Free planetarium

 
User avatar
FastFourierTransform
Space Pilot
Space Pilot
Posts: 109
Joined: 17 Nov 2016

Unrealistic stars.

27 Sep 2017 23:37

A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post It makes me wonder how did R136a1 happen if it is such an outlier? And there are others in the same cluster of a similar mass? And how come the LMC has it and none have been found in our galaxy or Andromeda M31 which are both much larger?

Even if vast parts of our galaxy have unknown stars due to dust obscuration and other effects (as stated by donatello200), wich is correct, we still know much more stars (hundreds of times moore) of the Milky Way than any other galaxy (including the magellanic clouds).

The real reason you currently can't find a star like R136a1 in our galaxy is that our galaxy has a much smaller star formation rate per cubic parsec than the magellanic clouds (stars born per year in a unit of volume of the galaxy). These massive stars burn hard and live short. If you see one you are surely seen a star that has borned at max a million years ago (nothing in terms of geological timescales), in fact R136a1 is just 0.8 million years old. They don't live much longer so they dissapear from view. If you can see them in the magellanic clouds is just because the rate at wich stars are forming is grater and there are more chances, but in the milky way a star birth is "rare" in current times (it was not 11 billion years ago) so all the supermassive stars are gone and don't get substituted by new ones very frequently in geological timescales.

What is the reason for magellanic clouds to have a higher star formation rate per cubic parsec? well, its the same reason Io is heated by Jupiter: tidal interactions with the milky way.
 
User avatar
Dr. Kaii
Space Pilot
Space Pilot
Posts: 130
Joined: 26 Nov 2016
Location: Manchester England
Contact:

Unrealistic stars.

28 Sep 2017 09:10

Mouthwash wrote:
And you talk about what a 'proper simulator' is with a straight face?

What's that supposed to imply? You do realise that the goal of Space Engine is to be as accurate and inclusive of all astronomical phenomena as possible? 
i7 7700K - 4.7MHz, Inno3D GeForce GTX 1080 HerculeZ Twin X2 8192MB, 32GB DDR4 3000MHz, CV1 + Oculus Touch
 
A-L-E-X
World Builder
World Builder
Posts: 804
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

Unrealistic stars.

28 Sep 2017 10:57

FastFourierTransform wrote:
A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post It makes me wonder how did R136a1 happen if it is such an outlier? And there are others in the same cluster of a similar mass? And how come the LMC has it and none have been found in our galaxy or Andromeda M31 which are both much larger?

Even if vast parts of our galaxy have unknown stars due to dust obscuration and other effects (as stated by donatello200), wich is correct, we still know much more stars (hundreds of times moore) of the Milky Way than any other galaxy (including the magellanic clouds).

The real reason you currently can't find a star like R136a1 in our galaxy is that our galaxy has a much smaller star formation rate per cubic parsec than the magellanic clouds (stars born per year in a unit of volume of the galaxy). These massive stars burn hard and live short. If you see one you are surely seen a star that has borned at max a million years ago (nothing in terms of geological timescales), in fact R136a1 is just 0.8 million years old. They don't live much longer so they dissapear from view. If you can see them in the magellanic clouds is just because the rate at wich stars are forming is grater and there are more chances, but in the milky way a star birth is "rare" in current times (it was not 11 billion years ago) so all the supermassive stars are gone and don't get substituted by new ones very frequently in geological timescales.

What is the reason for magellanic clouds to have a higher star formation rate per cubic parsec? well, its the same reason Io is heated by Jupiter: tidal interactions with the milky way.

Thanks, FFT, is LMC also much younger than the Milky Way?  If so, it would be possible that our galaxy had stars like that when it was much younger too?
 
User avatar
Mouthwash
Astronaut
Astronaut
Topic Author
Posts: 69
Joined: 22 May 2017

Unrealistic stars.

28 Sep 2017 12:35

Dr. Kaii wrote:
Mouthwash wrote:
And you talk about what a 'proper simulator' is with a straight face?

What's that supposed to imply? You do realise that the goal of Space Engine is to be as accurate and inclusive of all astronomical phenomena as possible? 


I was responding to his assertion that SE needs huge stars for better sight-seeing.
 
User avatar
FastFourierTransform
Space Pilot
Space Pilot
Posts: 109
Joined: 17 Nov 2016

Unrealistic stars.

28 Sep 2017 13:26

A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post  it would be possible that our galaxy had stars like that when it was much younger too?

Thats right!
Our galaxy has undergone many star formation outbursts (with collisions with other galaxies for example).
The biggest star formation rate its believed to had happened 10 billion years ago when the galaxy start forming. The sky could have looked something like this (if you were on the surface of a planet):

Image
Many star forming regions like Orion but all over the sky, shinning because of the huge amounts of stars been created inside them making a colorfull panorama like that of the magellanic clouds right now.

The next big star forming outburst is going to be in 6 billion years, when Andromeda galaxy collides with the Milky Way pressing huge amounts of gas until the ignition of another star birth era. Look at this representation of the sky the next 8 billion years:
Image
As you can see in the fourth and fifth image you have enourmous amounts of star formation just after the collision. The sky is going to shine like it hasn't for billions of years and thousands of supermassive stars will born and die quickly in this period.


Just for a real example. Look at the antena galaxy. These are two currently colliding galaxies and as you can see there are a lot of star forming regions like Orion but bigger and across the entire structure (the red nebulae). Also you can see that the galaxy is full of blue stars, those are the most massive ones. Our galaxy has not that quantity of blue stars at all.

Image
 
User avatar
Dr. Kaii
Space Pilot
Space Pilot
Posts: 130
Joined: 26 Nov 2016
Location: Manchester England
Contact:

Unrealistic stars.

28 Sep 2017 13:29

Those skies are so overexposed though, I'd love to see what it would actually look like with eyes in a relatively dark area
i7 7700K - 4.7MHz, Inno3D GeForce GTX 1080 HerculeZ Twin X2 8192MB, 32GB DDR4 3000MHz, CV1 + Oculus Touch
 
A-L-E-X
World Builder
World Builder
Posts: 804
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

Unrealistic stars.

28 Sep 2017 13:50

Wow, now I really wish SE could fast forward to 6 billion years in the future and see what kind of stars there would be then!  Probably even larger than the ones in the LMC!
 
User avatar
The Potato
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 45
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Location: Paris Commune

Unrealistic stars.

29 Sep 2017 18:01

I remember finding a star that was 109 astronomical units wide.
"Always enable filename extensions."
-Me
 
User avatar
donatelo200
Space Tourist
Space Tourist
Posts: 29
Joined: 08 Dec 2016

Unrealistic stars.

29 Sep 2017 19:10

I've found 150+ Au in older versions.  Sadly it is capped at 39Au now.  Though I suppose it is better this way for realism's sake.
CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K
GPU: Nvidia GTX 1080
SSD: Samsung 850 Evo 250GB
HDD: Toshiba DT01ACA200 2TB
HDD: WD Blue 1TB (2012)
RAM: Unknown 16G-D3-1600-MR 2x8GB
MBD: MSI Z97S SLI Krait Edition (MS-7922)
 
User avatar
Mouthwash
Astronaut
Astronaut
Topic Author
Posts: 69
Joined: 22 May 2017

Unrealistic stars.

30 Sep 2017 19:28

donatelo200 wrote:
I've found 150+ Au in older versions.  Sadly it is capped at 39Au now.  Though I suppose it is better this way for realism's sake.

I just posted two stars larger than 100.
 
User avatar
donatelo200
Space Tourist
Space Tourist
Posts: 29
Joined: 08 Dec 2016

Unrealistic stars.

01 Oct 2017 12:21

I am playing in the closed beta.  Not .9.8.0.
CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K
GPU: Nvidia GTX 1080
SSD: Samsung 850 Evo 250GB
HDD: Toshiba DT01ACA200 2TB
HDD: WD Blue 1TB (2012)
RAM: Unknown 16G-D3-1600-MR 2x8GB
MBD: MSI Z97S SLI Krait Edition (MS-7922)
 
User avatar
Mouthwash
Astronaut
Astronaut
Topic Author
Posts: 69
Joined: 22 May 2017

Unrealistic stars.

01 Oct 2017 21:13

Oh, cool. Any chance you still have the coordinates for the stars?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests