Well, I just found out GalCiv2 has a massive error!

Apparently, green stars do not exist;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlIJl2_ncJQ


So, maybe not include them in GalCiv3?

Also, will we be seeing binary/trinary etc star systems?


Comments (Page 4)
5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 
on Nov 08, 2013

Good catch Phae.

 

on Nov 09, 2013

Maybe green stars represent stars with high radiation, thus all planets orbiting that star is highly radiated, and requires technology to colonize it. I think that would be the best way to represent green stars because no races can actually see it as a green star. It would be a strategic indicator, not what alien races see unless they have a totally different view of color that we don't know or understand.

 What I am saying realistically the star ain't actually green, but in the aliens scanning computer it is so radioactive that their on board computer recognize it as a green star.

on Nov 09, 2013

Maybe green stars are cold stars...instead of giving off heat, they give off cold...

on Nov 09, 2013

Seleuceia

Maybe green stars are cold stars...instead of giving off heat, they give off cold...

  

Let's see, space is at absolute zero (total cessation of atomic motion) so a green star causes atoms in space to go even slower?

on Nov 09, 2013

Space is not at absolute Zero, it's close, but because of the cosmic microwave background radiation CMRB for short, which we believe to be from the big bang, the temperature is at about 3 degrees Kelvin. At Zero Kelvin there would also be Zero pressure which is a very difficult thing to imagine

on Nov 09, 2013

Lucky Jack
Let's see, space is at absolute zero (total cessation of atomic motion) so a green star causes atoms in space to go even slower?

They start going backwards...

on Nov 09, 2013

Seleuceia
They start going backwards...

No. Absolute zero is the temperature at which the kinetic energy of atoms/molecules/subatomic particles/anything else has gone to zero. Having something be at a temperature less than absolute zero would imply that the kinetic energy of the particles involved was negative, which requires either negative mass or imaginary velocity (if you have both negative mass and imaginary velocity, your kinetic energy is real and positive, but your momentum is imaginary). Going backwards merely implies negative velocity, which still gives a positive kinetic energy if we assume positive mass; since nothing known has negative mass, this implies a positive nonzero temperature as measured in the Kelvin or Rankine scales.

on Nov 09, 2013

As much as I like science fiction I am not yet prepared for a science fiction 4x game that proposes that cold is something other than the absence of heat.

on Nov 10, 2013

Phaedyme

As much as I like science fiction I am not yet prepared for a science fiction 4x game that proposes that cold is something other than the absence of heat.

 

I read an article early this year where physicists had claimed to record a temperature just below absolute zero

I believe they claimed it was so cold it was infinitely hot

therefore cold is hot

here's the article

http://news.discovery.com/earth/record-temperature-set-colder-than-absolute-zero-130104.htm

on Nov 10, 2013

androshalforc


Quoting Phaedyme, reply 53
As much as I like science fiction I am not yet prepared for a science fiction 4x game that proposes that cold is something other than the absence of heat.

 

I read an article early this year where physicists had claimed to record a temperature just below absolute zero

I believe they claimed it was so cold it was infinitely hot

therefore cold is hot

here's the article

http://news.discovery.com/earth/record-temperature-set-colder-than-absolute-zero-130104.htm[/quote]

 

Interesting, but I'm not convinced. Something like this should have been big news in the science community but this is the first I'm hearing of it.

on Nov 10, 2013

joeball123
No. Absolute zero is the temperature at which the kinetic energy of atoms/molecules/subatomic particles/anything else has gone to zero. Having something be at a temperature less than absolute zero would imply that the kinetic energy of the particles involved was negative, which requires either negative mass or imaginary velocity (if you have both negative mass and imaginary velocity, your kinetic energy is real and positive, but your momentum is imaginary). Going backwards merely implies negative velocity, which still gives a positive kinetic energy if we assume positive mass; since nothing known has negative mass, this implies a positive nonzero temperature as measured in the Kelvin or Rankine scales.

First off, I was kidding...it was a reference to a Doctor Who episode that had a "Cold Star" that gave off cold...

And second off...

Seleuceia
They start going backwards...

I was again kidding....I'm fully aware of the physics involved...

Third, temperature is technically not defined based off of kinetic energy...that actually would be a terrible definition since kinetic energy is 100% relative....temperature actually is the inverse of a more important physical quantity, the (thermodynamic) beta value...the beta value represents the relationship between changes in energy and changes in entropy (it's proportional to the partial derivative dS/dE -- I don't remember which things are held constant but probably volume and/or number of particles since I know those affect entropy)...

Finally, temperature, given the more rigid definition above, actually can be negative if you have a system where increasing energy actually decreases entropy...there are few pathologies in quantum physics where adding energy decreases entropy...certainly not relevant to most systems but it is doable and definitely does not require negative mass....

on Nov 10, 2013

Starbound_Dust
Interesting, but I'm not convinced. Something like this should have been big news in the science community but this is the first I'm hearing of it.

It's not a big deal because negative temperature has been known for a while....it has been part of the thermodynamic theory for quite some time and quantum mechanics fully supports it...

on Nov 10, 2013

androshalforc
I read an article early this year where physicists had claimed to record a temperature just below absolute zero

I believe they claimed it was so cold it was infinitely hot

therefore cold is hot

That is a very interesting article.

However, it looks like it is way too early to put much credence in the results of this experiment. I was unable to track down any peer reviews, any attempts by other physicists to recreate the experiment, or any attempts to show where there may have been errors in how the experiment was performed (perhaps because there hasn't been sufficient time for any of this to take place). And new discoveries, such as this appears to be, take time before it gets sufficient scientific review to become accepted. It may show that artificial gravity is possible, or it may just be a fluke. Let's give it time to mature and see how well it stands up to scientific scrutiny.

There are many things in the article that certainly stands our understanding of physics on its head. And some of the conclusions sound far fetched. But it is early yet. Maybe their experiment really did show that absolute zero isn't the lowest achievable temperature. Maybe the conclusions they reached are not supported by what they observed. It takes years for scientists to work these things out. Give it time. Lets not use this in GalCiv just yet.

on Nov 10, 2013

The CoD/BF/Halo forum members probably don't have conversations like this. Only strategy gamers... 

on Nov 10, 2013

Seleuceia
Third, temperature is technically not defined based off of kinetic energy

Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles within a given volume. It may not strictly speaking be defined by kinetic energy, but it is a measurement of it, and absolute zero is defined as the point at which the average kinetic energy of the particles in that volume is zero, which leads to the conclusion that the velocity of said particles is also zero.

5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5