Earlier quoted context omitted.
Melanotrypophobia, although the Greek term is "mayri trypa", literally "black hole".
Any relation to the words melancholy?
Show HN: Physically accurate black hole you can put in your room
111–120 of 204 posts
Re: Show HN: Physically accurate black hole you can put in your room
#112Re: Show HN: Physically accurate black hole you can put in your room
#113Re: Show HN: Physically accurate black hole you can put in your room
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
>of course this is a simplified visualization Its titled a "physically accurate black hole"! Please don't do this, if its intentionally not physically accurate and heavily simplified! The general public on here don't know better, and it takes someone else with years of experience simulating black holes to dig through your code to show what you've simplified. There's like a few hundred people who have the right experi…
> Its titled a "physically accurate black hole"! Please don't do this, if its intentionally not physically accurate and heavily simplified! It also doesn't exert the gravity an actually accurate black hole should :) And also, even on a phone with two cameras, they only cover a part of sphere – while a real black hole would bend light coming from all 4pi directions. Some simplification is generally required ("the map…
Re: Show HN: Physically accurate black hole you can put in your room
#115Re: Show HN: Physically accurate black hole you can put in your room
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to this calculator [1] it would take 11.274 times the mass of the earth to create a black hole with a radius of 10cm. [1] https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/schwarzschild-radius
I'm less ambitious and I just want a 1 cm blackhole for display purposes, cool thing to show off to my guests. Imagine my disappointment at finding out that I'm gonna need about 10^47 chonky house cats to make a 1cm blackhole! Where could I find that!
Re: Show HN: Physically accurate black hole you can put in your room
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
"slightly accurate" is the correct description, though -- dead reckoning on a cell-phone-class IMU accumulates drift too quickly to keep objects anchored in space for more than seconds at a time. You need something (visual odometry, SLAM) that provides long-term stability, even if it has short-term noise or poor availability, to fuse in.
When this topic comes up, I'm always happy to share this incredible lecture from many many years ago about sensor fusion and dead reckoning and how you _cannot_ integrate acceleration twice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7JQ7Rpwn2k&t=1401s (the whole video is incredible, but this timestamp is the magical bit)
Re: Show HN: Physically accurate black hole you can put in your room
#118If anyone's interested in the accuracy, this is very 'visualisation grade' software. Its a bit of a pet peeve of mine that people present these sims as being very physically accurate, when they contain major inaccuracies, some of which are very obvious and/or deliberate. This one has some serious physical limitations I wouldn't mind at all if it didn't say that this was a *physically accurate* black hole specifically…
He probably knows. It's in a browser, there are probably some trade-offs. Calm down.
Re: Show HN: Physically accurate black hole you can put in your room
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
If somebody feels no fear while zooming towards a black hole, their brain has some strange wires crossed. Strongly recommend Outer Wilds. Falling into the black hole the first time was one of my most scared moments in gaming. I was totally panicking lol
Looks interesting from the first glance! I should probably try that game – having both the artistic and realistic pictures in mind :)
Re: Show HN: Physically accurate black hole you can put in your room
#120If anyone's interested in the accuracy, this is very 'visualisation grade' software. Its a bit of a pet peeve of mine that people present these sims as being very physically accurate, when they contain major inaccuracies, some of which are very obvious and/or deliberate. This one has some serious physical limitations I wouldn't mind at all if it didn't say that this was a *physically accurate* black hole specifically…