Gf_neutronstar rendering problem
-
Do you really know the definition of a life form? Sorry, the sun most definitely does not match that.
Please don’t spout more nonsense.
-
no, it doesnt.
if you look at the basic forms of life, down to bacteria, the sun is vastly less complex in its make up.
So lets examine life. Life at its most basic is a cellular formation containing organs (hence organism). On this level, the sun immediately fails.
The sun is a ball of hellium, hydrogen and carbon.
There are a few things we generally associate with life -
Metabolism, Homeostasis, Response to Stimuli, Reproduction, Inheritance.
Metabolism - Here, the sun passes the test. Usually, living creatures convert light or chemical energy into other forms, and there’s no theoretical reason why a living being couldnt be powered by nuclear fusion.
Homeostasis - the regulation of an internal environment. Examples include your body’s ability to maintain internal body temperature by sweating. If the sun gets too hot, it expands, slowing down nuclear reactions and cooling it off. However, this is not a reactive measure to protect the Sun, it is simply an automatic interaction of particles in the sun, heat causes objects to expand (without getting too deep in the science), and then when the sun inevitably cools off a bit, it contracts. It’s a cycle.
Response to Stimuli - every living thing will respond to a ‘poke’, IE, something that changes their environment, be it an actual poke or something similar. Stars do not. They just keep on keepin on. So here, the Sun fails. It will not act in self preservation or anything of the like.
Reproduction - The sun cannot reproduce. The closest thing is that a star can go nova and it’s remnants may POSSIBLY be used in the formation of other stars, but this is not reproduction. If i break up a large boulder, it becomes smaller rocks. These rocks may come together over time and, under pressure, become a new boulder. Is the new boulder the offspring of the old one? Not in the least.
Inheritance - EVEN if you went to the extreme that nova-spawned stars are the sun’s offspring, the new stars receive no inherited features. The new star can be completely different from it’s ‘parent’ star. There is no mutation, no evolution
Although a star DOES -appear- to metabolize, it is not alive. The sun is a complex interaction of plasmas and nuclear fusion and magnetic fields, but it is not life.
-
Enough. Just enough.
Get back to the topic. If you post again to say such idiocy, PolarBear or whatever you want to be called, I’ll just delete them.
-
I believe we are fairly lenient with regards to people making mistakes. We do our best to put the past behind us.
Some people, however, seem determined to get themselves cast away. Such is life.
Have fun DvDMan!
-
It is me or Polarbear has been banished?
-
@Sizer:
Sorry I’m french and I didn’t understand that the message listened.What has he say to be banished like that, I want to know.
-
Just see it as “la goutte qui a fait déborder le vase”
(or the straw that broke the camel’s back for you weirdos)
-
I’m not sure where any of you are getting your information from, but if you have an hour of your life that you can set aside to learn some truly inspiring and enlightening information, then I sugest watching “wonders of the universe - stardust”.
I guarantee that if you haven’t already seen it, then there’s a fair chance it will change the way you view many things, where you came from, what you’re made of, what everything is made of in fact.
Also explained is the reason for the colour of a star, it’s based on it’s composition, the elements it’s made from determine the colour it burns. Blue, green, orange, whatever, it’s because it’s burning particular elements. In the same way you held an element such as magnesium or copper over a burner in chemistry and it gave a flame of a particular colour, so the same is true for a star.
It also features a great sequencing of the expansion and then collapse of a star in the final stages of it’s “life”, very informative in explaining how elements come to be, where the carbon we’re composed of comes from, where the oxygen we breath comes from, where the gold in jewelry or the uranium in a nuke comes from and why some elements are extremely rare compared to others.
We’re all made from stars
-
The color of a star has nothing to do with whatever it’s burning, sorry to burst your bubble. If you want to learn more, read on black body radiation.
-
It’s not my bubble you’re bursting FF, so I’m quite relaxed about the whole thing. Unless Brian Cox is brave or stupid enough to bullshit the world and take the bbc on a bullshit ride with him, I’ll take his word over yours for the time being though. If he is, then I guess that calls into question the credibility of everything he says, which would be a shame, considering I felt I learnt a lot from the series.
What are you anyway, a professor or astro physicist or something? That’s a serious question by the way, your word often seems final on such matters, as final as anything can be on such a crazy subject. And just to be clear, that’s not an attempt to take a swipe at you, but not knowing anything about you, it’s unclear as to why you feel so confident in dismissing what someone who is supposedly an expert in such things has to say.
-
Well, looks like he’s right, and you’re right to. So you’re both right. I’ll have to watch it again and pay more attention to exactly what he says, I know he talked about temperatures, maybe I only grasped the part he said said about composition.
-
I’m a physics undergrad, so yeah, I’d say I can at least tell you a thing or two about physics. At the very least, those things we are speaking of aren’t exactly quantum field theory. They’re very well explained and detailed by modern science.
Stars happen to be almost perfect black bodies. Yes, the color of a flame is determined by the material that is being burnt, but the sun doesn’t “burn”. That’s a misnomer. It’s a giant fusion reactor. These are not chemical reactions, but nuclear ones. A star’s color is entirely determined by its temperature - the Sun is yellow because its surface temperature matches that of yellow. However, it’s important to point out that the color we see isn’t actually because the Sun is yellow, since its emissions are mostly white anyways. That’s caused in part by atmospheric scattering, which is also the cause for the blue of the sky.
Other components in any star are just traces up and until the star reaches the giant/supergiant state, at which point it’ll fuse heavier and heavier elements. However, anything heavier than iron will require a supernova. Even then, a star’s color isn’t really determined by what it is “burning”, otherwise you’d have disco stars whenever they go end of life as they’d switch elements in relatively rapid succession.
-
Disco stars would be so cool, though. Way to go and ruin that dream of mine, FF >_<
-
I see this went a bit off-topic since I last checked in. No matter. Since I got the neutron star working thanks to your help, I think you deserve to see the payoff. Click on the image for a larger copy.
Ruppetthemuppet wrote:
If you happen to know what a real neutron star looks like up close, I’m pretty sure there are some physicists who would love to speak with you about it.As to that, allow me to offer this as a rebuttal:
Looks pretty white to me.
-
Timmy51m wrote:
Well, looks like he’s right, and you’re right to. So you’re both right. I’ll have to watch it again and pay more attention to exactly what he says, I know he talked about temperatures, maybe I only grasped the part he said said about composition.Ah, just remember when you’re watching anything Science related on TV, it has almost certainly been made to have the material accessible to the majority of the population
Undoubtedly Prof Cox is exceptionally clever, and has a marvellous gift when it comes to presenting (a combination of enthusiasm for his subject really capturing the viewer, and being able to break complex things into laymans terms).
Cox won’t give out false info, but he may give a very simple to digest explanation which hides the true complexity from the viewer in order to maintain viewer interest and allow for some degree of understanding
Not many would have watched if he’d gone on about the math behind everything
-
While we’re on the subject of the neutron star, anybody have any idea how I’d speed up the effect’s animation? I’m using this for a pulsar that’s throwing off lot’s of radiation, and a slow rotation just doesn’t fit with that.
I’ve poked around in ALEs before, but I have no idea what I’m looking for to accomplish what I want.
-
At a guess (and without trying), if you have a look at the Node_Transforms in gf_neutronstar_pulse.app#1.app, gf_neutronstar_pulse.app#2.app and gf_neutronstar_sparkles.app you’ll see there’s a 360 present. In the XML Project, it’'ll look something like:
<single type="4" count="1">0: 0 <loop count="2">0.0061660000: -0.001737, 0, 50.015507 360.0000000000: 1000, 50.015507, 0</loop></single> ```I think that **360** is the time at which it will increase to that size. If, say, you halve it, it should pulse twice as fast. (If it doesn't, sorry to have wasted your time. :)) -
Nope, tried changing it 180, no effect (at all, ~weird~)
-
Having another look, I see the emitters have a value of 360, which might need to match. The only other thing that looks promising is the BasicApp_Size. There’s two that look to be particularly interesting: gf_neutronstar.app and gf_neutronstar_outring.app. The latter especially, but I don’t really know how to change it. Perhaps something like this:
<float type="1" count="2">0.0000000000: 400 1.0000000000: 20000</float> <float type="1" count="4">0.0000000000: 400 0.5000000000: 20000 0.5010000000: 400 1.0000000000: 20000</float> ```My reasoning is that it starts at 400 and ends at 20000, where it immediately resets to 400 and starts again. So just insert another one at the half-way mark. But even if it works, it's just a work-around, since it still doesn't control the overall duration.
