Simulate gravitational lensing

[SevenSpheres]

Note: this is a low priority request, something for after the 1.7 release.

Compact objects - white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes - warp space around them, like in this video. It would be nice to see this in Celestia. This would require being able to specify the mass of an object, and it looks like this has already been done in 1.7 but only for planets, not stars.

[LafuenteAstronomy]

That sounds like a very good idea. But it should not just apply to compact objects, if Celestia can make proper galaxy cluster and supercluster maps, then we should also apply the warping of space to the dense galaxies and galaxy clusters as well, since there are several galaxies and galaxy clusters that are so massive and full of Dark Matter that they can wrap space around them

[pirogronian]

I'd definitely see it as option, maybe as a plugin, because, despite media rumors, the very existence of such a compact objects, as well as space bending, is highly questionable.

[SevenSpheres]

pirogronian, the scientific consensus is that compact objects exist, and warp space (actually bend light rays) around them. This should be reflected in Celestia. If they don't exist, then what are objects like Sirius B, Lich, and M87* (the first two of which are already in Celestia)? As LafuenteAstronomy says warped space has been observed in galaxy clusters, what else do you think causes this?

Anyway this is something for after the 1.7 release.

[pirogronian]

1. There is no such a thing like "scientific consensus". In science, especially astrophysics, true is the opposite: uncertainties, multiple different opinions and great surprises are routine.

2. So, observed "warps" could be various things: physical warping of distant objects or just gas refractions.

3. If you are curious about alternatives, feel free to read and comment here: https://celestia.space/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=19823

[SevenSpheres]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

Also, you didn't answer my question:

If [compact objects] don't exist, then what are objects like Sirius B, Lich, and M87*?

[pirogronian]

I prefer scientific evidence rather than "agreement" among group of people called scientists. And please answer me in linked topic.

[LafuenteAstronomy]

Maybe just for the sake of Celestia being based on "conventional" scientific consensus, you should just include the plugin. I do have my own theories of the Universe, that it's possibly older than 13.7 billion years because light from an area older than 13.7 billion years hasn't arrived yet, and it's possible that it'll never arrive at all, and as such, we may truly never know the REAL age of the Universe, and that I also believe the Universe to be Infinite, so possibilities of seeing an alternate Earth and Solar System with exactly the same circumstances like people, buildings, and the like within this universe, instead of just an alternate universe are entirely possible. Yes, such views are good and great, especially that as people, we must let our curiosity burn for all time, but that doesn't just mean that we could somewhat impose it just because we can. Perhaps one day, your views will be vindicated justly, perhaps one day, my views will be validated as well, and if they were validated, then it'll be great but for now, let's just go with "current" scientific consensus, at least on the outside, since that's what the majority believes, and though I'm not saying that we should please the majority, we should just do what the current consensus says it is until we have more clear evidence validating our views. Anyways, this could be used as one of the appearances of how galaxies can bend space around them

[SevenSpheres]

I prefer scientific evidence rather than "agreement" among group of people called scientists.

Celestia should reflect the scientific consensus, which is based on evidence.

And please answer me in linked topic.

Okay

[SevenSpheres]

Since there is an "Ideas for post 1.7 era" page I put this there. The issue can probably be closed until the final 1.7 release.

Also did no one see my suggestion about adding that page to Wikibooks?

[375gnu]

Wiki here is for internal conversation and decision making so there is no need to move it to wikibooks.

[SevenSpheres]

Here is a similar, very old page on Wikibooks.

[375gnu]

Celestia-Sci implementation: http://forum.celestialmatters.org/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=715

[SevenSpheres]

Changed to a less awkward and more general title

[levinli303]

Since the celestialmatters link does not open anymore, here is a pdf file illustrating the work done in celestia.Sci

http://dwj.freeshell.org/work/file/IAC2014-djung_fschrempp_hhill.pdf

[JiliTheSpaceboy]

That sounds like a very good idea. But it should not just apply to compact objects, if Celestia can make proper galaxy cluster and supercluster maps, then we should also apply the warping of space to the dense galaxies and galaxy clusters as well, since there are several galaxies and galaxy clusters that are so massive and full of Dark Matter that they can wrap space around them

I think all object with mass specified should be capable of lensing. It would enable simulation of microlensing and prevent edge case weirdness like someone making a ‘planet’ with 10 solar masses and 10 km that doesn’t bend light at all.

Additionally gravitational effects on the texture of the object itself would be a welcoming addition. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neutronstar_2Rs.svg#mw-jump-to-license