PDA

View Full Version : Accurate Milky Way mapping with close ups of the stars



Golden Spindle
02-16-2014, 06:58 PM
Hey Everyone, I was wondering if there was an accurate Milky Way model that I could zoom through and see suns in them as well, not just pin points of light like the star sphere. Is there anything like that available? I have Lightwave 9.6. Thanks.

Phil
02-16-2014, 08:08 PM
I'd be surprised because, given the range of scale involved, you'd long since have run into precision problems. Unless I misunderstand your request.

Golden Spindle
02-16-2014, 08:43 PM
Hey Everyone, I was wondering if there was an accurate Milky Way model that I could zoom through and see suns in them as well, not just pin points of light like the star sphere. Is there anything like that available? I have Lightwave 9.6. Thanks.

Well, I just need something that is pretty close. I'm sure no one is going to calculate in my Level 1 music book but I wanted something to where I have the option to be able to close in on a star or two and it look like a sun. Perhaps if I could just have a good model of the galaxy and use some lights with lens reflect and mass.

meshpig
02-17-2014, 03:58 AM
As Phil said, but think of it this way; The Sun is 150 000 000 k's from the Earth and the Earth is about 75 times smaller in diameter so if your Sun is 1cm and 1.5 m away the Earth would be many times smaller than a pixel never mind the scale.

50one
02-17-2014, 04:30 AM
So, only me who thought about chocolate bar then....?;)

Shnoze Shmon
02-18-2014, 12:08 AM
Accurately mapping all the stars in the Milkyway?

A quick Google of the number of stars in the Milkyway gets you 100-400 Billion or maybe "there are about 100 thousand million stars in the Milky Way alone." I think that means one trillion.

I'm thinking what is wanted here is a series of camera shots that start at one level of zoom and as they zoom in that level fades to the next. So you have a shot with a representation of the galaxy. As you zoom in that shot fades and is replaced by a shot of a star cluster. And so on.

bazsa73
02-18-2014, 01:47 AM
so, only me who thought about chocolate bar then....?;)

lol!

shrox
02-18-2014, 10:07 AM
There is a program called Celestia that does just that, but it's a standalone sim rather than a plug in. The site has been down for a while though. Here is a mirror to it:

http://www.softpedia.com/progDownload/Celestia-Download-2928.html

I did some models for it.

prometheus
02-18-2014, 10:37 AM
shouldnīt starpro be the best tool for that? the database I assume is the stars from the milkyway...even though it donīt contain all of them, that would be suicide for lightwave to handle.
It Use sthe included NASA database of 297,643 stars, and is a commercial plugin for lightwave..used in some movies.
http://www.maasdigital.com/starpro/

thereīs no difference between a sun and a star, other than classification next to a solar system, so your question about seeing the sun as well sounds a little strange...but I figure you want it to look like a close up star/sun rather than the more ordinary star look, I donīt think starpro will let you do such zooms.

Celestia astronomical software can do that as mentioned, but I donīt think you can get any good use for it for animation together with lightwave...you have to use lightwave trickery and editing to create closes ups of the sun, but It shouldnīt be that difficult to do.

Still awaits for the type of orrery seen in prometheus, with all stars and nebulas mapped, a 3d holographic projection and we could at least study each stars position for no particular reason at all
except being cool...getting there might be troublesome.

shrox
02-18-2014, 10:43 AM
Download Celestia, run it and you'll see a good representation of the distances between stars and how their appearance stays as a dot until you are rather "close" to it.

prometheus
02-18-2014, 10:54 AM
stellarium is also a cool free astronomy software, slick UI and nice graphic presentation, you can left click on the star you want to look closer too, and then middle click to center frame it and mouse scroll to zoom in closer to the star, or nebula etc.
Or you can use the search window to search for any object in the base, and it will select frame it.
I actually just discovered I have an older version of it (0.11.2) the newest version is 0.12.4
http://www.stellarium.org/

I also recall an old software called skyglobe which was cool too, and then theres universe sandbox.

Michael

shrox
02-18-2014, 12:35 PM
Celestia allows you to travel through the galaxy rather than just view it from Earth.

spherical
02-18-2014, 02:28 PM
thereīs no difference between a sun and a star, other than classification next to a solar system, so your question about seeing the sun as well sounds a little strange...but I figure you want it to look like a close up star/sun rather than the more ordinary star look,

There are many star types. They all don't look like our Sun. They range widely in size, composition and, hence, temperature. This changes their color and their luminosity.

Hertzsprung Russell diagram (https://www.google.com/search?q=hertzprung+rusell+diagram&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb#channel=sb&q=hertzsprung+russell+diagram&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&spell=1)

120255

Starry Night is pretty good at travels to celestial objects. Haven't run a recent version.

prometheus
02-20-2014, 01:44 PM
There are many star types. They all don't look like our Sun. They range widely in size, composition and, hence, temperature. This changes their color and their luminosity.

Hertzsprung Russell diagram (https://www.google.com/search?q=hertzprung+rusell+diagram&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb#channel=sb&q=hertzsprung+russell+diagram&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&spell=1)

120255

Starry Night is pretty good at travels to celestial objects. Haven't run a recent version.


well thatīs not the point, each star is different between each star, and each sun is different between each sun, but these two terminology statements are equal and only difference in classification in terminology
within itīs own class.
I basicly mentioned above exactly the same when talking about suns and then stars, a sun is a star, a star is a sun..itīs in classification next to other objects they change in terminology.

So what I said about there is no difference between a sun and a star in terminology is still valid, what you say about a star being different to another star physicly is correct to.
Am I being obnoxius here:) ?

how often do we talk about our sun as a star, almost never..but indeed it is a star in classification, and how often do we look up and see all the stars and can count in one sun in there among millions or billions of stars, we donīt..we just donīt point at any star and call it a sun...unless we find out it has a planet etc.

I didnīt know star types didnīt all look as our sun, and you say they are different in sizes and temperature..nahh..you gotta kidding me :D
not long ago ...not even hundred years ago ..mankind didnīt know there was more galaxies out there than our own, there is still hope for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcz4vGvoxQA
Michael

shrox
02-20-2014, 01:53 PM
Most people don't know the name of the star we orbit. It's Sol.

A display at NASA has our moon labeled as "The Moon", it's true name is Luna.

prometheus
02-20-2014, 01:57 PM
Most people don't know the name of the star we orbit. It's Sol.


this winter we have had very few sun hours....14 hours compared to more normally 40 hours this season, In swedish itīs called .. sol timmar, so our translation is close, we look up at our sol, and when it shines we say.... solen skiner:)

by the way, simbiont has a sun shader if you do not want to mix procedurals yourself.

Michael

shrox
02-20-2014, 02:07 PM
this winter we have had very few sun hours....14 hours compared to more normally 40 hours this season, In swedish itīs called .. sol timmar, so our translation is close, we look up at our sol, and when it shines we say.... solen skiner:)

by the way, simbiont has a sun shader if you do not want to mix procedurals yourself.

Michael

Solar panels, solar system, solstice, Sol beer...yet most don't notice the connection.

prometheus
02-20-2014, 02:15 PM
Solar panels, solar system, solstice, Sol beer...yet most don't notice the connection.

yeah ..that is depending on perspective and old european language, for me solar sounds familiar since we do call the sun for the sol...I guess sun is derived from old english sunne, and further back old german sonne? sunnandaeg as sunday etc...and in sweden it makes no sense (söndag) why ö? ..it should be called soldag maybe?
sol is old latin, and it has been called sol in sweden for ages.

Michael

shrox
02-20-2014, 02:29 PM
Our Mr. Sun - 1956, Directed by Frank Capra!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEfomqnif34

spherical
02-20-2014, 04:33 PM
Am I being obnoxius here:) ?

Let's just say you're splitting hairs and/or it's difficult for me to determine exactly what you are meaning, as the description's direction seems to change from phrase to phrase and the OP wasn't exactly clear, either. All I am citing is that there are many colors of star. Stars are classified separately from their environment. They do not all have solar systems—most don't—so "classification next to a solar system" didn't make sense to me. It's that language thing, I'm sure. We'll figure it out. :)

shrox
02-20-2014, 04:51 PM
I am a Main Sequence guy myself.

spherical
02-20-2014, 05:16 PM
I got into a discussion with an astrophysicist on interior lighting color temperature a while ago and he said that the Sun was "white". Actually, it's yellow. White is a perception based upon the fact that our eyes developed over millennia under this star's radiation. That which we call the "Visible Spectrum", the combination of which produces that which we call "white light", is only what our eyes perceive.

Illustrating this centering of our eyes on that which we see, such that our eyes always try to see "white", I was painting a starfield on an 8' diameter white plex dome for a computer room ceiling. It was standing vertically in a jig I made so I could walk up to it and work. My entire field of view was the dome and its coatings of clear blue and violet lacquers. After some time, I stepped back and looked out into the rest of the shop. Everything was saturated carrot orange! My eyes had shifted their color balance, trying to assimilate the spectrum they saw into being "white light".

If we had developed orbiting a red giant, our star would appear to be and classed as blue, because the visible spectrum perceived by our eyes there would be centered upon the longer wavelengths. Likewise, if we were orbiting a blue star, our star would be classed as red.

shrox
02-20-2014, 05:39 PM
I got into a discussion with an astrophysicist on interior lighting color temperature a while ago and he said that the Sun was "white". Actually, it's yellow. White is a perception based upon the fact that our eyes developed over millennia under this star's radiation. That which we call the "Visible Spectrum", the combination of which produces that which we call "white light", is only what our eyes perceive.

Illustrating this centering of our eyes on that which we see, such that our eyes always try to see "white", I was painting a starfield on an 8' diameter white plex dome for a computer room ceiling. It was standing vertically in a jig I made so I could walk up to it and work. My entire field of view was the dome and its coatings of clear blue and violet lacquers. After some time, I stepped back and looked out into the rest of the shop. Everything was saturated carrot orange! My eyes had shifted their color balance, trying to assimilate the spectrum they saw into being "white light".

If we had developed orbiting a red giant, our star would appear to be and classed as blue, because the visible spectrum perceived by our eyes there would be centered upon the longer wavelengths. Likewise, if we were orbiting a blue star, our star would be classed as red.

That's crazy artist's talk. I like it.

spherical
02-20-2014, 08:42 PM
Hehhehheh. Well, it has been pointed out that I am that....

jeric_synergy
02-20-2014, 08:52 PM
Actually, it's yellow.
To a gaffer, it's blue.

Here's an anecdote that illustrates how flexible and plastic the human visual perception system is: when I was a news cameraman, the viewfinder was "black and white", actually "blue and white". After a short time, my RIGHT eye perceived the viewfinder to be totally in shades of gray, while my LEFT eye still perceived the viewfinder to be "blue and white".

It was weird.

prometheus
02-20-2014, 09:00 PM
Let's just say you're splitting hairs and/or it's difficult for me to determine exactly what you are meaning, as the description's direction seems to change from phrase to phrase and the OP wasn't exactly clear, either. All I am citing is that there are many colors of star. Stars are classified separately from their environment. They do not all have solar systems—most don't—so "classification next to a solar system" didn't make sense to me. It's that language thing, I'm sure. We'll figure it out. :)

I like splitting hairs, thatīs a good way to get bold and save money on schampoo:)

Yeah ..I figure I do that too often, get tangled up in some debate in how we describe things, Im sure youré not the only one I am winding up from time to time, the good thing is that no one has to tell me I am
crazy, I already know it:)

So if those stars without solar systems are to be discussed, how do you set the terminology for such items, we all know it can be a star and a sun, but what should it be called generally and should it be called something other specificly? think about narration voices in some scientific show, talking about this star has no planets and thus it isnīt a solarsystem, and continues to talk about this star, do you think there is a valid circumstance to mention this star as a sun in such case? I donīt think I have ever heard anyone talking about stars as a sun other than in specific relation to our own star- the sun.
Edited...same goes vice versa, who on earth talks about our sun in the terms of a star, unless it is related and measured against other stars.

I have my doubts that other stars are actually mentioned as a sun, unless it has a relation to a solar system, without it..they are all stars and I think the term sun is in most cases I know of, is only mentioned for our own star next to the earth, or in scifi-sagas or maybe only discussed together with some potentional exoplanet solarsystem.
when I think of it..the thread starter mentioned .."I want it to look like a star or a sun" they are both the same, but he might have said that based on how we usually depict close up shots of a star as a sun
and the long distance star look.

I say tomato, you say?


Michael

spherical
02-20-2014, 09:09 PM
Here's an anecdote that illustrates how flexible and plastic the human visual perception system is: when I was a news cameraman, the viewfinder was "black and white", actually "blue and white". After a short time, my RIGHT eye perceived the viewfinder to be totally in shades of gray, while my LEFT eye still perceived the viewfinder to be "blue and white".

It was weird.

That would be the eye shifting its center of color perception in order to normalize. It is weird and extremely interesting.

Ever look individually at the color temperature that each eye sends to the brain? Seems to be most prominent when lying down on your side. One eye will be cooler, the other warmer. That it's when lying down seems to indicate that relative blood pressure has some influence. Still, when both are open, they mix and colors are once again centered.

spherical
02-20-2014, 09:41 PM
I like splitting hairs, thatīs a good way to get bold and save money on schampoo:)

I gotta remember that one. :)


Yeah ..I figure I do that too often, get tangled up in some debate in how we describe things, Im sure youré not the only one I am winding up from time to time, the good thing is that no one has to tell me I am
crazy, I already know it:)

Same goes for me. Just mentioned that in another thread, in fact.

If I had a wish it would be that you'd break yourself of the habit of hitting [Enter] at the end of the edit window and let the lines auto-wrap. :thumbsup: Way easier to read that way, when our window isn't the same width as yours happens to be; which appears is full screen. You post a lot of stuff and I like learning from your experience, but it's difficult when the lines are artificially chopped up. OK, back on topic....


I donīt think I have ever heard anyone talking about stars as a sun other than in specific relation to our own star- the sun.

That is the convention of myself and my colleagues. "Sun" is our colloquialism for the star that is closest to us. It's become so ingrained that many times when people are asked "What is the closest start to us?", they either don't know or answer: "Proxima Centauri"; thinking they are being cleverly scientific and knowledgeable about things astronomic.


I have my doubts that other stars are actually mentioned as a sun, unless it has a relation to a solar system, without it..they are all stars and I think the term sun is in most cases I know of, is only mentioned for our own star next to the earth, or in scifi-sagas or maybe only discussed together with some potentional exoplanet solarsystem.

Some of the media tend to mix the terms up but, whether there are planets or not, it's a star. The existence of a system around the star is irrelevant. That system would be a group of planets, asteroids, dust and comets, same as ours, yet we still call them "planets", "asteroids", "dust" and "comets". The star at the center of that system is still a star. Who knows what life forms on a planet orbiting it may call it? "Sun" is what we call ours, when we're not being more specific and calling it "Sol". We even use the latter when referring to rotations of planets other than Earth. One rotation isn't a "Day", it's a "Sol". "Day" implies local to Earth alone. Differentiating the two is important, or you get all mixed up.


I say tomato, you say?

Star.

jeric_synergy
02-20-2014, 09:44 PM
The weirdness, for me, is that it was ONE eye. I suppose if you gave somebody tinted glasses with different colors for different eyes, soon enough the system would compensate.

I know that "upside down" goggles take a while to get used to, and then PRESTO it just seems natural. Removing them causes some new disorientation, but IIRC the acclimation time gets faster and faster. Possibly there's some benefit to exercising one's perceptual system this way.

+++
FWIW, in the tonne of SF I've read over the decades, star systems are usually called "systems", not "solar systems" , as in "We were attacked as we approached the system." The star is often called "the primary".

There's no real consistency: The Moon is often called Luna, but Earth can be "Earth", "the Earth", "Terra", or "those [email protected] imperialists".

spherical
02-20-2014, 09:46 PM
But it was the eye you always looked into the viewfinder with, yes?

jeric_synergy
02-20-2014, 09:50 PM
But it was the eye you always looked into the viewfinder with, yes?
Correct. Cameras were virtually always "right handed". Always bugged me when some tv show did it wrong. Stoopid noobs.

prometheus
02-21-2014, 05:47 AM
I gotta remember that one. :)


If I had a wish it would be that you'd break yourself of the habit of hitting [Enter] at the end of the edit window and let the lines auto-wrap. :thumbsup: Way easier to read that way, when our window isn't the same width as yours happens to be; which appears is full screen. You post a lot of stuff and I like learning from your experience, but it's difficult when the lines are artificially chopped up. OK, back on topic....


.


Yes..thanks for letting me know about that, I know there is some weird breaking of my lines when I write, and when I try to edit it looks different, have to save, then go to edit again..and only then I can see it as it was shown in the message and can edit it to some degree, donīt know about how it works with autowrap, have to try that.

Michael

spherical
02-21-2014, 02:40 PM
You used auto-wrap in this one. No matter how wide the browser window is, the paragraph adjusts and wraps to fit, with no hard line breaks. All you need to do to use auto-wrap is not put in hard returns; it's on by default, as it were.

The only time I put in hard returns is when starting new paragraphs, and then there are two, in order to add a blank line between them.

warmiak
02-21-2014, 09:57 PM
It is sol ? Who told you that , God ?

spherical
02-22-2014, 12:07 AM
Do you really want to start this? Besides, read farther up the thread, already. I'm not going to waste people's time repeating it. No, not my post, BTW, in case you're confused.

shrox
02-22-2014, 11:13 AM
It is sol ? Who told you that , God ?

Latins told me.

jeric_synergy
02-22-2014, 11:35 AM
That Latins, always creating words, da noive.

prometheus
02-22-2014, 04:49 PM
yeah ..that is depending on perspective and old european language, for me solar sounds familiar since we do call the sun for the sol...I guess sun is derived from old english sunne, and further back old german sonne? sunnandaeg as sunday etc...and in sweden it makes no sense (söndag) why ö? ..it should be called soldag maybe?
sol is old latin, and it has been called sol in sweden for ages.

Michael

repeat..repeat