Slashdot Mirror
New Interactive Black Hole Simulation Published
quaith writes "The New Scientist reports on a simulation just published in the American Journal of Physics that shows how the sky would appear in the vicinity of a black hole — if an observer could actually get near one. Using real positions of around 118,000 stars, the simulation shows how the bending of light, the frequency shift, and the magnification caused by gravitational lensing and aberration in the vicinity of the black hole affect the sky's appearance. The simulation is interactive and allows the user to explore the stellar sky around the black hole. The simulation offers a couple of modes: 'quasi static' or 'freely falling' and the sample videos are quite spectacular. The New Scientist has a writeup, with an embedded video . The original article citation is here (abstract only). The simulation, which runs on Linux or Windows, as well as sample videos, can be downloaded from the University of Stuttgart website."
does it...
which runs on Linux
Oh. sorry.
Why are they releasing that code? People are just going to try to find something wrong with it!
Whatever you do, for the love of all things good, Do Not invoke the simulation program with the -goatse switch....
The actual correctness? no. and there probably never will be.
I'm sure physics geeks will be heartily debating the THEORETICAL correctness any minute now. After all, what else would they be doing on a saturday night
It's posted on Youtube here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNc-JLysk9Y&feature=related
Watch 'til the end, the terminology is nothing short of cosmically hilarious.
Dave Lawson, astrogeek.
dot-sig.
Got it. Here's a torrent:
http://www.legittorrents.info/index.php?page=torrent-details&id=26f463c791852abe4790e4b6b2dbe3fdab7b2413
After all, what else would they be doing on a saturday night
Posting on Slashdot?
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
http://www.rentalgeek.com/downloads/ibhs.torrent
This has full data file, linux binary, and windows binary.
Also, this has been uploaded to Elbitz if you prefer private tracker.
This is how you do it:
I just downloaded the simulation and the first thing it printed was:
"It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a black hole"
Not ethical? Why should this person be credited?
Is the program code taken from Alain Riazuelo, or did he perhaps invent the theory behind Black Holes that made it possible to write the program from the article?
Because what is asked in research is only that the persons whose work the current publication is based on are credited, both for the sake of their achievement and to enable verification of theories that isn't only superficial (current publication).
I imagine you would first have to move to Germany, then get a job at the University of Stuttgart. Then ask the German government for funding before someone reminds you that universities provide their own funding and usually don't require much justification for the research they choose to produce.
After all, what else would they be doing on a saturday night
How about playing Star Trek Online on one monitor while watching Farscape (via Netflix) on the other monitor?
Perhaps, but it's common (and, I would argue, right) to mention work which has gone before, whether or not it was exactly the same. It gives alternative routes of learning about the given subject (which is, after all, the whole point of publishing results in the first place, right?). Sure, if the work isn't immediately applicable, then do it in a footnote or appendix, but unless one is totally unaware of the previously published (or even unpublished) work, it's better to be comprehensive than parochial.