Timeline for How can I indicate a third dimension on a map of outer space?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
28 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 10, 2015 at 17:19 | comment | added | Pharap | @Ayelis The "from some angle" remark wasn't there when I made my comment. My comment was made around 14 hours before that edit. | |
| Jun 10, 2015 at 16:26 | comment | added | Ayelis | @Pharap See above. ^ | |
| Jun 10, 2015 at 16:23 | comment | added | Ayelis | @2012rcampion The key word in that phrase is not "from some angle", but "the entire setup". In imagining a group of realistic 3d star systems, one would quickly realize that they are all going to be at random angles to each other. Even viewed from "top-down", (if you can define a "top" in space), you're still going to come up with something like this. I imagine what HDE226868 has in mind, however, is showing each separate star system from its particular most likely top-down orientation, which disconnects each system from "the entire setup". | |
| Jun 10, 2015 at 1:17 | vote | accept | HDE 226868♦ | ||
| Jun 9, 2015 at 4:48 | answer | added | Pharap | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jun 9, 2015 at 4:45 | comment | added | Pharap | Technically however the map is drawn it will be from some angle. If the map is already top-down, that is viewing the planets from an angle. In order to project a 4-dimensional system (planets do move, so I'm counting time as a dimension) onto a 2-dimensional piece of paper requires some form of projection (from an angle, including top down). There is no way to do this without some form of annotation or wihtout producing multiple maps. | |
| Jun 9, 2015 at 2:24 | comment | added | 2012rcampion | "without [...] showing the entire setup from some angle. This needs to be viewed only from the top down." How is top-down not an angle? Or in other words, how do you expect to be able to intuitively convey depth without perspective? | |
| Jun 8, 2015 at 23:14 | answer | added | Thucydides | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jun 8, 2015 at 21:07 | answer | added | Monty Harder | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jun 8, 2015 at 20:30 | answer | added | Tristan Klassen | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jun 8, 2015 at 20:19 | comment | added | Mikey | @MichaelKjörling maybe one of those hologram-esque images that change based on your perspective? You go to the left and see one image, shift to the right to see the stars have shifted slightly, giving you the perspective? Dunno, just a thought. | |
| Jun 8, 2015 at 20:17 | answer | added | aslum | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jun 8, 2015 at 20:11 | comment | added | HDE 226868♦ | @knave Ah, that's an error in clarity on my part. I meant that it is a two-dimensional view from some fixed point in space. | |
| Jun 8, 2015 at 20:11 | comment | added | HDE 226868♦ | @MichaelKjörling I was planning to simply use dotted lines or something related to show motion. | |
| Jun 8, 2015 at 20:09 | comment | added | Ayelis | One word: Holograms. ;) | |
| Jun 8, 2015 at 19:35 | comment | added | evankh | "This needs to be viewed only from the top down" - well there's your problem right there. "Top" and "down" and other directions have absolutely no meaning in space. It's also the beginnings of a solution: have multiple maps with multiple "tops" and "downs". | |
| Jun 8, 2015 at 18:43 | comment | added | user | You say you want to show celestial motion on a two dimensional map. As has been pointed out, that's not readily possible; a map can, at best, show a snapshot in time, and cramming anything three-dimensional onto a two-dimensional map is always fraught with problems. Aify's, Dan's or Samuel's answers are probably the closest match if you are okay with a point-in-time snapshot; it gets a lot trickier if you want to show motion or otherwise how the situation changes over time. (And once you get that nailed down, we can start discussing "time looking from where?".) | |
| Jun 8, 2015 at 18:27 | answer | added | ArtOfCode | timeline score: 14 | |
| Jun 8, 2015 at 18:13 | comment | added | HDE 226868♦ | @Aify Hopefully this edit clarified that. | |
| Jun 8, 2015 at 18:13 | history | edited | HDE 226868♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 84 characters in body
|
| Jun 8, 2015 at 18:12 | comment | added | Aify | Seeing the new answers pop up, I think it may be best to clarify what you mean by without using art. (I'd actually considered all 3 alternate suggestions - height lines, vectors, and altitude color but I deemed them "art" and didn't include them to my answer). | |
| Jun 8, 2015 at 18:10 | answer | added | Ayelis | timeline score: 24 | |
| Jun 8, 2015 at 18:10 | answer | added | Dan Smolinske | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jun 8, 2015 at 18:09 | answer | added | IchabodE | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jun 8, 2015 at 18:03 | answer | added | Samuel | timeline score: 13 | |
| Jun 8, 2015 at 17:48 | answer | added | Aify | timeline score: 17 | |
| Jun 8, 2015 at 17:46 | history | edited | HDE 226868♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 53 characters in body
|
| Jun 8, 2015 at 17:38 | history | asked | HDE 226868♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
