• BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      We’ve always done that. Everybody knows our hemisphere is prettier and sexier than theirs. We’ve got the hottest hemisphere on the planet, and that includes whether you break it up North/South, or East/West. We own it, baby.

  • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    No but seriously, why DO continents/landmasses on other planets give a sense of unease/uncanny valley (at least to me)? Is it just the lack of familiarity?

    • Sunrosa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      It’s an artist’s impression. We almost certainly got no idea what its continents look like at that distance.

      • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        We almost certainly got no idea what its continents look like at that distance.

        I understand this, but I also get unease from RNG maps from games like Age of Empires or Anno, and I’ve talked to a couple of other people who also have experienced this, so I was wondering if there was an underlying psychology to it. However, it’s not an easily Googleable query, and I refuse to ask an AI chatbot about it.

        • cynar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Abnormalities from “normal” were a critical self defence feature, for our ancestors. E.g. a lack, or change, of bird song might indicate a predator in ambush. Unusual lighting might indicate a storm coming in.

          Our brains are wired to learn normal patterns. When those patterns change completely, we are fine with it. When they change subtly we don’t like it.

          The threshold for this is different for different people. Personally, I’m fine with completely different maps, but off put by modified real maps. I also cannot watch soap operas, they are too close to “real” and trip alarms at their mismatches. Conversely, sci-fi and fantasy are fine, they are different enough to not set off my alarms. I know others who are set off by sci-fi, but soaps are within their norms.

        • xthexder@l.sw0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          I think a lot of it is humans are used to maps formed by tectonic plates shifting, glaciers forming and melting, storms and other weather, etc… When it’s just an RNG heightmap it’s missing all those familiar features like rivers, mountains, and dry lakebeds

    • hansolo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Beyond what’s been said already, we 100% do not have any way to take a picture of a planet outside our solar system that shows any detail of the planet’s surface, and no plans to make a telescope that can do that. What we do right now to even tell if there are planets around other starts is look at the star’s light and see if it gets slightly darker on regular intervals, indicating that a planet is crossing between us and the star in a regular orbit. Right now we can barely take a decent picture of Pluto, which is in our solar system. And checking the light brightness is really only good for looking for large planets the size of Jupiter and Saturn.

      It’s like seeing a car at night on a mountainside 4 miles away with its headlights on. It’s just sitting there and you are wondering if it’s a car or something else. It’s hard to even tell it’s 2 lights, it just looks like one light from that distance. But what would we see if someone walked in front of the car with the headlights on? The light get dim on one side and bright again, then dim and bright again on the other side. Sort of the same thing.

      As for the uncanny valley part, it’s because whoever came up with the graphic just did a random splash of water and land. The planet could be orange and magenta-colored, we have no idea. They used colors familiar to us looking at images of Earth because the intent is to make you think “it’s like Earth, but different.”

    • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      You’ve only ever seen photographs of one planet with oceans and landmasses, and that’s Earth. The only other celestial body that has a solid surface with liquid on it that we’ve taken pictures of is Saturn’s moon Titan. Titan has a thick opaque atmosphere so we don’t have true-to-life pictures of the surface from space. We’ve got images constructed from radar scans, and this amazing image taken from the surface by the Huygens probe that hitched a ride with Cassini. The hydrocarbon lakes of Titan look like…blobs on a circle.

      Every other planetary surface you’ve seen is rocky dirt, icy dirt, straight-up ice, cratery dirt, or opaque gas clouds. Any “earth-like” planet you’ve ever seen is a fictional artist’s conception. And ain’t no human artist who knows shit about plate tectonics compared to the Earth herself, so they draw weird shit that ain’t quite right somehow.

      • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Every other planetary surface you’ve seen is rocky dirt, icy dirt, straight-up ice, cratery dirt, or opaque gas clouds

        Wait this is so true, and I’ve never even thought about it. Space photography has a lot of pictures from the Moon, Mars, and Venus (I’ve never seen those Titan photos, so thank you for the link), but there are no “real” photos of a planet with oceans. That might be where the “uncanny valley” kicks in, with my brain going “this doesn’t look quite right”. I do get a similar feeling when I see AIgen videos, so you might be onto something!

        • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Venus is difficult to photograph for the same reason as Titan, thick opaque atmosphere. We’ve got radar imagery of Venus, plus the Soviets landed some probes and took a few pictures of the actual hell that surface level Venus is.

          We can actually get a pretty good look at Mars from here; This is a picture of Mars taken with Hubble. We have active missions in orbit and on the surface of Mars as well so we can look at it as close as we want.

          Meanwhile, this is the best Hubble could do with Pluto. And that’s still inside our own solar system, we’re not getting any photos of the surface of Earth mass planets around other stars.

    • Contramuffin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I think in part because speculating what the land looks like on an alien planet is actually really hard to do, and the vast majority of artists just wing it. With sufficient planning and rigor, alien planets should look normal.

      For instance, I think the landmass of Tira-292b looks pretty natural. It’s a hypothetical planet created for the Alien Biospheres project, a YouTube series that tries to build up an alien ecosystem as accurately to science as reasonably possible

      It’s a seriously underrated series, I highly recommend everyone check it out

      • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        I just googled Tira-292b and you know what, it doesn’t set off that uneasy feeling for me. It just…kind of looks like Westeros? Which is based on parts of Earth so I guess that makes sense.

        Alien Biospheres project

        Also, thank you for the recommendation, I WILL be checking this out, if only to test my uncanny valley triggers to this a bit more. Time to experiment on myself 😭

        • Contramuffin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Oh, the spider-squids definitely will trigger your disgust response. At least they evolve into something nicer after a while

    • bstix@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I get the same feeling when looking at fractals.

      On one hand I want to explore everything but at the same time I know it’s impossible to grasp.

      Our own Earth has fixing points from man made stuff, so I sort of know what’s where, but then I zoom in on the archipelagos in south Chile or the lakes in Lapland and I get confused again because it seems soo randomly generated.

  • cartoon meme dog@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Fermi paradox solution: aliens approach from a direction where the first part they see is the Philippines and Indonesia, and just say “nah I’m not learning all those names of islands”, and leave.

  • SolarMonkey@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    So thats where rimworld got the shitty planet generation from. Seriously, I want big contiguous oceans. Not like I can use the vast majority of the planet anyway.

    • Deme@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I think the point is that they aren’t assuming the planet in question is tectonically activie, as that’s one of the unlikely steps needed for life as we know it.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Maybe if they make a seafaring DLC (though that is kind of a step back after doing literal space ships).

      Unless I’m mistaken, you can really do anything in the water tiles in Rimworld

      • SolarMonkey@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yeah, I want it purely for aesthetics. I like generating 100% of the planet, and sending colonies to far-flung places via dev mode instant travel to settle in isolation, so I spend a decent amount of time looking at the world map. It just bothers me when it’s mostly land. It’s ugly, imo, and you get fewer interesting land/climate combos, even with expanded biomes. Also one of my mods adds things washing up on the beach, like organs, so I’m a big fan of ocean-adjacent tiles.

        Honestly I haven’t gotten the new DLC, and probably wont, so I don’t really know anything about the space stuff. I have way too much time and energy invested in my collection of mods and don’t have any interest in doing it again (I manage them manually because I don’t use steam, so updating/replacing a thousand mods is a big project)

        I’ve been playing whiskerwood on and off, its in early access and runs for shit on my crap windows computer, but it’s all islands and it seems they’ll be adding more to water navigation (last patch I installed added ferries and boat docks, and that was a few months ago). I enjoy that sort of thing too, but I don’t think rimworld really needs it.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Did you not need to update your mods for 1.6 anyway?

          The new DLC is fucking awesome. I think most mods at this point are compatible (or made redundant).

  • melfie@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    They’d probably like to come colonize our planet, but with 2x the gravity of Earth, I bet it’s hard to build a rocket that can actually get them into space, much less travel 1800 light years.

  • FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Honestky it could be because of the amount of mooms they have. The exact tidal force on earth will have had a hand in shaping what the coastline became.

  • Eiri@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    There’s no way in hell we have the resolution to see continents in another star system.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Considering we only know it’s there because it slightly dims the light from its star as it crosses during its orbit, you would be correct. At that distance, we would never see light bouncing off the actual planet. Even the star is basically a single pixel. We can estimate its size and orbit based on how quickly it crosses in front of the star and how much the light dims, and using those two numbers we can estimate its distance from Kepler 452.

      • wraekscadu@vargar.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        We can build a telescope to see this by the way. The lens being the gravitational warping of spacetime by the sun. We go waaaay past the orbit of Pluto (I forgot the exact distance) and send probes there. We can have quite nice pictures of planets up to pretty nice distances.

        • rooroo@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Easy trip to make; it took the voyagers only about 40 years to pass Pluto?

            • FundMECFS@piefed.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              FOCAL would be able to observe only objects that are right behind the Sun from its point of view, which means that for every observed object a new telescope would have to be made.[3]: 33 [5]

              Ah….

      • PancakesCantKillMe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        I thought they could also see atmospheric composition as it passes in front of the star, no? Having that info and the data you’ve just mentioned they postulate if it’s habitable or not. Obviously not seeing any detail at all about land mass shapes, but perhaps composition? I’m not a spaceologist, so I’m only musing.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yeah, but it’s still just a single pixel of light from the star. It just changes color slightly when the planet passes in front of it and the atmosphere gases absorb certain characteristic wavelengths.

    • saltesc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      lol. All those flyby probes we’ve sent to other planets in the system and we could’ve just pointed our interstellar telescope instead and looked for puddles.

    • REDACTED@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      These are always illustrations based on whatever data we could gather. We almost never “see” the planets themselves.

    • AppleTea@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Documentaries and science communication in general has always been waaaay too fucking lax on properly disclosing artists’ renderings. Every field suffers from it, but I have to say astrophysics and astronomy are the absolute worst about it.

  • redbrick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Will housing be cheaper there? Will taxes be lower? Will Trump be there? What about groceries?

    • Godric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Will you enjoy anything our universe shows you? Are there things that bring you joy in life? Will you touch grass? What about filling the void in your heart with wonder instead of worry?