4 ms·

You're right, we do start with a 3rd person view of Earth .. but I still interpreted the motion as translation rather than rotation. By your interpretation, th

by finnh 14y ago

You're right, we do start with a 3rd person view of Earth .. but I still interpreted the motion as translation rather than rotation. By your interpretation, the camera lens is at a fixed point and then simply "swings" from pointing at Earth to point at Mars. But, from such a supposed point, both the Earth and Mars would be fixed points rather than objects with "multi-pixel" width. So the fact that both the Earth & Mars are viewable as non-point objects implies translation rather than rotation... and so GP's gripe stands =) [edit: oh, and what shardling says too]

guy2221 14y ago
Okay, it is problematic. If the camera lens is at a fixed point and then swings from pointing at Earth to pointing at Mars, and we imagine how fast something would have to travel leaving Earth to remain at the center of the camera sensor as it pans - isn't the obvious question "how far away are we??" So it doesn't really work. It also doesn't work because at different camera locations the Earth and the Mars would have different relative sizes... I suppose we should state that this will be an equilateral triangle formed between the Earth, Mars, and the Camera, the "height" of the equilateral triangle is x, and that Earth will be so many pixels wide on that camera when zoomed 2000x (or whatever). This interpretation might be specific enough and also match the experience.
Gravityloss 14y ago
It is simple. 1. Choose a position where the proportional sizes of the Earth, Moon and Mars are what they are on the page. This is likely far away above the ecliptic (the plane the planets are in). 2. Choose a telescope focal length to set the right scale for the planets. Ie magnification. 3. Pan and imagine there is an object in the ecliptic plane at the center of your field of view. Mention the calculated speed of the object. This all results in a moving star field.

by finnh 14y ago

guy2221 14y ago

Okay, it is problematic. If the camera lens is at a fixed point and then swings from pointing at Earth to pointing at Mars, and we imagine how fast something would have to travel leaving Earth to remain at the center of the camera sensor as it pans - isn't the obvious question "how far away are we??" So it doesn't really work. It also doesn't work because at different camera locations the Earth and the Mars would have different relative sizes... I suppose we should state that this will be an equilateral triangle formed between the Earth, Mars, and the Camera, the "height" of the equilateral triangle is x, and that Earth will be so many pixels wide on that camera when zoomed 2000x (or whatever). This interpretation might be specific enough and also match the experience.

Gravityloss 14y ago

It is simple. 1. Choose a position where the proportional sizes of the Earth, Moon and Mars are what they are on the page. This is likely far away above the ecliptic (the plane the planets are in). 2. Choose a telescope focal length to set the right scale for the planets. Ie magnification. 3. Pan and imagine there is an object in the ecliptic plane at the center of your field of view. Mention the calculated speed of the object. This all results in a moving star field.