Русский New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 28 of 36«1226272829303536»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Space Journeys » Space anomalies
Space anomalies
Donatelo200Date: Wednesday, 20.05.2015, 19:22 | Message # 406
Explorer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 261
Status: Offline
I found two extreme solid planets. One over 16 Earth masses and one over 2.7 Earth radius!



Attachments: 1532151.jpg(148Kb) · 3385695.jpg(187Kb)





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)
 
BlueDracheDate: Wednesday, 20.05.2015, 23:51 | Message # 407
Space Pilot
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 87
Status: Offline
Quote Donatelo200 ()
and one over 2.7 Earth radius!


You mean diameter? Because ... the ones you posted would be (approximately) 1.25 and 1.35 earth radii. lol.
 
Donatelo200Date: Thursday, 21.05.2015, 01:53 | Message # 408
Explorer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 261
Status: Offline
Nah the ratio would be the same. Radius is simply half the diameter so the ratio of earths radius to this planets radius would be the same as the ratio of diameters.




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)
 
BlueDracheDate: Friday, 22.05.2015, 00:04 | Message # 409
Space Pilot
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 87
Status: Offline
Actually, you missed my point. You confused the term radius with diameter in your original post. In the photo, it's listed as > 2.7 D(e) ... and you said it was > 2.7 r(e) ... when properly extrapolated out, a 2.7 radius is 5.4 diameter.
 
Donatelo200Date: Friday, 22.05.2015, 02:16 | Message # 410
Explorer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 261
Status: Offline
Huh? It's simply a ratio it doesn't matter if you're using radii or diameter. Let me show.

Earth's radius is 6,378 km and this planets radius is 17,231 km and then 17,231/6,378 is 2.7016 Er which is the same as the ratio of diameters which is 2.7016 Ed.

ps. I use radius more often since I mod for orbiter





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)
 
WatsisnameDate: Friday, 22.05.2015, 07:28 | Message # 411
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2610
Status: Offline
Donatelo is correct.






 
VilfateDate: Friday, 22.05.2015, 08:53 | Message # 412
Astronaut
Group: Users
China
Messages: 49
Status: Offline
(On my laptop 0.97.1 is the last version that can run so cry this is actually 0971 stuff)

Travelling to site of colliding galaxies NGC 3537, the galaxies aren't rendered..(despite not scientific already).. very smoothly, they sometimes don't overlap and sometimes they do.


and an anomaly:


Attachments: 8758123.jpg(92Kb) · 1370634.jpg(147Kb) · 9251984.jpg(146Kb)







Edited by Vilfate - Friday, 22.05.2015, 08:56
 
BlueDracheDate: Friday, 22.05.2015, 12:53 | Message # 413
Space Pilot
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 87
Status: Offline
Quote Watsisname ()
Donatelo is correct.





*blinks* That does not follow ... how can something that's 2r = r? Plug any non-zero number into that formula for "r"


Edited by BlueDrache - Friday, 22.05.2015, 12:54
 
apenpaapDate: Friday, 22.05.2015, 13:17 | Message # 414
World Builder
Group: Users
Antarctica
Messages: 1063
Status: Offline
Because you divide it by another thing that's doubled. If you compare a sphere with radius 1 with a sphere of radius 5, the second is 5 times bigger. If you compare diameters instead, you compare diameter 2 with diamater 10, which is still a difference of a factor 5.

To say it a different way: if you divide the various instances of r in that formula away against each other, you get 2/2=1/1





I occasionally stream at http://www.twitch.tv/magistermystax. Sometimes SE, sometimes other games.

Edited by apenpaap - Friday, 22.05.2015, 13:17
 
BlueDracheDate: Saturday, 23.05.2015, 03:19 | Message # 415
Space Pilot
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 87
Status: Offline
It didn't register that he was speaking radii and the picture was talking diameters.

Then the light went on ... *blink* Oh ... ok, y'all are speaking of equivalencies and I was stuck in the actual terminology.

Sorry about that. I'm on the same page. Thanks for the education.


Edited by BlueDrache - Saturday, 23.05.2015, 03:23
 
WatsisnameDate: Saturday, 23.05.2015, 04:47 | Message # 416
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2610
Status: Offline
Glad we could help get the confusion resolved!

Quote BlueDrache ()
That does not follow ... how can something that's 2r = r?


It doesn't say that. smile Remember the division signs -- it's not equating 2r with r, but the ratio 2r/2r to the ratio r/r. In other words, the 2's cancel.

You could also rearrange the formula to obtain 2rr=2rr, which is clearly a true statement. smile

That's why I chose to answer this with a formula. In a very compact form, it completely expresses the idea which was causing the confusion: that although diameter does not equal radius, the ratio of diameters does equal the ratio of the radii. So in comparing two planet sizes, it doesn't matter whether you use radius or diameter. The ratios are the same either way.





 
NolDate: Wednesday, 03.06.2015, 12:26 | Message # 417
Space Pilot
Group: Users
Germany
Messages: 97
Status: Offline
Um... what is this? A Distortion inside a Distortion?


Attachments: 5297101.jpg(200Kb)





"Eins - Hier kommt die Sonne
Zwei - Hier kommt die Sonne
Drei - Sie ist der hellste Stern von allen
Vier - Hier kommt die Sonne"

-Rammstein, Sonne, Mutter, 2001
 
TheOutsiderDate: Saturday, 13.06.2015, 00:06 | Message # 418
Observer
Group: Users
Antarctica
Messages: 12
Status: Offline
A distant place
Attachments: 3736415.jpg(182Kb)
 
Gondor2222Date: Thursday, 18.06.2015, 05:28 | Message # 419
Space Pilot
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 92
Status: Offline
I've found a binary planet in a planetary nebula that have a very odd orbit: Their orbital plane around eachother is almost exactly 90 degrees tilted from their orbital plane around the star. This seems to give their nebulae weird epicycloid shapes that rotate and flow through the poles.




These were taken at exposure 10 because they are an AU away from the system's single cool white dwarf star.

The second brightest and second hottest body in the system (after the white dwarf) is a tidally heated moon orbiting the largest gas giant. The same gas giant has two moons with ring systems, but has no ring system itself.

Location is RSN 0-9-103060037-120-16-0 2

Attachments: 4107841.jpg(285Kb) · 5772314.jpg(335Kb)


Edited by Gondor2222 - Thursday, 18.06.2015, 05:39
 
Thomas988Date: Thursday, 18.06.2015, 18:36 | Message # 420
Space Pilot
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 125
Status: Offline
Quote TheOutsider ()
A distant place
Attachments: 3736415.jpg(182Kb)


What mod are you using that adds that "Discovery Method" and "Discovery Date" info? I'd love to have that! smile

Anyways, I'm not too sure if this counts as an anomaly or not, but it's intriguing nevertheless. I was taking some pictures of a custom solar system I just recently created, but I noticed that one of the stars in the sky had a ring around it. Further inspection showed that the ring was a planet so distant from the parent star I could see it's orbit!






All you need in life are space games and typhlosions.
 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Space Journeys » Space anomalies
Page 28 of 36«1226272829303536»
Search: