Green's diameter, angular and otherwise
Jerry Friedman · 13 Mar 2002, 16:50
· from urth-v0203.mbox · original
This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything
here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer
encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the
archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those
repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is
for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site,
so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.
From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com> Subject: Re: (urth) Green's diameter, angular and otherwise Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 08:50:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <urth-v0203-343 at digest.urth.net> X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0203/343.txt.shtml MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --- Michael Andre-Driussi <mantis at siriusfiction.com> wrote: > Another way to approach the Blue/Green conjunction is to determine the > size > of Green in the sky of Blue, from its "usual" size to its greatest size > at > closest approach. >=20 > For simplicity sake, let us assume that both Blue and Green have surface > gravities of 1 g. More or less "twins" in separate orbits (and Green > having an orbital eccentricity that carries it out to a close approach > with > Blue every x number of local years). I don't think the eccentricity has much to do with it. The two planets will come into conjunction every x number of local years. If Green's orbit is eccentric, then sometimes the distance at conjunction will be greater and sometimes less. > I was watching for details when I read before and I don't recall finding > any, other than "baneful eye." >=20 > OTOH, we have the happy case of an eyewitness who also sees Lune > (maybe?) > and the Old Sun (definitely). The Old Sun (assumed before to have an > angular diamter of around 0.83 degrees) is "swollen" to his eyes, but > iirc > he never says anything in comparison to Green's biggest size. >=20 > Using the Moon as a model. > ORBIT ANGULAR DIAMETER > MOON 240,000 0.52 degrees > LUNE 150,000 0.83 degrees > GREEN 105,000 1.18 degrees >=20 > So even a puny world like the Moon (diameter 2160 miles) would be more > than > twice the size of the Moon in our sky when located at a distance > attributed > to Green. >=20 > A twin planet would naturally be much bigger. >=20 > Based upon this, the Bluvian astronomer is quite likely to be waaaay off > in > his estimate of the "closest approach" distance as being 35,000 leagues. How are you thinking the Bluvian astronomer would make his estimate? I can't think of a method that would be thrown off by Green's large size. The only way I know of at the Green level of technology would be parallax, which doesn't depend on Green's angular size at all. (Though the parallax method would require a fair amount of work, notably measuring the distances between widely separated cities, as well as astronomical observations at conjunction, which is presumably the worst possible time. Seems unlikely during the first twenty years of settlement.) Maybe Gagliardo used observations made from the lander and information from the monitors, who could at least have told him the cruising speed of the landers. Or maybe he's doing the same thing we're doing and guessing that the Short Sun is the same size and brightness as the Old Sun, which makes the radius of Blue's orbit the same as Urth's (if he knows it); then from the time between conjunctions he can get the radius of Green's orbit. Anyway, the higher the true distance, the harder the problem of how the inhumi cross. Jerry Friedman __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ --=20
An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net