PSA: Don't update to iOS 12.4 if you use apps in AB output slot or IAA apps that use the mic.
https://forum.audiob.us/discussion/34030/urgent-psa-hold-off-updating-to-ios-12-4-if-you-use-apps-in-output-slot-in-audiobus

Astronomy question

edited March 2018 in Off-topic

Rather than go to the trouble of joining an astronomy forum, for just one question, I thought I’d roll the dice here, knowing that we have lots of very clever peeps who are forum members. Hopefully someone will have enough expertise to put me right.

The question is, roughly how much further out from the sun would Earth need to orbit, in order to have a thirteen month year? And by roughly, I’m thinking how much closer to Mars orbit.

I’m assuming that this orbit would mean a slightly colder climate, but nothing catastrophic?

Thanks.

Zen

«1

Comments

  • But first tell us about your plan......

  • @Cib said:
    But first tell us about your plan.

    >

    Oh, it’s just research for a bit of fiction. :)

  • edited March 2018

    You should get your answer when you take the current average distance from earth to sun times two, multiple it with pi, divide that with 12, then multiply with 13, now divide with pi and divide with 2 and and you get 13 month distance to sun and now just reduce original distance to sun from it and you see how much you would need to move from current position.

  • edited March 2018

    I think that ToMess’s answer will account for the increased orbital distance, but not for the fact that as the orbit gets larger, the orbital speed gets slower as well. I had a look at data for the inner four planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars) to look at distance from the sun, orbital distance, time for one orbit and hence the orbital speed. And did a rough calculation and think that increasing Earth’s average distance from the sun from 93m miles to approx 98m miles would give an orbital period of 13 months. So certainly closer to Mars’ orbit, which is 141m miles, but not hugely closer. Does this help?

  • Just an extra thought - the Earth’s orbit is slightly eliptical, varying from 91m miles in early January (perihelion) to around 94.5m miles in early July (aphelion). The orbital speed would be slowest at aphelion too. So in order to change orbits, the best time to do the initial “correction” would be early July (equivalent to an engine burn on a spaceship to change orbit). To achieve a roughly circular orbit at 98m miles would require at least two correction events, one to enter a “transfer” orbit and one roughly six months later to circularise the orbit.

    Is this rocket science?!

  • certainly, if you add earth's mass and the amount of energy to perform the operation o:)
    But in regard to climate a changed orbit is just missing the point (of details).
    Take look at a flat map covering the globe - find Tibet and see it's pan like shape.
    All it needs to trigger a full iceage is to just cover this tiny spot with snow.
    Loss of warmth by the higher reflection of snow in comparison to the rocky surface would be enough - as has been modelled.
    It won't happen in a couple of years, but such processes have happened (and still happen) constantly in earth's history.

  • Yes it would require an enormous amount of energy to change the orbit given the Earth’s huge mass - an atomic explosion would be an insignificant pinprick compared to the energy required.

    I’ve also done a quick (maybe wrong!) calculation of the climate effect given that the intensity of the sun is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the sun. Moving from 93m to 98m miles reduces the illumination from the sun by around 10%. If you apply that to the average Earth temperature on the Kelvin scale (ie. From absolute zero) then it would cool the Earth by around 28 degrees Centigrade, which is a HUGE change in climate. So pretty catastrophic in terms of its climate effect, if my rough estimate is correct (and there may be many factors involved which I have not taken into account).

  • Just make up your own science and answer to your query..... as William Shatner says “ Science and science fiction are essentially the same”
    Have a great day :)

  • Another significant effect is that astrology would be proven to be bollocks as you’d have to shoehorn in an extra starsign and displace all the existing ones.

  • edited March 2018

    A common misunderstanding of astrology is that planets influence specific things on earth.
    If you consider them as hands on a 'cosmic clock' the whole thing works much better.
    As everything comes and goes in cycles it's an attempt to describe (and handle) experiences.

  • @Telefunky said:
    A common misunderstanding of astrology is that planets influence specific things on earth.
    If you consider them as hands on a 'cosmic clock' the whole thing works much better.
    As everything comes and goes in cycles it's an attempt to describe (and handle) experiences.

    If there is a misunderstanding, it is self-inflicted. Saying stuff like Mars being in Aries “means xxx for people born under that sign” is bollocks. Advice that people should make their own decisions and take responsibility for the consequences would be much more helpful. I wish that newspapers would give at least equal prominence to proper science as they give to mumbo jumbo.

  • edited March 2018

    the newspaper thing is entertainment ;)
    Astrologie even emphasizes a person's own decision - it's not about fate.
    But it may reveal influences, weak and strong points in someone's life to adjust respective personal consideration and action.
    Seriously, I've done astronomy for quite some time (so I'm not naive) - but found found some stunning hints in self drawn astrological diagrams... pre-PC times.

  • @simonnowis said:
    no need to move the planet, just move the mind ;)

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Fixed_Calendar

    >

    Ah, my heart is set on moving the planet. :) But thanks anyway for the interesting link.

  • edited March 2018

    @Arpseechord said:
    Just make up your own science and answer to your query..... as William Shatner says “ Science and science fiction are essentially the same”

    I leave that kind of pull it out of a hat SF to the likes of Star Trek: Snowflake. :)

  • edited March 2018

    @PhilW said:
    I think that ToMess’s answer will account for the increased orbital distance,... Does this help?

    >

    Yes, thank you both. :)

    I think what I need to arrive at is a theoretical distance for Earth to orbit the sun, at which there could be a 13 month calendar, without incurring a catastrophic drop in temperature. Colder, would be okay, but so cold as to cover us all in ice would not work well.

  • We are in the perfect place to sustain life I’m afraid any change may be catistrophic.

  • edited March 2018

    I love the off-topic forum here!

    Animoog will give lots of control over the orbit but it can be tricky to dial in precise amounts...

    If you get it working can you add the extra month between August and September please?

  • edited March 2018

    @MeatWalrus said:
    We are in the perfect place to sustain life I’m afraid any change may be catistrophic.

    >

    But there should be a theoretical distance from the sun, and reading the kind posts here I’m guessing this has to be less than 98m miles. Due to projected climate cooling resulting in conditions that would be too harsh.

    So, a distance of slightly more - is stellar terms - than our current orbit, perhaps 95m miles might be the spot? If that means a cooler Earth, but not by an amount that would seriously impact life, then all I’d be looking for was a viable mechanism whereby a 13 month calendar could work. Maybe a very slightly more elliptical orbit? Something that at its furthest away from the sun would mean a severe Winter, but not lasting long enough to kill life.

  • @simonnowis said:
    no need to move the planet, just move the mind ;)

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Fixed_Calendar

    I would say this calender makes more sense than the one we use today. But I'm surprised that this article doesn't mention the moon which has a 28-day cycle. Also no mention of the Mayan Calendar which, to my knowledge, is a moon calendar with 13 months.

    The term month is derived from the word moon by the way, in many languages. The moon cycle is the easiest way for temporal orientation, so it is rather logical to use the moon cycle as the basis for a calendar. Which implicates that it is illogical not to use the lunar rhythm like today.

    I'm sure one day Western culture will go back to a 'natural' moon-cycle-based calendar, in a couple of centuries. The currently used Gregorian calendar is an out-dated construct, and the reason why it is adopted in most parts of the world has more political and historical reasons, not scientific reasons. The Gregorian calendar is an international agreement, nothing more.

    And about moving a planet to a different orbit: every planet in our solar system has its exact place/orbit. Deviations are not possible. If they were possible it would quickly lead to the collapse of the entire solar system. Well, maybe not to a complete collapse, but things would fly around rather disorderly. A system consists of parts that have to work together and influence each other. You can't change a single element (a planet's orbit) and expect the rest of the system to function as before. Every single deviation has an impact on the whole system. That is why we call it a system.

    Remember: rhythms, frequencies, oscillations, are the foundation, the basis of the entire universe. It's not only technical stuff found in synth apps. It's in your body, your cells, your heart rate, your breathing, the planets orbits, etc. All these rhythms have their exact frequency rate in order to function. Rhythms, oscillations, create and maintain order and stability. It's marvellous.

  • edited March 2018

    Let’s say you could do a single “correction” event around aphelion (94.4m miles) that made the orbit between 94.5m and 95.5m miles, so averaging 95m miles rather than the current average of 93m. My estimate of the new year would be around 377 days (assuming that whatever caused the change in orbit did not also change the day!). Even this small change would reduce the illumination from the sun by around 4%, which is around 12 degrees drop if converted to the Kelvin scale. Of course in practice, things like the hot core of the Earth may lessen such a change so you could (given this is fiction anyway) define your own drop in average temperatures.

    377 days gives you 13 months of 29 days exactly, which is around the period of the moon’s orbit anyway, so you are good to go! Unless you consider that, as Phil999 says, disrupting one thing disrupts others, and slowing the Earth’s orbit around the sun would almost certainly have an effect on the orbit of the moon...

  • edited March 2018

    @Phil999 said:
    And about moving a planet to a different orbit: every planet in our solar system has its exact place/orbit. Deviations are not possible.

    >

    The idea is not to move Earth as we know it, but rather, imagine if Earth had been a little further out from the sun.

    AFAIK, there is nothing in astrophysics that says a planet of the same size as Earth orbiting the same size of sun, with the same set of system planets, must be at the exact location we find ourselves.

    If there is any such rule, preventing an Earth from establishing its orbit a few million miles further out, I would be grateful to learn of it.

  • @PhilW said:
    Let’s say you could do a single “correction” event around aphelion (94.4m miles) that made the orbit between 94.5m and 95.5m miles, so averaging 95m miles rather than the current average of 93m.

    >

    Useful stuff. Thanks for taking the time to calculate and post. :)

  • ...and it shouldn’t be too hard to scoot the earth out that far, it’s just floating there in space after all. Let’s all just lean to one side on 3!

  • Isn’t there a desktop app that lets you simulate this stuff? I think it’s this one http://universesandbox.com

  • But what about Keith Moon, we leaving our dancin' partner behind, now that would be lunacy.

  • edited March 2018

    What about the moonies? What about the quality of the cheese the moon yields? Won’t that upset the economy.... what what?
    Sorry Zen just couldn’t resist ;)

  • @Arpseechord said:
    What about the moonies? What about the quality of the cheese the moon yields? Won’t that upset the economy.... what what?
    Sorry Zen just couldn’t resist ;)

    Wensleydale has it covered!

  • Love this forum. Geeks and nerds the lot of ya :)

  • @gusgranite said:
    Isn’t there a desktop app that lets you simulate this stuff? I think it’s this one http://universesandbox.com

    >

    Fiddled with that before even starting thread, and couldn’t get what I wanted.

Sign In or Register to comment.