aha 
01-30-2003
10:57 AM ET (US)
|
DavidDavid: Your sighted cousin, VeldaVelda, lying next to you or RalphRalph, sees the (approximate) "chart". But time is relative, so whens now? CoryCoryCory over here runs on slower time because he's going faster. So whose chart do you want? The speed of light is constant, so there may be a Universal chart based on that. (We need an astronomer here). But when we look at the stars we don't see what's really there. And from a different point in space our galaxy would look like the other side of a completely different Frisbee. It gets even more mysterious if you zoom down to the quantum level. Everything is more or less everywhere until you "look" (detect or measure), at which point things instantaneously (faster than light) appear where you see them, and cease to be where they might have been if you hadn't looked. Chart that. Edited 01-30-2003 03:34 PM
|
Songdog 
01-30-2003
10:25 AM ET (US)
|
DavidDavid and aha: it depends whether you're drawing a map or a chart, I suppose. By which I mean: are you trying to show the positions of the stars at some moment in time, or their apparent positions for an observer at a particular location?
|
DavidDavid 
01-30-2003
09:40 AM ET (US)
|
Right Aha... it is not just a matter of 3 dimensional space. You must calculate not only where those stars are in relation to where the fictional observer is but then from that calculate where the stars would must have been at the time that they emitted light toward that fictional oberserver. Each star would have a different calculation based ob its distance from the oberserver and its velocity. Gives me a head ache.
|
Songdog 
01-30-2003
09:12 AM ET (US)
|
What a ride! I slowed it down to 2 second intervals and it's still hard to grasp :)
DavidDavid: yes, people have definitely generated images and 3D renderings from astronomical position data. I don't know whether that data was used in this film, however. It was most likely an artist's rendering or an image of another region of space on a similar scale (just as the oak leaves shown were not necessarily from the top of that oak tree).
|
aha 
01-30-2003
01:41 AM ET (US)
|
DavidDavid: Im no astronomer, but here goes: Imagine that youre deaf and blind and lying on a beach with your feet in the water. You gotta determine the size and positions of all the boats, swimmers, fish, etc., based upon the waves lapping on your toes. Some boats will be long gone when the waves hit you; others will be there, but the waves havent arrived yet. And was it a big boat far away, a small boat nearby, or just a fish? Most everything is not where it seems to be. Now comes the slightly tricky partimagine how all these waves would hit the toes of your blind twin, RalphRalph, on a distant shore. Now convert boats to galaxies, swimmers and fish to stars, and you got it. Edited 01-30-2003 03:44 PM
|
DavidDavid 
01-29-2003
09:49 PM ET (US)
|
I am curious about how they can show an image of the surrounding star systems from a far away viewpoint. Has someone actually generated images from a 3D model or are these just random pictures of stars that just look about right. Does anyne know?
|
cypherpunk 
01-29-2003
09:00 PM ET (US)
|
I wish they'd gone down to the Planck length. That's what is considered the fundamental unit of length, where space and time show their ultimate structure. It's like 20 more orders of magnitude smaller than a proton. 20! Of course nobody really knows what's going on between the Planck scale and the proton size - quarks fit in there somewhere, but we don't know how. There's got to be a lot of physics going on in 20 orders of magnitude.
They would have had to use some imagination, but it would be good to depict the fact that there is such a huge size gap between the smallest things we can measure and the size where the really fundamental physics is happening.
|
Eli the Bearded 
01-29-2003
07:37 PM ET (US)
|
I liked the chromatin (sp?) picture particularly. The quarks were disappointing.
But 40 orders of magnitude is a good spread...
|