SevenSpheres wrote:Pōwehi isn't an official name.
Still, her name is more official than NGC 1600 X1
SevenSpheres wrote:You had the wrong link; here it is. Also, why does the name Behemoth have a "^" in front of it?
I'm confused. I'm gonna fix this.
I once wanted to separate the objects into more or less officially recognized names
And those who have a un. name.
Previously this was done in parentheses ()
But then I gave it up. It's uncomfortable to put it in the search field.
Lafuente_Astronomy wrote:But then again, Wikipedia is a doubtful source, so obviously, don't change the mass you gave for Behemoth. It's probably the most accurate one yet
SevenSpheres wrote:Wikipedia usually has accurate information, and it sources everything. It's probably a good idea to mention sources for data in Celestia addons, too.
Lafuente_Astronomy wrote:Still doesn't make it the most reliable source. I use it just for a quick read but if I really wanted to seriously delve into information regarding the object in question, which is a must for SVision, so that he can properly make his black holes and other objects in his addons, it's much better to go find articles about it in credible websites
Wikipedia's pretty good.
I've noticed that she's not a very reliable source only in topics far from science and more related to life.
I didn't see any errors in the astronomical part of Wikipedia
I can also write in Wiki favor that I personally got to know the exoplanets
But I still think that if there are primary sources, it's better to use them
SevenSpheres wrote:Why should there be a naming system at all? And Pōwehi doesn't follow this theme.
Here's an updated version of my STC which renders the accent mark over the "o" in "Pōwehi" (it's still selectable by typing Powehi):
It's difficult to write why a naming system should exist
On the other hand, the planets were previously named after the gods. Why not give black holes the names of antipodes?
About the Pōwehi
Well, that's a good thing.
Do you mind if I take some of your data for my Pōwehi?
She is almost ready from me
Unless it's time to figure out the color of the accretion disc with its inclination and the inclination of the jets.
Ideally, to change the jets to narrower ones, but that's not possible yet.
Lafuente_Astronomy wrote:That's alright. I yearn to visit other universes yet our own universe isn't fully explored in its entirely either. So, we should take little cosmic steps first.
To be honest, I would like to look from the outside at our universe (if it is not flat and infinite) at the other universes (if there are any) at the space where the multiverse universes are located and at what is farther away from them
But that's not possible yet. Science hasn't gotten to the point of knowing if it's all there or not.
Well, that's a shame.
But in Celestia, it would be cool if we created a multiverse
It would even make Celestia stand out from the competition, though not much.Added after 10 minutes 25 seconds:
Does anyone have any idea how to get inside the black hole to the singularity?
I think we need to find a funnel model somewhere
Only here's whereAdded after 11 minutes 13 seconds:
Lafuente_Astronomy wrote:You're gonna create it in spite of the limitations of Janus' stellar render being at 1 GLY? Or are you gonna find or use the Janus commit that would allow stellar render distance up to 100 GLY?
Janus, has restrictions on the distance bigger
than 1 GLY
Stellar objects with its extension only cease to be displayed if they are beyond the boundaries of the visible universe
After 1 GLY, you just start having problems with coordinates. It's impossible to point a star (black hole) exactly at the galaxy no matter how hard you try.
The reason is unknown. Probably the outdated mathematical apparatus of Celestia is not working properly.
But they will be displayed
Otherwise, I wouldn't be able to show you SDSS J1 or any other black holesAdded after 3 minutes 16 seconds:
I've become something of a black hole lord of Celestia, though I'm supposed to be doing exoplanets