Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:

> You do ask awkward questions. ;-)

It's a talent I've honed through decades of constant practice.   ;)


> Best for what application? Remember when using compound gear chains the
> ratios are multiplied.
> This is mostly from memory. I only did mechanical engineering at high
> school and that was a long time ago. So that is what I meant about doing
> it on my fingers. One step/gear at a time. ;-)
> If I have not answered your question. Ask again.

I was sort of thinking along the lines of "given the gears available" - how
would one calculate which gear combination to use that would most accurately
reflect a given orbital period.  Likely just a novelty, so if Jupiter's 67th
moon is a day off once every year, then it's likely no one would know.
Hell, I didn't even know Jupiter had ***67 Moons*** until I took a look over at
http://www.windows2universe.org/our_solar_system/planets_table.html

:O

As for Scale, scale, scale ....   yeah.   I had been dabbling with doing a solar
eclipse scene, and it really drives home the concept of numbers being
"astronomical".  I did a quick edit to do a sort of top-down view of the
planetary orbits, and --- there definitely needed to be some scaling UP of the
planet sizes and scaling DOWN of the orbital radii, just so that there was shot
in Hell of seeing a point of light on the screen where a planet ought to be.

It _really_ gets one thinking about how the heck they actually see things that
"small", THAT far away and even have some notion about what the rest of the
galaxy looks like....

I've also disambiguated rotation and revolution.  :)

In my dabbling, I was wondering if the sun has a tilt to the plane of the solar
system, and
do any of the celestial objects have a secondary rotation - a wobble, if you
will, of their primary axis of rotation?
In POV-Ray terms, I guess that would be a rotate y, rotate z, and then a second
rotate y (looking top - down at the N pole).


.....and I'm back off to work.

Post a reply to this message

"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:

> In my dabbling, I was wondering if the sun has a tilt to the plane of the solar
> system,

http://www.caltech.edu/news/curious-tilt-sun-traced-undiscovered-planet-52710

Huh.  How 'bout that.

Post a reply to this message

"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
and
> do any of the celestial objects have a secondary rotation - a wobble, if you
> will, of their primary axis of rotation?

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession


Must
Learn
Something
Every
Day


"... However, due to the gradually increasing luminosity of the Sun, the oceans
of the Earth will have vaporized long before that time (about 2,100 million
years from now)."

Hmmmm....

Post a reply to this message

On 5/5/2017 7:54 PM, Bald Eagle wrote:
> "Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> and
>> do any of the celestial objects have a secondary rotation - a wobble, if you
>> will, of their primary axis of rotation?
>
> and
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession
>
>
> Must
> Learn
> Something
> Every
> Day
>
>

Yes, very interesting. When you stop learning you stop living.
Metaphorically speaking.

I've heard of Planet X and Planet 9 but I have not read how its 
existence was deduced.
Thanks for that.

> "... However, due to the gradually increasing luminosity of the Sun, the oceans
> of the Earth will have vaporized long before that time (about 2,100 million
> years from now)."
>
> Hmmmm....
>
>
You weren't planning to be around for it, were you? :)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 5/5/2017 6:04 PM, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
>> You do ask awkward questions. ;-)
>
> It's a talent I've honed through decades of constant practice.   ;)
>
>


They say practice makes perfect.

>> Best for what application? Remember when using compound gear chains the
>> ratios are multiplied.
>> This is mostly from memory. I only did mechanical engineering at high
>> school and that was a long time ago. So that is what I meant about doing
>> it on my fingers. One step/gear at a time. ;-)
>> If I have not answered your question. Ask again.
>
> I was sort of thinking along the lines of "given the gears available" - how
> would one calculate which gear combination to use that would most accurately
> reflect a given orbital period.  Likely just a novelty, so if Jupiter's 67th
> moon is a day off once every year, then it's likely no one would know.
> Hell, I didn't even know Jupiter had ***67 Moons*** until I took a look over at
> http://www.windows2universe.org/our_solar_system/planets_table.html
>

Well keep that thinking to yourself, please. :)
My head is spinning as much as when I think of infinity.
I think you are answering your own question.


> :O
>
> As for Scale, scale, scale ....   yeah.   I had been dabbling with doing a solar
> eclipse scene, and it really drives home the concept of numbers being
> "astronomical".  I did a quick edit to do a sort of top-down view of the
> planetary orbits, and --- there definitely needed to be some scaling UP of the
> planet sizes and scaling DOWN of the orbital radii, just so that there was shot
> in Hell of seeing a point of light on the screen where a planet ought to be.
>

The only way to do it is to fake it. Less than the size of a pixel is no 
use whatsoever.


Have you tried to put a camera on, say, the Earth and look at the Moon. 
It is not easy.

A couple of years ago Thomas had a ring world project. It looked really 
good. When I tried it, it was too hard.


> It _really_ gets one thinking about how the heck they actually see things that
> "small", THAT far away and even have some notion about what the rest of the
> galaxy looks like....
>

Fortunately we can change scales the way a trombone slides up the scale.
(Zenish thought for the day.)

> I've also disambiguated rotation and revolution.  :)
>
> In my dabbling, I was wondering if the sun has a tilt to the plane of the solar
> system, and
> do any of the celestial objects have a secondary rotation - a wobble, if you
> will, of their primary axis of rotation?
> In POV-Ray terms, I guess that would be a rotate y, rotate z, and then a second
> rotate y (looking top - down at the N pole).
>
>
> ......and I'm back off to work.
>
>
Leaving me with my head spinning. Thanks.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:

> > "... However, due to the gradually increasing luminosity of the Sun, the oceans
> > of the Earth will have vaporized long before that time (about 2,100 million
> > years from now)."
> >
> > Hmmmm....
> >
> >
> You weren't planning to be around for it, were you? :)

Maybe   :)

It was more a comment on some of the present monomaniacal assertions about what
the cause of fractional degrees of warming were.

Post a reply to this message

On 5/8/2017 2:17 PM, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
>>> "... However, due to the gradually increasing luminosity of the Sun, the oceans
>>> of the Earth will have vaporized long before that time (about 2,100 million
>>> years from now)."
>>>
>>> Hmmmm....
>>>
>>>
>> You weren't planning to be around for it, were you? :)
>
> Maybe   :)
>

Not for me. I'll have done my time along time before that.  :)

> It was more a comment on some of the present monomaniacal assertions about what
> the cause of fractional degrees of warming were.
>
>
It's not in the news much here. It is taken as a given. It's us. So I 
didn't cotton on.

But who cares whose fault it is. We could stop our bit and help.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:

> > "... However, due to the gradually increasing luminosity of the Sun, the oceans
> > of the Earth will have vaporized long before that time (about 2,100 million
> > years from now)."
> >
> > Hmmmm....
> >
> >
> You weren't planning to be around for it, were you? :)


I was just observing that there definitely seems to be SOMETHING that will warm
our planet....   What _could_ it be...?

It certainly can't be that ridiculously huge thermonuclear furnace that's
1,300,000 times the size of the Earth, that's for sure.

Must be something _we_ did.   :|

Post a reply to this message

Tangentially related:
(but it IS POV-Ray :)  )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9I6SITGrII

https://github.com/ejrh/antikythera

Post a reply to this message

You only need to get about 17 seconds into:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6eOcd06kdk

and then think about that itty bitty tiny pile of people somehow influencing the
temperature of THE ENTIRE PLANET.

Not buying it.

Ants outnumber and outweigh us.  It's their fault.
Politicians could "do their part" and stfu - that would cut down on plenty of
CO2 and hot air.  Not to mention grounding Al Gore's private jet.
We could of course stop bombing everything on the surface of the earth because
it's scary, and different, and "is a threat to national security" - but that
wouldn't be profitable, because War is the Health of The State.

plus, this:
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/seasons/en/
has implications as well.

I'm calling BS and politics and dirty money.
We may as well try to "do out part" by fighting California wildfires with a
plastic squirt gun.

Actually, some EPA "scientist" would get together with Fish and Game, Forestry,
BLM, Dept of Parks, Dept of Interior, and Homeland Security, and issue a 50,000
page report showing how, at the temperatures of a wildfire, the water from the
squirt gun would react with elemental carbon and undergo the water-gas reaction
to produce flammable CO and H2, thereby _exacerbating_ the fire....    :|

Very very tired of being regulated To Death.
Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ is ever more applicable.

Post a reply to this message