@ macto
Well obviously still photographs will be just as instructional, if not more, than a program's screenshots. While Celestia can be used quite nicely as a visual aid, it is better used as an educational TOOL. To look at pictures, and even videos only has a limited amount of impact. However, being able to manipulate data and freely move around in its space gives a person a whole different perspective and deeper comprehension.
For example, when I mapped out the ~50 known galaxies in the Local Group, I had a fairly good idea where they all were. BUT, when I modeled them in 3D (not in Celestia BTW, I'm still working on that), and began to move around in that space, only then could I truely visualize the structure of the Local Group (yes, I know the distances aren't accurate... I gathered the data and did all the calcs myself, I'm perfectly aware of the errors involved but I still know a lot more about the Local Group now than I did before)
You're missing the most useful potential. Don't forget Celestia is available for many different platforms, it doesn't require too high spec a machine (if you keep the detail down), and most importantly is FREE. I know good free planetarium software exists too and for some uses a planetarium program is easier to work with. BUT IF IT DOESN'T COST ANYTHING, why not let your students take advantage of what it IS good for?
The only reason I would NOT use a good free program for teaching is if it taught bad science, but this is not the case with Celestia.
>Accurate? I would need more information.
Perhaps you should check then. Just like anything, you have to check out the source. I know the base installation of Celestia is VERY accurate. However, whenever I download addon modules, I always read how the maker of the module got their data. For example, when I download the expanded star set I read up on how the data was gathered and the errors that were involved. BTW, a PROFESSIONAL astronomer helped compile this data. I know the distances aren't accurate, but now I also know the error in those calaculations. I learned a lot of REAL astronomy from that read, stuff I'm sure you don't teach in your astronomy classes.
I also find it interesting that you are reluctant to use some of the dataplots because of the uncertainty in distance calculations, especially considering that one of the dataplots does exactly that; it graphically depicts the uncertainy in the object's distance. The educational benefit to this dataplot seems obvious.
In regards to historical appearance, how are planetarium programs any MORE accurate?
Any benefit for the Amiga? Please read previous posts; I dealt with this in message 13 of this thread. But I take offense to you calling Celestia a "toy" and the many professional and amature astronomers (including myself) who frequent the Celestia Forums would seem to disagree with your statement about a lack of interest in this kind of program.
For those who think I'm getting to worked up about some people not liking Celestia, please understand, I don't care if you just don't like the program and find using planetarium software easier for what you want to do. I'm okay with that. I'm offended by people implying that no "real" astronomer would be interested in Celestia, because I AM a REAL physicist and amature astronomer. I know what I'm talking about when it comes to astronomy. If you're not interested in Celestia, fine, but don't call it a "toy for personal gratification". I don't know how you define "a short period of time" but I've been using Celestia for several months now and it seems the more I use it, the LESS bored I get with it and the more I realize just how powerful the program is.
