wrote:

michaelcretignier wrote:

Source of the post but what could be really awesome would be to see them move inside the galaxy itself !

Biggest problem with that is computer power, if you are ok with 0.1fps then it's a maybe.

DR does fps really matter with space simulators?  Sometimes you just like sitting in one spot and enjoying the scenery  With all of my space sims I like to keep fps as low as possible so the load on the CPU and GPU are as low as possible.

michaelcretignier wrote:

Space Engine is the second program of virtual Univers that I use and honestly the shaders and textures are really incredible. I have however one suggestion that could increase the interest of the program. For the moment, we can only see stars move around their barycentre, but what could be really awesome would be to see them move inside the galaxy itself !

I know there is some data from Hipparcos for the local neighborhood velocities and with the futur one from GAIA it will ensure an interest in this way. By the way this was done in the other program that I know. However if one day you manage to do it, please make possible to link constellation together in order to see them evolve by respect to time ! It would be magic !

What is the other program you use? I collect all sorts of space simulators. 

Watsisname wrote:

Eh, some of the core ideas of Gaia hypothesis can certainly be true (for example biology can moderate the environment and often does so in ways conducive to establishing equilibria, perpetuating itself or making conditions stable over time), but there are also instances where its premises are wrong.  Ultimately it lacks sufficient rigor or a formal mathematical framework to provide predictive power to be called a theory.

But as far as theoretical cosmologies go, I always did like Poplawski's universes in black holes idea.  To bad it isn't easily testable.  Another fun one is ER=EPR

It reminds me of Asimov's psychohistory where some of its premises are certainly true but there is no way to properly test it as the mathematics are not worked out.
But what if the mathematics are worked out?  Let's take Poplawski's idea as an example.  Sir Roger Penrose thinks that we could find evidence in the Cosmic Microwave Background.  I know we haven't found statistically significant results yet, but there do seem to be some irregularities in the data.

How about adding a screenshotting and even a movie feature into the program?  Right now I am using free 3D party tools to accomplish this- ScreenCaptor for screenshots and ScreenVirtuoso for movies.  SV has a nice compression feature to retain movie quality without taking up too much space.  I like going at "warp speed" and making movies showing the stars streak by.

A-L-E-X wrote:

How about adding a screenshotting and even a movie feature into the program?  Right now I am using free 3D party tools to accomplish this- ScreenCaptor for screenshots and ScreenVirtuoso for movies.  SV has a nice compression feature to retain movie quality without taking up too much space.  I like going at "warp speed" and making movies showing the stars streak by.

I don't know what you mean... You can already take screenshots with F11, with and without interface (depending if you're pressing Shift? or not).
Also you can record movies (not in real-time though, they have fixed frame-rate), there is a whole window for it...

Maybe I just misunderstood you.

Speaking of the cyclical universe idea, it makes me think it's like an extremely long version of Groundhog Day. Like an endless, repeating cycle of the exact same events, lives, planets, and Schixculub extinctions, with no opportunity to be different. Equally as fascinating as it is slightly depressing.

PlutonianEmpire wrote:

Speaking of the cyclical universe idea, it makes me think it's like an extremely long version of Groundhog Day. Like an endless, repeating cycle of the exact same events, lives, planets, and Schixculub extinctions, with no opportunity to be different. Equally as fascinating as it is slightly depressing.  :lol:

Or it could be like a helix (or a double helix if it's two universes with opposite arrows of time relative to the other) in that although the 'beginnings' and 'endings' repeat, each iteration is somewhat different from the previous.  Chaos Theory would dictate that- as random events would assure that no iteration could be exactly like any other.  Come to think of it, each iteration of Groundhog Day wasn't exactly like any of the others either- though the end result was always the same

Salvo wrote:

A-L-E-X wrote:

How about adding a screenshotting and even a movie feature into the program?  Right now I am using free 3D party tools to accomplish this- ScreenCaptor for screenshots and ScreenVirtuoso for movies.  SV has a nice compression feature to retain movie quality without taking up too much space.  I like going at "warp speed" and making movies showing the stars streak by.

I don't know what you mean... You can already take screenshots with F11, with and without interface (depending if you're pressing Shift? or not).
Also you can record movies (not in real-time though, they have fixed frame-rate), there is a whole window for it...

Maybe I just misunderstood you.

Oh I never saw those options anywhere, especially the one for movies.   Can you set the bit rate and use a compression codec for movies?  I guess you can't set the frame rate.   I remember the screenshot keystroke but I wanted an option to save it as a particular extension (.DNG, TIF, BMP, JPG, etc.) and compression ratio.

A-L-E-X, instead of making several posts in a row, it's better to make one.  You can edit after the fact, and separate responses to different people by using quotes or the hr tag like Doc showed in another thread.

But what if the mathematics are worked out?

For mathematics to be able to be worked out, it must have a rigorous theoretical framework conducive to making quantitative, potentially falsifiable predictions.  If it achieves that, then it becomes a model.  If those predictions are falsified against observations, then it is a rejected model.  If they are consistent with observations, then it is a working model.  If they are consistent with observations at the same time that the null hypothesis and other models are rejected, then it is a successful theory.

Let's take Poplawski's idea as an example.  Sir Roger Penrose thinks that we could find evidence in the Cosmic Microwave Background.  I know we haven't found statistically significant results yet, but there do seem to be some irregularities in the data.

What does "irregularities" mean?  To support Poplawski's idea, they must specifically fit his model.  Data that are inconsistent with one model do not imply that another model is more likely to be correct.  Could be related to something else entirely -- even simple uncertainty if it isn't statistically significant.

PlutonianEmpire wrote:

Source of the post Like an endless, repeating cycle of the exact same events, lives, planets, and Schixculub extinctions, with no opportunity to be different.

Heh, the nihilistic perspective of this is fun to think about.  Would it be more depressing to live in a universe where everything you do doesn't matter because it is doomed to repeat endlessly exactly the same, or to live in a universe where everything you do doesn't matter because it is doomed to heat death?