@MottiKhan

I am fully aware of how black body radiation works...obviously though you are not...

Just because the peak wavelength of a star falls into the green range of the visible spectrum does not mean the star is green...the very diagram you post in fact shows exactly why this is -- in order to have a peak wavelength in the green range, you must inevitably emit lots of red and blue light, which we as humans see together as white light...thus our star is white (with some yellow), not green...by your logic, the color of white doesn't even exist, because there is no wavelength that corresponds to "white"...in fact, now you have me curious: if our stars is green then how do you define a yellow and white star?  Or perhaps you deny their existence....

But don't take my word for it...go look up stellar classification...you'll find that our sun is class G, which means it is yellow/white...you, as a self proclaimed man of science, will be pleased to know that astronomers do distinguish between conventional and apparent color...so you can argue the sun is both yellow and yellow/white...unless you plan on usurping the entire astronomical community, though, I wouldn't go about completely redefining how we define star color...if our star really is green then why are class G stars officially considered to be yellow/white?

I find it very interesting that you assume I don't "believe" in infrared and uv radiation...and by the way, those types of radiation aren't "colors"...just because you can create false color images doesn't change that fact...

It is simply semantics...your experiment is not fundamentally different from a Hispanic child learning that the sun is blanco instead of white...at the end of the day, we still both know what color the star is and know that it is a different color than "green/verde" objects like grass...

There are some very interesting experiments and studies with color...certain cultures actually have different concepts of color, and research has shown that language/culture actually can influence a person's ability to distinguish between different colors/shades (or at least be unable to remember the objects were different shades of color because of how their brain classified them)...I don't remember the specific culture, but when it was studied it was found that the people basically lumped red and orange together -- to them, they were just different shades of the same "color" and they had difficulty distinguishing the objects in their memory...

There is also is "structural color" which is what comes into play for things like eye color and the sky....some might argue that all eyes are actually brown, but light scattering causes certain eyes to appear blue or green or what not....

We can spend all day arguing about what color is and isn't, and you are welcome to criticize my points...but at the end of the day, any official astronomy source classifies our star as white/yellow or yellow...arguing it is green is simply wrong -- if our star was really green for whatever reason, wouldn't official astronomical sources call it a green star?  But they don't...they call it white/yellow or yellow...

As I've stated before, if people want green stars in game cause they look cool, I could care less...but arguing they are realistic because our sun is an example of a green star is just ridiculous...

For games and science fiction stories I prefer potentially provable science (definitely via true Scientific Method).

For games that aren't trying to be simulators I prefer what makes some kind of logical sense and is fun. It really doesn't matter if some of the stars are green in the game.

Uh huh.

So essentially what you're saying is that you have a teacher and you're leaning on his authority (but without any direct citations of his actual work) to make unsourced claims that are not demonstrated to be true. Your claim was that there were probably 10 potentially life bearing planets in the entire universe, a vast space that may well be infinite. Here's the thing: Nobody knows the answer. They only know possibilities. What you're describing is the rare earth hypothesis, which is only one of at least a handful of competing theories. Check out cosmic pluralism and the mediocrity principle for some other perspectives.

As for whether or not there is a creator, no one is going to use science to take a stand on this because a "creator" as most people envision such a thing is unfalsifiable. What that means is that you can't test whether or not our universe was created by an external creator entity. There's no way to test this theory, no way to gather data. You can't prove it true or false because there is literally no evidence to go on. That's why it's about faith.

The fact is that there are billions of potentially Earthlike planets in the Milky Way alone, and at this time we do not have sufficient evidence to make hard claims as to how many of them are likely to support life. If anyone is honestly telling you that they know for sure that maybe 10 life-bearing worlds exist in the entire universe, they're trying to sell you something because they ain't telling you the truth.

Oh, as far as green stars in the game: I like them. They're kinda aesthetically pleasing.

I personally would prefer teal...

I am not opposed to teal.

Anyone for Pink?? lol

It should also be noted that the game map is very clearly a representation of the game galaxy in a more easily understood format (after all, the size of each tile is 1 parsec by 1 parsec - well, guess what, the solar system is less than 1 parsec in diameter; in fact, it's smaller by several orders of magnitude), rather than a literal representation of the game galaxy. Therefore, the colors of the stars on the map don't necessarily match the apparent color of the star as seen by the human (or Drengin, Torian, Arcean, etc) eye, but rather is a representation of something about that star. This could be age, mass, emission power, emission band (i.e. color), likelihood of there being inhabitable planets in the system based off of some theoretical model, or something completely different. The point is, the color of the stars in-game can be treated as if it were a color code to allow the viewer to quickly and easily gain some information about that star. Since in GCII we don't actually care about stellar characteristics, the color is just something pretty to look at, but it still can be viewed as something that would convey information to someone in the game universe (not necessarily to us, the supreme leader of our civilization, but possibly to Bob the Astronomer or Ioneth the Xenobiologist).

Beyond that, we're talking about a game. It doesn't need to match up to reality, and if the coloration of the stars is the biggest problem with the game 'realism' that you have, I would suggest that you might want to take a closer look into the practicality of superluminal travel, superluminal communications, the coincidence of every single species in the game all being able to inhabit the exact same types of planets (and in fact preferring to inhabit the same kinds of planets, with no indications given that there are even any significant atmosphere composition issues or anything like that), or that little line on the map that says that as soon as your ships cross this they must place the crews into hibernation despite being able to spend years, even decades, sitting right on the inside edge of that line without any issues.

I was going to mention magenta and fuschia, but I thought maybe I was already pushing my luck.

SD2 had a couple of star colors that were indicative of something special about the system. I think green and a bluish color which might have been teal were there, and my current game has a pink one.

I agree with you Phae, I like to think/hope that life gets going on just about ANY type of planet. If say the odds are low, so what. Its a nearly infinite universe. 

I one chance in 500 Quadrillion! Meh whatever, that still would be millions of habitable planets...

Green Stars upon thars......

I read an article yesterday about the lack of 'green' stars.  As I remember, it has to do with how the rods and cones work in our eyes.  The sun emits light in a variety of spectrums, and our eyes are a little more reactive to light from non-green spectrums.  Hence, the green gets washed out a bit.  This also helps explain why sunlight looks mostly white to us.

HOWEVER, since the Sun's peak wavelength is mostly green, it MIGHT help explain why plants are green.  Green being around the peak wavelength for the sun, the plants engineered themselves to take advantage of said peak wavelength.  That's my theory anyways...

So aliens from another planet, depending on how their eyes react to different frequencies of light, might see our sun as more green.  Heck, they might see well into the infrared/ultraviolet for that matter!  On that note, if the GalCiv designers wanted to have some 'fun', they could have the look of the galaxy change based on race.  If you are Drengin, maybe you see stars as more red.  If you are Thalan, perhaps greens are more predominant.  And also, perhaps ships look more green to you as well if you play Thalan.     Your aquatic types might see things as more blue... You get the idea.  Of course, I'd rather see the designers working on compelling game mechanics than on hues, but who knows, maybe some Stardock artist will be bored one day and...

In the end, I'm all for what looks prettiest.  If the GalCiv designers want green stars, and green stars make them happy, good for them!  If someone really cares, they can release a mod afterwords that changes green stars to some other color in case anyone cares...

Just a heads up, GalCiv is a game, not a simulation attempting to portray realism.

Heh. You are correct.

Just saw this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgqoB2kk8f8

I suspect what the poster above was talking about when he said 10 Earthlike planets was the 10 planets identified by the Kepler space telescope. 

Of course statistical extrapolation leads us to the conclusion that there are billions of Earthlike planets in this galaxy.