3 ms·

If it matters to you, you are not actually seeing the planets in motion: > Wang said that the animation is based on eight observations of the planets since 200

If it matters to you, you are not actually seeing the planets in motion: > Wang said that the animation is based on eight observations of the planets since 2009. He then used a motion interpolation algorithm to draw the orbit between those points. I wish NASA was more upfront with the enhancements it adds to media, including often adding color and, in this case at least, adding motion.

jobigoud 10y ago
Hmm, I think the projection of an ellipse in perspective is still an ellipse. Do we know if these 8 data points were enough to determine whether the planets are all orbiting roughly on the same plane, as in the Solar system?
- zeroer 10y ago
  Sort of. Add knowledge of Kepler's second law that an orbit will sweep out equal area in equal time, and you'll find that you can tell how much the orbit has been rotated, but not in which direction. I think generically, you'll find four possible orientations for a given projection. If you have multiple planets, and all planets share a particular possible elliptical plane, you might guess they're all on that plane, but it could be a coincidence.
adewinter 10y ago
OK, you clearly did not read the article because you are incorrect. That statement you quote is referring to the still image in the article, below the video, which is of an entirely different star and system of planets (Fomahault b). The video has a time legend /embedded in the movie/, at the bottom of the frame clearly showing when the observation for each frame of the video was taken. NASA was being plenty up front here, I think you maybe just skimmed the article slightly too quickly.
- greeneggs 10y ago
  No, he is correct. Eight of the frames in the animation are real observations. Between these eight frames, the other frames are interpolated.
- cmsmith 10y ago
  Read more carefully - HR8799 is the subject of the animation up top, and the subject of the quote about motion interpolation. Both are credited to J. Wang, while the composite photo of Fomahault B is credited elsewhere. Also note the use of the term 'animation', and that he refers to images taken since 2009 (whereas the Fomahault B images start in 2004).

jobigoud 10y ago

Hmm, I think the projection of an ellipse in perspective is still an ellipse. Do we know if these 8 data points were enough to determine whether the planets are all orbiting roughly on the same plane, as in the Solar system?

zeroer 10y ago
Sort of. Add knowledge of Kepler's second law that an orbit will sweep out equal area in equal time, and you'll find that you can tell how much the orbit has been rotated, but not in which direction. I think generically, you'll find four possible orientations for a given projection. If you have multiple planets, and all planets share a particular possible elliptical plane, you might guess they're all on that plane, but it could be a coincidence.

adewinter 10y ago

OK, you clearly did not read the article because you are incorrect. That statement you quote is referring to the still image in the article, below the video, which is of an entirely different star and system of planets (Fomahault b). The video has a time legend /embedded in the movie/, at the bottom of the frame clearly showing when the observation for each frame of the video was taken. NASA was being plenty up front here, I think you maybe just skimmed the article slightly too quickly.

greeneggs 10y ago
No, he is correct. Eight of the frames in the animation are real observations. Between these eight frames, the other frames are interpolated.
cmsmith 10y ago
Read more carefully - HR8799 is the subject of the animation up top, and the subject of the quote about motion interpolation. Both are credited to J. Wang, while the composite photo of Fomahault B is credited elsewhere. Also note the use of the term 'animation', and that he refers to images taken since 2009 (whereas the Fomahault B images start in 2004).