EVE Search - Stars in WH's older then known age of universe...EXPLAINED?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Stars in WH's older then known age of universe...EXPLAINED?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
Adeline Grey	Posted - 2009.03.20 16:53:00 - [91] No wonder real bugs never get fixed, idiots submit stuff like this as a bug.
Johram	Posted - 2009.03.20 17:36:00 - [92] Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos Hold up... Couldn't gravitational time dilation explain why the star registers as being older than the universe itself? If not, consider it a mystery to be solved. Or proof of intelligent design, your choice really. No it would not. Gravitational time dilation means that time passes more slowly. That means that the objects within such a time dilation would literally be younger than someone over the "same" period of time observing from the outside. A dilation factor of 10 would mean if I stood for ten years on the outside, only one year would pass on the inside. As an interesting quirk this means all black holes are quite "young" perhaps only millions of years older than they were before the super nova due to the same time dilation. This is also the sort of mass density you need to achieve significant time dilation. Neither the worm hole space or the eve universe can be under the effect of time dilation because the density of the respective galactic systems are no where near that required to achieve time dilation on this scale.
Arushia Nova Labs Empire Research	Posted - 2009.03.20 19:00:00 - [93] Originally by: Bethulsunamen Real answer: The ship-scanner that analyzes the age of stars in Wormhole-systems is malfunctioning? I think you may be right. Clearly, our sensors require advanced percussive maintenance. thump thump thump
Feilamya Minmatar	Posted - 2009.03.20 19:54:00 - [94] Originally by: Levaria Edited by: Levaria on 20/03/2009 01:26:47 Soo...me and the corpmates were running a site in WH space..so checking info on a star for giggles I clicked for info and got its age at 35 billion years old.. 35 billion what? What makes you think that the people of New Eden measure time in rotations of some random little blue planet far away from their own galaxy? All 4 races probably had to reinvent measurement of time independently from each other. It's an achievement they actually agreed on a common time system.
Enthral	Posted - 2009.03.20 19:57:00 - [95] I don't put too much faith in the numbers they provide for stars or planets in EVE. I just checked the star in my current system (in k-space) and discovered it is an F8V class star described as "small blue". An F8V class star would be white/yellow-white, not blue. They list a luminosity which would only be appropriate for a G-class star like our own. They list a radius which is only appropriate for a K-class star. At least they got the temperature right. If there are any stars or planets in EVE which make sense, it is probably merely by accident. -Enthral
gabereiser Caldari Soldiers Of Industry	Posted - 2009.03.20 20:01:00 - [96] technically, the universe only being 13 billion years old is wrong. From countless science and astronomy articles I've read, when we look at a system with a telescope (even hubble) we are looking at the past. Alpha Centauri Wikipedia is 4.37 light years away from our solar system. So if we were to point a telescope at Alpha Centauri, we would be looking at the star, as it was, 4.37 years ago. Funny thing is when we look at systems hundreds or even thousands of light years away, we are looking at it as it was hundreds or even thousands of years ago as the light hasn't reached us yet. Also, EVE's universe isn't the milky way and takes place X thousands of years in the future. What's to say their numbers aren't accurate?
Trader20	Posted - 2009.03.20 20:03:00 - [97] Something to do with relativity (E = mc2) and the speed of which you travel through the wormholes. You can actaully travel to different point in time while the point you left would remain normal time.
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2009.03.20 20:36:00 - [98] Originally by: Y Berion For example, basically we know the effects of gravity ... The scientists have no idea what 'gravity' actually is. Their formulas aren't working at all for large scales - to rescue their pretty formulas they need to introduce all sort of stuff like dark matter, dark energy and heavens know what will come next. Their formulas aren't working at all for small scales, there is nowhere some theory accepted or worked on which can be called scientific and which can explain gravity on quantum scale levels. For some non-standard theory (which can explain and forecast a lot though) look at Heim-Theory, it is frowned up at the 'community' though. So, on both ends, the small and the large scale the theory for gravity fails completely. On the scale we humans normaly can observe the theory works all fine though, but that is only a very small part of the total. To say that we basically know the effects of gravity quite funny, especially since we have no idea what gravity is.
TimMc Gallente The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates	Posted - 2009.03.20 21:14:00 - [99] Originally by: Feilamya Originally by: Levaria Edited by: Levaria on 20/03/2009 01:26:47 Soo...me and the corpmates were running a site in WH space..so checking info on a star for giggles I clicked for info and got its age at 35 billion years old.. 35 billion what? What makes you think that the people of New Eden measure time in rotations of some random little blue planet far away from their own galaxy? All 4 races probably had to reinvent measurement of time independently from each other. It's an achievement they actually agreed on a common time system. This probably. Personally I think it would be cool for each empire to have their own currency and time.
Cedric Diggory Perfunctory Oleaginous Laocoon Mugwumps	Posted - 2009.03.20 21:21:00 - [100] Originally by: TimMc Originally by: Feilamya Originally by: Levaria Edited by: Levaria on 20/03/2009 01:26:47 Soo...me and the corpmates were running a site in WH space..so checking info on a star for giggles I clicked for info and got its age at 35 billion years old.. 35 billion what? What makes you think that the people of New Eden measure time in rotations of some random little blue planet far away from their own galaxy? All 4 races probably had to reinvent measurement of time independently from each other. It's an achievement they actually agreed on a common time system. This probably. Personally I think it would be cool for each empire to have their own currency and time. I think it's something to do with the fact that my speed is measure in m/s and au/s, that there is a 24 hour clock in the corner of my client and all in game correspondence is timestamped. --- Originally by: 7shining7one7 a) there are no conspiracies whatsoever b) those who believe there are are nuts

Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.03.20 21:24:00 - [101] Quote: No it would not. Gravitational time dilation means that time passes more slowly. That means that the objects within such a time dilation would literally be younger than someone over the "same" period of time observing from the outside. A dilation factor of 10 would mean if I stood for ten years on the outside, only one year would pass on the inside. Given current theories on the creation of the universe, wouldn't it be logical to assume that there were massive gravitational forces at work that would skew the results of aging any single item in the universe? Quote: As an interesting quirk this means all black holes are quite "young" perhaps only millions of years older than they were before the super nova due to the same time dilation. This is also the sort of mass density you need to achieve significant time dilation. Neither the worm hole space or the eve universe can be under the effect of time dilation because the density of the respective galactic systems are no where near that required to achieve time dilation on this scale. For the life of me I can't remember where I read this, but I do remember reading that it's a fallacy that a black hole has an "immense" gravitational pull. Something about it being simply a denser concentration of the same mass and having the same gravitational force. - Originally by: The Cuckoo Good luck in defending idiotic and greedy noobs, as far as I'm concerned, you are their champion.
Lindsay Logan	Posted - 2009.03.20 21:44:00 - [102] getting a degree in physics is realtively easy, and not as uncommon as osme think. So I would not be supprised if someone from CCP got a dgree :).
Valentyn3	Posted - 2009.03.20 21:45:00 - [103] EVE has visible laser beam guns and people are confounded by something like this?
Trader20	Posted - 2009.03.20 21:52:00 - [104] Originally by: Valentyn3 EVE has visible laser beam guns and people are confounded by something like this? lazors

CCP RyanD Caldari C C P	Posted - 2009.03.20 21:53:00 - [105] Originally by: Gnulpie The scientists have no idea what 'gravity' actually is. That's true, but the issue is even weirder than your post suggests. General Relativity works just fine for most cases above the atomic level. The need for things like Dark Matter and Dark Energy aren't due to flaws with GR - they're due to unexplainable observations like the fact that stars around galactic cores are moving faster than they should, and distant galaxies appear to be accelerating away from each other. If you can explain where the matter is that is causing the gravitational behavior of the stellar motion, or where the energy is that must be present to cause the acceleration in the universe, Relativity will do just fine in terms of allowing you to make predictions about the observable universe. In fact, Einstein put a value into the relativity equations called the Cosmological Constant to reflect these kinds of forces, which he actually considered an error during his lifetime - the thought the Constant was needed to make relativity match the then-current observations that suggested a "closed" universe but the value was usually ignored when solving various problems and eventually it was assumed to be inconsequential. Turns out that it may not be so meaningless after all. Relativity has "checked out" with tests to an insane level of precision. As far as anyone can tell, it accurately describes how the universe works... Until you go to the atomic scale. At that scale and below, extremely weird things begin to occur and experimental data stops making sense when GR is applied. You feed values into the relativity equations and you get out junk - singularities, chaos, nonsense values; nothing that matches experimental data. That's when you get into Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Electrodynamics does an extremely good job of describing the behavior of sub-atomic forces. It has also been tested experimentally, and found to be accurate to an insane degree of precision. The "Standard Model" of Quantum Mechanics has accurately predicted the outputs of high energy atom smashers for decades. We haven't seen anything unexpected, and everything we have seen was predicted in advance. It seems like the model has no flaws. Only one problem: Relatively and Quantum Mechanics are mutually incompatible when it comes to gravity. Relativity says that gravity is an effect of mass warping spacetime. Quantum mechanics says that gravity is a force carried by a hypothetical particle called a graviton. Neither theory therefore can be correct - something is fundamentally wrong with both. Unlike previous scientific debates where one theory trumped another because it did a better job of describing the way the universe works, we've been stuck in the search for a unified theory of gravity for decades. It is extremely unusual in science for two competing theories to both appear to be experimentally verified, and mutually incompatible. The cosmos is a weird, weird thing. We don't understand it. RyanD

Bethulsunamen Viziam	Posted - 2009.03.20 22:05:00 - [106] Edited by: Bethulsunamen on 20/03/2009 22:05:59 Originally by: TimMc Originally by: Feilamya Originally by: Levaria Edited by: Levaria on 20/03/2009 01:26:47 Soo...me and the corpmates were running a site in WH space..so checking info on a star for giggles I clicked for info and got its age at 35 billion years old.. 35 billion what? What makes you think that the people of New Eden measure time in rotations of some random little blue planet far away from their own galaxy? All 4 races probably had to reinvent measurement of time independently from each other. It's an achievement they actually agreed on a common time system.[/quote] This probably. Personally I think it would be cool for each empire to have their own currency and time. If you've read the chronicles, the empires in New Eden does in fact use a standardized Earth-time, partly as a sort of "honor" to the mythical Earth from whence they all came, according to the legends. So, they do use our measurements and stuff Except that each planet has their own local timescale obviously, and each empire has their own measurements, but when dealing with New Eden as a whole, between the different planets, solar systems and empires, they use the Earth-system. Comedy grammar fail is fail at comedy..
Enthral	Posted - 2009.03.20 22:11:00 - [107] I can't believe this debate was spawned by some pseudo-random numbers injected into a video game by a bunch of Icelandic software developers. ;-) Every star I've checked in EVE has had numbers, such as luminosity, radius and color, that simply doesn't match the spectral class they've assigned to it. It has nothing to do with gravity, the age of the universe, or even whether stars with the properties they describe can exist or not. They're simply described incorrectly. The numbers are practically random. No one should be losing sleep over any of this. The fact that they've randomly assigned an age to a star which doesn't make sense for that star's class, or the age of the universe as we assume it to be, has absolutely no meaning. Besides, they could claim the stars in EVE are made of cheese, and who are we to argue? It's CCP's universe, after all... -Enthral
Pattern Clarc Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil	Posted - 2009.03.20 22:58:00 - [108] Epic plot twist opertunity missed... <planetoftheapes>"It was earth all along..."</planetoftheapes> and if you thought 30 billion was bad... ____ My Blog Is Awesome
Asuka Smith Gallente StarHunt	Posted - 2009.03.20 23:32:00 - [109] I just remembered something, in the last thread that came up on this subject (at the time it was about the age of planets not stars I think) it was revealed that all the star/planet info is randomly generated by a computer algorithm.
hundurinn Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2009.03.21 00:39:00 - [110] Originally by: CCP RyanD Originally by: Gnulpie The scientists have no idea what 'gravity' actually is. That's true, but the issue is even weirder than your post suggests. General Relativity works just fine for most cases above the atomic level. The need for things like Dark Matter and Dark Energy aren't due to flaws with GR - they're due to unexplainable observations like the fact that stars around galactic cores are moving faster than they should, and distant galaxies appear to be accelerating away from each other. If you can explain where the matter is that is causing the gravitational behavior of the stellar motion, or where the energy is that must be present to cause the acceleration in the universe, Relativity will do just fine in terms of allowing you to make predictions about the observable universe. In fact, Einstein put a value into the relativity equations called the Cosmological Constant to reflect these kinds of forces, which he actually considered an error during his lifetime - the thought the Constant was needed to make relativity match the then-current observations that suggested a "closed" universe but the value was usually ignored when solving various problems and eventually it was assumed to be inconsequential. Turns out that it may not be so meaningless after all. Relativity has "checked out" with tests to an insane level of precision. As far as anyone can tell, it accurately describes how the universe works... Until you go to the atomic scale. At that scale and below, extremely weird things begin to occur and experimental data stops making sense when GR is applied. You feed values into the relativity equations and you get out junk - singularities, chaos, nonsense values; nothing that matches experimental data. That's when you get into Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Electrodynamics does an extremely good job of describing the behavior of sub-atomic forces. It has also been tested experimentally, and found to be accurate to an insane degree of precision. The "Standard Model" of Quantum Mechanics has accurately predicted the outputs of high energy atom smashers for decades. We haven't seen anything unexpected, and everything we have seen was predicted in advance. It seems like the model has no flaws. Only one problem: Relatively and Quantum Mechanics are mutually incompatible when it comes to gravity. Relativity says that gravity is an effect of mass warping spacetime. Quantum mechanics says that gravity is a force carried by a hypothetical particle called a graviton. Neither theory therefore can be correct - something is fundamentally wrong with both. Unlike previous scientific debates where one theory trumped another because it did a better job of describing the way the universe works, we've been stuck in the search for a unified theory of gravity for decades. It is extremely unusual in science for two competing theories to both appear to be experimentally verified, and mutually incompatible. The cosmos is a weird, weird thing. We don't understand it. RyanD BAD MAN, I'm drunk and that hurt my brain.

Yalezorn Gallente	Posted - 2009.03.21 00:54:00 - [111] Probably been said, not gonna read all 4 pages, the 13 billion figure is the age of the KNOWN universe. Meaning we can see out about 13 billion light years, which happens to be a perfect sphere with us at the center. Since we obviously aren't the center of the universe, we're not seeing the whole picture. Oh, and thanks for cluttering up the petition system with something this stupid, it's a video game, get over it.
Confuzer Volition Cult The Volition Cult	Posted - 2009.03.21 01:02:00 - [112] Aah this is why I love eve :) Gravity is my nemesis, it's always been the thing to me that will open a big part of a deeper layer of knowledge about what it all is when we discover it's nature. A few months ago I had this thought: If gravity goes aprox at the speed of light. How can mass have stable orbits then? Like, our solarsystem moves away from the core, so we have speed. The gravity we receive from the sun would be the sun 6 minutes ago (or whatever the time sunrays take to reach us). So I went to Google, and found some articles that say this: - If gravity reaches the mass, the force will not be directed from where it was, but the exact position of the sun how it is in real time! - Only changes in gravity will reach us at lightspeed. When the sun explodes, we will receive it's gravity a little longer. Can anyone explain that to me? What is the theory behind that? Is gravity information just a link to the orginal source? But if changes get delayed, how can it point to the current location of the sun? How can we know where it is, but not yet if there were changes? There are tests in which gravity changes have speed. I still doubt them. I rather use something like the string theory for it. That it's an effect caused on a plain we have limited interaction with. Also, I don't believe in gravitons, they seem to odd to me. Although that can be a limit of my monkey brain :P ----------------- Destiny is not a matter of chance. It is a matter of choice. It's not a thing to be waited for - it is a thing to be achieved.
Druadan BLAM Industries	Posted - 2009.03.21 01:04:00 - [113] Okay OP, try this one on for size. Let's say that a black hole sucks in all the matter in its catchment area. While it's doing it is it growing hotter and hotter and, due to proton-antiproton formation and annihilation on the surface of the blackhole, is getting smaller and smaller, until it reaches a point at which its heat and size mean it cannot remain stable, and it explodes violently, sending forth all the matter it has sucked in over its lifetime in its broken down base forms of energy. We have evidence of this, and we call it the Big Bang. But these Big Bangs are happening all over an infinite universe, and all we can see at the moment is what our Big Bang produced 13 billion years ago. So our scope of evidence is not absolute. This is something that me and my Dad came up with talking one night. Turns out Stephen Hawking had already postulated that black holes suck in matter until they get small and hot enough to explode, having retracted his theory that no information ever escapes a black hole (and admitted being wrong in the scientific wager he made on the question). What's to say that there can't be matter older than 13 billion years, just because we haven't seen any in a universe the boundaries of which we have not seen? You can't take knowledge of astrophysics as being absolute, especially from the comfort of your armchair. It's ignorant. Anything is possible until you have proof beyond doubt that it is not, and space is most definitely not doubtless. Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Doc Fury	Posted - 2009.03.21 01:11:00 - [114] Originally by: CCP RyanD Originally by: Gnulpie The scientists have no idea what 'gravity' actually is. That's true, but the issue is even weirder than your post suggests. General Relativity works just fine for most cases above the atomic level. The need for things like Dark Matter and Dark Energy aren't due to flaws with GR - they're due to unexplainable observations like the fact that stars around galactic cores are moving faster than they should, and distant galaxies appear to be accelerating away from each other. If you can explain where the matter is that is causing the gravitational behavior of the stellar motion, or where the energy is that must be present to cause the acceleration in the universe, Relativity will do just fine in terms of allowing you to make predictions about the observable universe. In fact, Einstein put a value into the relativity equations called the Cosmological Constant to reflect these kinds of forces, which he actually considered an error during his lifetime - the thought the Constant was needed to make relativity match the then-current observations that suggested a "closed" universe but the value was usually ignored when solving various problems and eventually it was assumed to be inconsequential. Turns out that it may not be so meaningless after all. Relativity has "checked out" with tests to an insane level of precision. As far as anyone can tell, it accurately describes how the universe works... Until you go to the atomic scale. At that scale and below, extremely weird things begin to occur and experimental data stops making sense when GR is applied. You feed values into the relativity equations and you get out junk - singularities, chaos, nonsense values; nothing that matches experimental data. That's when you get into Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Electrodynamics does an extremely good job of describing the behavior of sub-atomic forces. It has also been tested experimentally, and found to be accurate to an insane degree of precision. The "Standard Model" of Quantum Mechanics has accurately predicted the outputs of high energy atom smashers for decades. We haven't seen anything unexpected, and everything we have seen was predicted in advance. It seems like the model has no flaws. Only one problem: Relatively and Quantum Mechanics are mutually incompatible when it comes to gravity. Relativity says that gravity is an effect of mass warping spacetime. Quantum mechanics says that gravity is a force carried by a hypothetical particle called a graviton. Neither theory therefore can be correct - something is fundamentally wrong with both. Unlike previous scientific debates where one theory trumped another because it did a better job of describing the way the universe works, we've been stuck in the search for a unified theory of gravity for decades. It is extremely unusual in science for two competing theories to both appear to be experimentally verified, and mutually incompatible. The cosmos is a weird, weird thing. We don't understand it. RyanD That's got to be the smartest stuff you have ever posted. If you actually understand any of it, +5. Regardless, I am truly impressed you were able to articulate those concepts so well especially since you work in CCP's marketing dept. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the ho's and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I'll look down, and whisper 'no.'
Druadan BLAM Industries	Posted - 2009.03.21 01:17:00 - [115] Originally by: Confuzer Aah this is why I love eve :) Gravity is my nemesis, it's always been the thing to me that will open a big part of a deeper layer of knowledge about what it all is when we discover it's nature. A few months ago I had this thought: If gravity goes aprox at the speed of light. How can mass have stable orbits then? Like, our solarsystem moves away from the core, so we have speed. The gravity we receive from the sun would be the sun 6 minutes ago (or whatever the time sunrays take to reach us). So I went to Google, and found some articles that say this: - If gravity reaches the mass, the force will not be directed from where it was, but the exact position of the sun how it is in real time! - Only changes in gravity will reach us at lightspeed. When the sun explodes, we will receive it's gravity a little longer. Can anyone explain that to me? What is the theory behind that? Is gravity information just a link to the orginal source? But if changes get delayed, how can it point to the current location of the sun? How can we know where it is, but not yet if there were changes? There are tests in which gravity changes have speed. I still doubt them. I rather use something like the string theory for it. That it's an effect caused on a plain we have limited interaction with. Also, I don't believe in gravitons, they seem to odd to me. Although that can be a limit of my monkey brain :P Imagine that the sun is a heavy ball on a thin rubber sheet stretched out. The Sun weighs the centre of the sheet down, stretching it non-uniformly toward the ball. You then roll a penny around the sun at sufficient speed and trajectory that it orbits the ball for a long long time. That's a simplified solar system. A very simplified solar system with a star and single planet, and the incline/'well' that the penny is rolling around is the gravitational well caused by the mass of the 'sun' ball. Now imagine that the ball disappears. The middle of the sheet shoots up to its standard position, and the rest of the sheet does the same, but it doesn't happen all at the same time. The middle where the ball was shoots up first, and then the rest shoots up in a sort of ripple effect out from where the ball was. The penny is still rolling around the incline because the bit of rubber that it is on has not yet returned to its unweighted position. Once the ripple effect reaches the penny's bit of rubber, the penny will just carry on in a straight line. So if the sun disappears, the earth keeps orbiting it for as long as it takes light to get from the sun to the earth, assuming the gravitational well corrects itself at the same rate as light travels (the important thing here is that the gravitional well cannot correct itself outward at any rate faster than the speed of light, as the theory is that no information can travel faster than light, and the gravitation pull is information that determines the orbit of objects). It is this idea that precipitates the idea of a 'graviton', a light-speed particle that carries gravitational information, but I'm undecided on the idea that everything has to be a sodding particle That help? Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Confuzer Volition Cult The Volition Cult	Posted - 2009.03.21 01:36:00 - [116] @Druadan: Aah yes. Damn always been thinking about gravity like that, didn't connect them so I can use it as explanation. But, thinking it a bit through: Now imagine the bal that is making a dent in the sheet, is moving and not standing still. Why would the coin - if we think of the coin as if it's pulled towards the ball - stay in a stable orbit? Wouldn't it be still rotating the OLD position of the ball on the sheet? The ball, in the meantime, did move to another position but the sheet didn't catch up yet. That can mean only one thing: The tilt of the sheet is immediate, but a ripple in the sheet takes time. But if the sheet-tilt IS immediate, we would know the real position of the sun, so we have information that travels faster then light. Argh, there is something wrong with it all... my brain is waiting to connect the pieces frusterated :P ----------------- Destiny is not a matter of chance. It is a matter of choice. It's not a thing to be waited for - it is a thing to be achieved.
Taedrin Gallente Golden Mechanization Protectorate	Posted - 2009.03.21 01:37:00 - [117] Originally by: Irida Mershkov Originally by: CCP Greyscale Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 20/03/2009 11:39:44 Originally by: Tahlma The creators of this game are not physicists. This is less true than you'd think... Regardless, the ages on stars, in w-space or otherwise, have no special significance I'm aware of and are not to the best of my knowledge part of some fiendish hidden plot twist. Sorry. Or were just written on the fly? amirite? You have a lot of explaining to do otherwise. They were generated randomly. I believe that the number they used to seed the random number generator was 42...
Iria Ahrens Amarr 101st Space Marine Force Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.03.21 05:30:00 - [118] Edited by: Iria Ahrens on 21/03/2009 05:35:26 While we are pointing out the issue of star ages and whatnot. Let's not forget that according to EVE lore, jumpgates can only be erected in binary systems, but I see more single star systems with jumpgates than binary systems. Let's go bug report all the single star systems with jump gates. -- Nobody expects the Amarr Inquisition!
Y Berion Minmatar	Posted - 2009.03.21 07:46:00 - [119] Edited by: Y Berion on 21/03/2009 07:48:15 Originally by: Iria Ahrens Edited by: Iria Ahrens on 21/03/2009 05:35:26 While we are pointing out the issue of star ages and whatnot. Let's not forget that according to EVE lore, jumpgates can only be erected in binary systems, but I see more single star systems with jumpgates than binary systems. Let's go bug report all the single star systems with jump gates. Binary stars don't have to be close to each other, in fact - they are often very distant. So any of those white dots in the background can be a companion of your star: Quote: A recent search for wide binaries in the Gleise Catalog of nearby stars by Arcadio Poveda at the Institute of Astronomy in Mexico revealed that of the 118 nearby binary stars, 33 had separations greater than 500 AU, and 14 had separations greater than 2000 AU.
Major Stallion The Dark Horses W A S T E L A N D	Posted - 2009.03.21 07:48:00 - [120] when i feel like wasting a bughunter's time i always report theres a problem with an irrelevant item, just like the op



Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.