[TECH]:: Track / view "The Humanity Star"

[RussellMc]

Find when you can best view "The Humanity Star" - NZ's own space vandalism
/ space junk contribution

http://www.thehumanitystar.com/



______________________________________

They say:

Visible from space with the naked eye, the Humanity Star is a highly
reflective satellite that blinks brightly across the night sky to create a
shared experience for everyone on the planet.

Created by Rocket Lab founder and CEO Peter Beck, the Humanity Star is a
geodesic sphere made from carbon fibre with 65 highly reflective panels. It
spins rapidly, reflecting the sun’s rays back to Earth, creating a flashing
light that can be seen against a backdrop of stars.

Orbiting the Earth every 90 minutes and visible from anywhere on the globe,
the Humanity Star is designed to be a bright symbol and reminder to all on
Earth about our fragile place in the universe.
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http

[Ross McMillan]

They could have done a better job of presenting the information. I entered
my address and they said that it is best viewed "in 26 days". I would hope
that it has considerably more availability than the Iridium satellites,
given its 65 facets.

However, I have just visited Heavens Above and got the same result.

I don't understand why it isn't more (often) visible. Maybe it's the
altitude.

R

​
Best regards
Ross

Ross McMillan


Home

[phone]

Work

[phone]

Mobile

[phone]

Email

***@gmail.com
<https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&fs=1&tf=1&to=***@elecsyn.com>

On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 11:06 PM, RussellMc <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> Find when you can best view "The Humanity Star" - NZ's own space vandalism
> / space junk contribution
>
> http://www.thehumanitystar.com/
>
>
>
> ______________________________________
>
> They say:
>
> Visible from space with the naked eye, the Humanity Star is a highly
> reflective satellite that blinks brightly across the night sky to create a
> shared experience for everyone on the planet.
>
> Created by Rocket Lab founder and CEO Peter Beck, the Humanity Star is a
> geodesic sphere made from carbon fibre with 65 highly reflective panels. It
> spins rapidly, reflecting the sun’s rays back to Earth, creating a flashing
> light that can be seen against a backdrop of stars.
>
> Orbiting the Earth every 90 minutes and visible from anywhere on the
> globe, the Humanity Star is designed to be a bright symbol and reminder to
> all on Earth about our fragile place in the universe.
>
>
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailm

[James Cameron]

On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 11:27:23PM +1300, Ross McMillan wrote:
> [...]
> I don't understand why it isn't more (often) visible. Maybe it's
> the altitude.

On Heavens-Above, click on "all passes", and you'll see that the
satellite passes over a location twice a day, about twelve hours
apart.

Best time to view is just before sunrise or just after sunset. Other
times it is not lit against a black background.

So the viewability will be going east from launch and it will take
about 27 to 28 days for viewability to go once around the planet,
even though the satellite itself goes past a location about every
twelve hours.

--
James Cameron
http://quozl.netrek.org/
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[r***@bredband.net]

You can actually see quite a lot of ordinary satellites with the naked eye.
I have found that they are best viewed an hour or so after sunset when it is
completely dark on a cloudless night.
In the right conditions you can actually see one object around every 5
minutes or so.  Sometimes even several objects at once.
/Ruben

Den Sat, 27 Jan 2018 21:52:44 +1100, James Cameron skrev:

On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 11:27:23PM +1300, Ross McMillan wrote:
> [...]
> I don't understand why it isn't more (often) visible. Maybe it's
> the altitude.

On Heavens-Above, click on "all passes", and you'll see that the
satellite passes over a location twice a day, about twelve hours
apart.

Best time to view is just before sunrise or just after sunset. Other
times it is not lit against a black background.

So the viewability will be going east from launch and it will take
about 27 to 28 days for viewability to go once around the planet,
even though the satellite itself goes past a location about every
twelve hours.

--
James Cameron
http://quozl.netrek.org/
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist


--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Denny Esterline]

>
> . I entered
> my address and they said that it is best viewed "in 26 days".


Yeah... I entered my address and got a viewing window of five minutes -
forty days from now.
Apparently that much lauded "shared experience for humanity" is to be the
experience of waiting. :-)


-Denny
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Chris Roper]

It says it will "possibly" be visible here in 28 Days for about one minuet,
but as no actual time is given, I think I would get better odds on a
lottery ticket.



On 27 January 2018 at 16:00, Denny Esterline <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > . I entered
> > my address and they said that it is best viewed "in 26 days".
>
>
> Yeah... I entered my address and got a viewing window of five minutes -
> forty days from now.
> Apparently that much lauded "shared experience for humanity" is to be the
> experience of waiting. :-)
>
>
> -Denny
> --
> http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Clint Jay]

Not for more than 87 days here and they don't give any predictions other
than to check back later

On 27 Jan 2018 15:09, "Chris Roper" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> It says it will "possibly" be visible here in 28 Days for about one minuet,
> but as no actual time is given, I think I would get better odds on a
> lottery ticket.
>
>
>
> On 27 January 2018 at 16:00, Denny Esterline <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > . I entered
> > > my address and they said that it is best viewed "in 26 days".
> >
> >
> > Yeah... I entered my address and got a viewing window of five minutes -
> > forty days from now.
> > Apparently that much lauded "shared experience for humanity" is to be the
> > experience of waiting. :-)
> >
> >
> > -Denny
> > --
> > http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> > View/change your membership options at
> > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
> >
> --
> http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Mario]

At 11:06 2018-01-27, RussellMc wrote:
>Find when you can best view "The Humanity Star" - NZ's own space vandalism
>/ space junk contribution
>
>http://www.thehumanitystar.com/

Very interesting, thanks.

I have question, hoping you or anyone else can answer. Where it say:
<< Q: How long will it remain in orbit? A: The Humanity Star will orbit the Earth for approximately nine months before its orbit starts to decay and it is pulled back into the Earth’s gravity. >>

Well, why it won't orbit forever? I guess that even at 500km's of altitude there's some friction. Is this the reason?

If there was no friction (think about orbiting around the moon) nor gravitational tide effects (as can be assumed for a satellite), would it orbit ~forever?

If not, why hasn't the Earth fallen on the sun yet? :P

[Richard Pytelewski]

Professional astronomers see this differently ....


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/01/26/company-shoots-shiny-orb-into-orbit-astronomers-irked-over-space-graffiti/?utm_term=.2d9d97bebe67

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/2WtA8AzX1_KCoKHAM2vy2ByEWJQ=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/BTONVRKP6IYH7L2K3ALSND5JLY.jpg]<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/01/26/company-shoots-shiny-orb-into-orbit-astronomers-irked-over-space-graffiti/?utm_term=.2d9d97bebe67>

Company shoots shiny orb into orbit and angers astronomers over ‘space graffiti.’<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/01/26/company-shoots-shiny-orb-into-orbit-astronomers-irked-over-space-graffiti/?utm_term=.2d9d97bebe67>
www.washingtonpost.com
Scientists on Twitter called the Humanity Star vandalism, a disco ball and “space garbage.”







________________________________
From: piclist-***@mit.edu <piclist-***@mit.edu> on behalf of Mario <***@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2018 11:25 AM
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.; Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [TECH]:: Track / view "The Humanity Star"

At 11:06 2018-01-27, RussellMc wrote:
>Find when you can best view "The Humanity Star" - NZ's own space vandalism
>/ space junk contribution
>
>http://www.thehumanitystar.com/
[http://www.thehumanitystar.com/themes/base/img/humanity-star.jpg]<http://www.thehumanitystar.com/>

Home<http://www.thehumanitystar.com/>
www.thehumanitystar.com
Visible from space with the naked eye, the Humanity Star is a highly reflective satellite that blinks brightly across the night sky to create a shared experience for everyone on the planet. Created by Rocket Lab founder and CEO Peter Beck, the Humanity Star is a geodesic sphere made from carbon fibre with 65 highly reflective panels. It spins rapidly, reflecting the sun’s rays back to Earth, creating a flashing light that can be seen against a backdrop of stars. Author Details: Levi Fawcett, Evan Jia




Very interesting, thanks.

I have question, hoping you or anyone else can answer. Where it say:
<< Q: How long will it remain in orbit? A: The Humanity Star will orbit the Earth for approximately nine months before its orbit starts to decay and it is pulled back into the Earth?s gravity. >>

Well, why it won't orbit forever? I guess that even at 500km's of altitude there's some friction. Is this the reason?

If there was no friction (think about orbiting around the moon) nor gravitational tide effects (as can be assumed for a satellite), would it orbit ~forever?

If not, why hasn't the Earth fallen on the sun yet? :P

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Clint Jay]

I'm with them, seems like a huge vanity project but I think it's likely to
fall back to earth and burn up isn't it?

On 27 Jan 2018 16:43, "Richard Pytelewski" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Professional astronomers see this differently ....
>
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/
> wp/2018/01/26/company-shoots-shiny-orb-into-orbit-
> astronomers-irked-over-space-graffiti/?utm_term=.2d9d97bebe67
>
> [https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/2WtA8AzX1_
> KCoKHAM2vy2ByEWJQ=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-
> washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/BTONVRKP6IYH7L2K3ALSND5JLY.jpg]<
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/
> wp/2018/01/26/company-shoots-shiny-orb-into-orbit-
> astronomers-irked-over-space-graffiti/?utm_term=.2d9d97bebe67>
>
> Company shoots shiny orb into orbit and angers astronomers over ‘space
> graffiti.’<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/
> speaking-of-science/wp/2018/01/26/company-shoots-shiny-
> orb-into-orbit-astronomers-irked-over-space-graffiti/?
> utm_term=.2d9d97bebe67>
> www.washingtonpost.com
> Scientists on Twitter called the Humanity Star vandalism, a disco ball and
> “space garbage.”
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: piclist-***@mit.edu <piclist-***@mit.edu> on behalf of
> Mario <***@gmail.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2018 11:25 AM
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.; Microcontroller discussion
> list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [TECH]:: Track / view "The Humanity Star"
>
> At 11:06 2018-01-27, RussellMc wrote:
> >Find when you can best view "The Humanity Star" - NZ's own space vandalism
> >/ space junk contribution
> >
> >http://www.thehumanitystar.com/
> [http://www.thehumanitystar.com/themes/base/img/humanity-star.jpg]<
> http://www.thehumanitystar.com/>
>
> Home<http://www.thehumanitystar.com/>
> www.thehumanitystar.com
> Visible from space with the naked eye, the Humanity Star is a highly
> reflective satellite that blinks brightly across the night sky to create a
> shared experience for everyone on the planet. Created by Rocket Lab founder
> and CEO Peter Beck, the Humanity Star is a geodesic sphere made from carbon
> fibre with 65 highly reflective panels. It spins rapidly, reflecting the
> sun’s rays back to Earth, creating a flashing light that can be seen
> against a backdrop of stars. Author Details: Levi Fawcett, Evan Jia
>
>
>
>
> Very interesting, thanks.
>
> I have question, hoping you or anyone else can answer. Where it say:
> << Q: How long will it remain in orbit? A: The Humanity Star will orbit
> the Earth for approximately nine months before its orbit starts to decay
> and it is pulled back into the Earth?s gravity. >>
>
> Well, why it won't orbit forever? I guess that even at 500km's of altitude
> there's some friction. Is this the reason?
>
> If there was no friction (think about orbiting around the moon) nor
> gravitational tide effects (as can be assumed for a satellite), would it
> orbit ~forever?
>
> If not, why hasn't the Earth fallen on the sun yet? :P
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu

[RussellMc]

On 28 January 2018 at 05:43, Richard Pytelewski <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Professional astronomers see this differently ....
>
> ​Not at all.
I think that the subject line:

"The Humanity Star" - NZ's own space vandalism / space junk
contribution"

is a reasonable summation of much (but not all) professional astronomical
opinion :-).

Russell
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/picli

[a***@stfc.ac.uk]

>> At 11:06 2018-01-27, RussellMc wrote:
>> Find when you can best view "The Humanity Star" - NZ's own space
>> vandalism / space junk contribution
>>
>> http://www.thehumanitystar.com/
>
> Very interesting, thanks.
>
> I have question, hoping you or anyone else can answer. Where it say:
> << Q: How long will it remain in orbit? A: The Humanity Star will orbit the Earth for approximately nine months
> before its orbit starts to decay and it is pulled back into the Earth?s > gravity. >>

> Well, why it won't orbit forever? I guess that even at 500km's of altitude there's some friction. Is this the reason?

If it got to 500km it would orbit forever, but it would also be outside the orbit of satellites that are geostationary, IIRC it would even be outside the orbit of the moon (but I haven't checked) The orbit it will have will be inside the orbit of the space station, generally known as Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and it will skim the upper atmosphere which will slowly act as a brake until its speed is such that it cannot maintain enough centrifugal force to overcome the earth's gravity. There is also the variation of gravity as it circles the earth - this is not constant around the earth.

> If there was no friction (think about orbiting around the moon) nor gravitational tide effects (as can be assumed for a satellite), would it orbit ~forever?

The moon has the same problem as the earth, the gravity varies over different spots due to the varying topology and mineral content in different places. The effect of this is the orbit gets distorted and if there is no method of correcting the orbit then the orbit distortion will eventually cause the satellite to come close enough to the body it is orbiting and the gravitational attraction will overcome the forces due to the orbit.



--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[John Gardner]

Hi Alan -

When I was in the business, "geosynchronous" altitude was ~ 36,000 kM ASL,

and the Moon is slowly receding from the Earth due to tidal effects transferring

momentum (from the Earth's rotation) to the Moon; the Earth's rotation slows

correspondingly...

Even at the ISS's altitude, drag effects require periodic orbital
corrections. Last

time I looked there was an ion-engine retrofit to the ISS afoot
specifically for this

purpose...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3825943/Radical-ion-rocket-engine-Mars-one-tank-fuel-set-tested-ISS.html
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[John Gardner]

Sorry about the screwy formatting - Not sure what happened...

On 1/27/18, John Gardner <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Alan -
>
> When I was in the business, "geosynchronous" altitude was ~ 36,000 kM ASL,
>
> and the Moon is slowly receding from the Earth due to tidal effects
> transferring
>
> momentum (from the Earth's rotation) to the Moon; the Earth's rotation
> slows
>
> correspondingly...
>
> Even at the ISS's altitude, drag effects require periodic orbital
> corrections. Last
>
> time I looked there was an ion-engine retrofit to the ISS afoot
> specifically for this
>
> purpose...
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3825943/Radical-ion-rocket-engine-Mars-one-tank-fuel-set-tested-ISS.html
>
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[James Cameron]

On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 05:25:32PM +0100, Mario wrote:
> Well, why it won't orbit forever? I guess that even at 500km's of
> altitude there's some friction. Is this the reason?

Yes, friction from atmosphere. Negligible, but adds up over time.

Atmosphere shape and size changes depending on solar input and more
local effects.

Orbit is not perfectly circular; the satellite altitude above nominal
centre describes a sine wave.

Planet crust is not perfectly circular either.

Crust and atmosphere are higher at the equator due to spin of planet.

In the industry this all boils down to a set of formulae for "how long
will an object stay in orbit given this cross section, and these
orbital parameters." Margin of error is huge. It would be normal to
quote the minimum for publicity.

> If there was no friction (think about orbiting around the moon) nor
> gravitational tide effects (as can be assumed for a satellite),
> would it orbit ~forever?

Yes, until something arrives that exerts a force.

> If not, why hasn't the Earth fallen on the sun yet? :P

It will eventually, with a glancing blow as the sun expands over the
periapsis orbit of the earth. I hope to be around to watch, but the
probability seems very small.

--
James Cameron
http://quozl.netrek.org/
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[RussellMc]

On 28 January 2018 at 14:17, James Cameron <***@laptop.org> wrote:

> ​​
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 05:25:32PM +0100, Mario wrote:
>
> > If not, why hasn't the Earth fallen on the sun yet? :P
>
> It will eventually, with a glancing blow as the sun expands over the
> periapsis orbit of the earth. I hope to be around to watch, but the
> probability seems very small.
>

​I hope that you're not, for all our sakes. If you were, it would odds on
be because the expected date had been brought forwaard a long long long way
for whatever reason.


Russell
​
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
h

[John Gardner]

There are various schemes to gradually relocate the Earth to the

orbit of Mars, as the Sun expands, giving us an extra 5 GY or so.

Sounds like the Engineers will always be with us... :)
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Ryan O'Connor]

Maybe they should try getting the length of a second correct first, so we
don't have to have a myriad of leap years to compensate.

Ryan

On 28 January 2018 at 23:52, John Gardner <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> There are various schemes to gradually relocate the Earth to the
>
> orbit of Mars, as the Sun expands, giving us an extra 5 GY or so.
>
> Sounds like the Engineers will always be with us... :)
> --
> http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[John Gardner]

...Maybe they should try getting the length of a second correct first...

:)

On 1/28/18, Ryan O'Connor <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe they should try getting the length of a second correct first, so we
> don't have to have a myriad of leap years to compensate.
>
> Ryan
>
> On 28 January 2018 at 23:52, John Gardner <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There are various schemes to gradually relocate the Earth to the
>>
>> orbit of Mars, as the Sun expands, giving us an extra 5 GY or so.
>>
>> Sounds like the Engineers will always be with us... :)
>> --
>> http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
>> View/change your membership options at
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[RussellMc]

​
On 29 January 2018 at 11:17, Ryan O'Connor <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> Maybe they should try getting the length of a second correct first, so we
> don't have to have a myriad of leap years to compensate.
>

As a subset of the Earth to Mars orbit translation project, getting the
second right is easy.
We 'just' need to either:

- Change earth's orbit slightly to make the orbital period an exact
multiple of the period of the earth's rotation.
or
- Slightly change the period of the earth's rotation to give the same
result. This could be achieved by changing Lunar's orbital distance, but
the consequent changes on tidal frequency and magnitude may have excessive
2nd order (or first!) effects.
or
- Both the above.

As the earth is gradually moved Mars-wards the rotational period and
orbital periods could be arranged to remain at integer ratios at each pause
in the moving process, but the consequent alteration in the absolute value
of the second may have excessive 2nd order effects.


Russell
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.

[Mario]

In 5 Gyears we won't need to relocate the Earth, we won't even need any planet
IMHO. We will be able to build one from scratch (if we want) and we'll probably
won't even want one.

I never understood this habit to think that extremely technological civilizations
need planets, when they can build giant spaceships with all comforts.. What is a
planet after all, if not a giant spaceship, but a very vulnerable one and left
wandering in space without control? F*ck planets! They're a thing of the past,
planets are for losers. ;D

Cheers,
Mario


At 00:02 2018-01-29, RussellMc wrote:
>​
>On 29 January 2018 at 11:17, Ryan O'Connor <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe they should try getting the length of a second correct first, so we
>> don't have to have a myriad of leap years to compensate.
>>
>
>As a subset of the Earth to Mars orbit translation project, getting the
>second right is easy.
>We 'just' need to either:
>
> - Change earth's orbit slightly to make the orbital period an exact
>multiple of the period of the earth's rotation.
>or
>- Slightly change the period of the earth's rotation to give the same
>result. This could be achieved by changing Lunar's orbital distance, but
>the consequent changes on tidal frequency and magnitude may have excessive
>2nd order (or first!) effects.
>or
> - Both the above.
>
>As the earth is gradually moved Mars-wards the rotational period and
>orbital periods could be arranged to remain at integer ratios at each pause
>in the moving process, but the consequent alteration in the absolute value
>of the second may have excessive 2nd order effects.
>
>
> Russell
>--
>http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
>View/change your membership options at
>http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[David C Brown]

Huh! Leap years don't compensate for a wrongly specified second.

__________________________________________
David C Brown
43 Bings Road
Whaley Bridge
High Peak Phone: [phone]
Derbyshire eMail: ***@gmail.com
SK23 7ND web: www.bings-knowle.co.uk/dcb
<http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~dcb>



*Sent from my etch-a-sketch*

On 28 January 2018 at 22:17, Ryan O'Connor <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> Maybe they should try getting the length of a second correct first, so we
> don't have to have a myriad of leap years to compensate.
>
> Ryan
>
> On 28 January 2018 at 23:52, John Gardner <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There are various schemes to gradually relocate the Earth to the
> >
> > orbit of Mars, as the Sun expands, giving us an extra 5 GY or so.
> >
> > Sounds like the Engineers will always be with us... :)
> > --
> > http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> > View/change your membership options at
> > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
> >
> --
> http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[RussellMc]

​
On 29 January 2018 at 22:48, David C Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> Huh! Leap years don't compensate for a wrongly specified second.



But, changing the orbital or rotational parameters can - see my response
above :-).


R

​
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/pi

[David C Brown]

But that change isn't a simple two body problem. Any change to the orbit
of the Earth will affect all the other bodies in the solar system (and
beyond) which will in turn affect the orbit of Earth.
But worse: such changes may bring our Solar System to the attention of the
Great Ones Beyond Time and Space who might choose to reward our insolence
by wiping out the entire Western spiral arm.

__________________________________________
David C Brown
43 Bings Road
Whaley Bridge
High Peak Phone: [phone]
Derbyshire eMail: ***@gmail.com
SK23 7ND web: www.bings-knowle.co.uk/dcb
<http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~dcb>



*Sent from my etch-a-sketch*

On 29 January 2018 at 21:26, RussellMc <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> ​
> On 29 January 2018 at 22:48, David C Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Huh! Leap years don't compensate for a wrongly specified second.
>
>
>
> But, changing the orbital or rotational parameters can - see my response
> above :-).
>
>
> R
>
> ​
> --
> http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options

[Lyle Hazelwood]

But worse: such changes may bring our Solar System to the attention of the
Great Ones Beyond Time and Space who might choose to reward our insolence
by wiping out the entire Western spiral arm.

____________________________________


I think we found the optimist of the group.
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[David C Brown]

Sorry. Just started (re)reading the complete short stories of Arthur C
Clarke

__________________________________________
David C Brown
43 Bings Road
Whaley Bridge
High Peak Phone: [phone]
Derbyshire eMail: ***@gmail.com
SK23 7ND web: www.bings-knowle.co.uk/dcb
<http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~dcb>



*Sent from my etch-a-sketch*

On 29 January 2018 at 21:56, Lyle Hazelwood <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> But worse: such changes may bring our Solar System to the attention of the
> Great Ones Beyond Time and Space who might choose to reward our insolence
> by wiping out the entire Western spiral arm.
>
> ____________________________________
>
>
> I think we found the optimist of the group.
> --
> http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[RussellMc]

On 30 January 2018 at 10:53, David C Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> But that change isn't a simple two body problem. Any change to the orbit
> of the Earth will affect all the other bodies in the solar system (and
> beyond) which will in turn affect the orbit of Earth.
>

​By the time 'we' get to changing orbital and rotational parameters it will
have become "just a simple N body problem".


> But worse: such changes may bring our Solar System to the attention of the
> Great Ones Beyond Time and Space who might choose to reward our insolence
> by wiping out the entire Western spiral arm.
>

​The REAL cause - last in a ​chain of happenings - was the deployment of
bio-samples using superluminal projection.

Here's a brief (1.5 A4 page) explanation of it that I wrote in 2003.
Copyright (fwiw).

May look somewhat like some of AC Clarke's early SciFi. Hopefully :-).

*I am woman
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/43boctliwntadvf/BLORG_180130.RTF?dl=0> <-
Dropbox RTF file. *

Title is one of several possible.


Russell


https://www.dropbox.com/s/43boctliwntadvf/BLORG_180130.RTF?dl=0

________________________________________

Encyclopaedia Erratica

HUMANKIND Also see: Mankind, Womankind, Blorg.

Mankind's destruction at the hands of the Blorg, while accelerated by poor
decisions, was inevitable (though it should be added for completeness that,
by then they were neither man nor especially kind, and the Blorg did not
have, nor ever had had, hands). No one person, corporation or Intrahuminal
Council was responsible for the final sad but salutary event. However, a
collection of individuals, corporations and Intrahuminal Councils
contributed significantly to bringing forward the timing and merit special
mention.

... see link above
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http:

[David C Brown]

Very droll.

The late Prof Fred Hoyle very convincingly put forward the hypothesis that
the influenza virus was caused by a shower of viruses from outer space.
His evidence was that the spread of the disease did not follow the
expected path of person-person transmission being far more random. Of
course Sir Fred, whilst a genius in his field of astrophysics (and the
originator of the expression "big bang") always tended to overlook a vital
fact when he moved outside it. As evidenced by his junkyard 747 dismissal
of evolutionary biology.

__________________________________________
David C Brown
43 Bings Road
Whaley Bridge
High Peak Phone: [phone]
Derbyshire eMail: ***@gmail.com
SK23 7ND web: www.bings-knowle.co.uk/dcb
<http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~dcb>



*Sent from my etch-a-sketch*

On 30 January 2018 at 01:20, RussellMc <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 30 January 2018 at 10:53, David C Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But that change isn't a simple two body problem. Any change to the orbit
> > of the Earth will affect all the other bodies in the solar system (and
> > beyond) which will in turn affect the orbit of Earth.
> >
>
> ​By the time 'we' get to changing orbital and rotational parameters it will
> have become "just a simple N body problem".
>
>
> > But worse: such changes may bring our Solar System to the attention of
> the
> > Great Ones Beyond Time and Space who might choose to reward our insolence
> > by wiping out the entire Western spiral arm.
> >
>
> ​The REAL cause - last in a ​chain of happenings - was the deployment of
> bio-samples using superluminal projection.
>
> Here's a brief (1.5 A4 page) explanation of it that I wrote in 2003.
> Copyright (fwiw).
>
> May look somewhat like some of AC Clarke's early SciFi. Hopefully :-).
>
> *I am woman
> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/43boctliwntadvf/BLORG_180130.RTF?dl=0> <-
> Dropbox RTF file. *
>
> Title is one of several possible.
>
>
> Russell
>
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/43boctliwntadvf/BLORG_180130.RTF?dl=0
>
> ________________________________________
>
> Encyclopaedia Erratica
>
> HUMANKIND Also see: Mankind, Womankind, Blorg.
>
> Mankind's destruction at the hands of the Blorg, while accelerated by poor
> decisions, was inevitable (though it should be added for completeness that,
> by then they were neither man nor especially kind, and the Blorg did not
> have, nor ever had had, hands). No one person, corporation or Intrahuminal
> Council was responsible for the final sad but salutary event. However, a
> collection of individuals, corporations and Intrahuminal Councils
> contributed significantly to bringing forward the timing and merit special
> mention.
>
> ... see link above
> --
> http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mai

[Ryan O'Connor]

I think you guys might be over-complicating it. My perspective involves
improving the situation instead of completely fixing it:

- One year is supposed to be the time the earth takes to orbit the sun, on
average.
- One year is never precisely the amount of time the earth takes to orbit
the sun. Thus, leap years.
- If the length of one second were increased by a small amount, then we
would the time the earth takes to orbit the sun would, on average, be
closer to 365 days exactly.
- Because time would be closely aligned to exactly 365 days for one year,
leap years wouldn't be required, meaning everyone can celebrate their
birthday each year.
- Minor discrepancies would still be synced internationally via the
internet, as currently happens with leap seconds and daylight savings.
However, the time jumps would be smaller (currently we see differences of
around 1 millisecond per day above 24 hours).
- Since sunlight hours vary so greatly in most of the world from day-to-day
and are the main perceptual factor, that I don't really care about the
precise length of a single day, as long as we can correct the days that
February has being in flux and remove leap years. The discrepancies of the
distance between the moon and the earth can be part of the regular syncing
which has shown to be necessary anyway. For those without access to the
internet, their rebuilt clocks and watches would be more precise anyway due
to the corrected length of one second, and they wouldn't have to worry
about observing leap years, or more importantly missing out on a birthday!

Ryan

On 30 January 2018 at 10:26, RussellMc <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> ​
> On 29 January 2018 at 22:48, David C Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Huh! Leap years don't compensate for a wrongly specified second.
>
>
>
> But, changing the orbital or rotational parameters can - see my response
> above :-).
>
>
> R
>
> ​
> --
> http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/li

[Isaac M. Bavaresco]

If you decree that the length of the "official" year is exactly the
length of the tropical year, the "official" days would lose
synchronization with the "sun" days and your year would end at different
time of day each year.

Cheers,

Isaac



Em 30/01/2018 04:01, Ryan O'Connor escreveu:
> I think you guys might be over-complicating it. My perspective involves
> improving the situation instead of completely fixing it:
>
> - One year is supposed to be the time the earth takes to orbit the sun, on
> average.
> - One year is never precisely the amount of time the earth takes to orbit
> the sun. Thus, leap years.
> - If the length of one second were increased by a small amount, then we
> would the time the earth takes to orbit the sun would, on average, be
> closer to 365 days exactly.
> - Because time would be closely aligned to exactly 365 days for one year,
> leap years wouldn't be required, meaning everyone can celebrate their
> birthday each year.
> - Minor discrepancies would still be synced internationally via the
> internet, as currently happens with leap seconds and daylight savings.
> However, the time jumps would be smaller (currently we see differences of
> around 1 millisecond per day above 24 hours).
> - Since sunlight hours vary so greatly in most of the world from day-to-day
> and are the main perceptual factor, that I don't really care about the
> precise length of a single day, as long as we can correct the days that
> February has being in flux and remove leap years. The discrepancies of the
> distance between the moon and the earth can be part of the regular syncing
> which has shown to be necessary anyway. For those without access to the
> internet, their rebuilt clocks and watches would be more precise anyway due
> to the corrected length of one second, and they wouldn't have to worry
> about observing leap years, or more importantly missing out on a birthday!
>
> Ryan
>
> On 30 January 2018 at 10:26, RussellMc <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ​
>> On 29 January 2018 at 22:48, David C Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Huh! Leap years don't compensate for a wrongly specified second.
>>
>>
>> But, changing the orbital or rotational parameters can - see my response
>> above :-).
>>
>>
>> R
>>
>> ​
>> --
>> http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
>> View/change your membership options at
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>>


---
Este email foi escaneado pelo Avast antivírus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/p

[John Gardner]

The problem so-called Leap Years address is the Calendar, not the Clock,

and jiggery-pokery with the Second does'nt address the problem, which is

that it takes approximately 365+1/4 revolutions of the Earth around its axis,

365+1/4 <Days>, for the Earth to complete one orbit of the Sun, or 1 Solar

Year. In the Julian Calendar of 365 Days the Calendar date advances ~ 1/4

Day per Year relative to the (agricultural) Seasons - A matter of obvious sig-

nificance to farmers, & others for whom the Seasons matter; sailors come to

mind...

Anyway, thus the "Gregorian" Calendar reform with its "Leap Years", which do

a passable job of keeping the Calendar in sync with the Seasons.

...


On 1/30/18, Isaac M. Bavaresco <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you decree that the length of the "official" year is exactly the
> length of the tropical year, the "official" days would lose
> synchronization with the "sun" days and your year would end at different
> time of day each year.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Isaac
>
>
>
> Em 30/01/2018 04:01, Ryan O'Connor escreveu:
>> I think you guys might be over-complicating it. My perspective involves
>> improving the situation instead of completely fixing it:
>>
>> - One year is supposed to be the time the earth takes to orbit the sun, on
>> average.
>> - One year is never precisely the amount of time the earth takes to orbit
>> the sun. Thus, leap years.
>> - If the length of one second were increased by a small amount, then we
>> would the time the earth takes to orbit the sun would, on average, be
>> closer to 365 days exactly.
>> - Because time would be closely aligned to exactly 365 days for one year,
>> leap years wouldn't be required, meaning everyone can celebrate their
>> birthday each year.
>> - Minor discrepancies would still be synced internationally via the
>> internet, as currently happens with leap seconds and daylight savings.
>> However, the time jumps would be smaller (currently we see differences of
>> around 1 millisecond per day above 24 hours).
>> - Since sunlight hours vary so greatly in most of the world from
>> day-to-day
>> and are the main perceptual factor, that I don't really care about the
>> precise length of a single day, as long as we can correct the days that
>> February has being in flux and remove leap years. The discrepancies of the
>> distance between the moon and the earth can be part of the regular syncing
>> which has shown to be necessary anyway. For those without access to the
>> internet, their rebuilt clocks and watches would be more precise anyway
>> due
>> to the corrected length of one second, and they wouldn't have to worry
>> about observing leap years, or more importantly missing out on a birthday!
>>
>> Ryan
>>
>> On 30 January 2018 at 10:26, RussellMc <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ​
>>> On 29 January 2018 at 22:48, David C Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Huh! Leap years don't compensate for a wrongly specified second.
>>>
>>>
>>> But, changing the orbital or rotational parameters can - see my response
>>> above :-).
>>>
>>>
>>> R
>>>
>>> ​
>>> --
>>> http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
>>> View/change your membership options at
>>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>>>
>
>
> ---
> Este email foi escaneado pelo Avast antivírus.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[RussellMc]

On 30 January 2018 at 23:14, John Gardner <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> The problem so-called Leap Years address is the Calendar, not the Clock,
>
> and jiggery-pokery with the Second does'nt address the problem, which is
>
> that it takes approximately 365+1/4 revolutions of the Earth around its
> axis,
>
> 365+1/4 <Days>, for the Earth to complete one orbit of the Sun, or 1
> Solar
>
> Year.


​Both my proposed solutions either individually or combined, address the
problem completely. How to achieve them is left as an exercise for the
student.

One method that appears to have (perhaps) been "used" in the past is to
play orbital resonance games with a suitably energetic and well enough
coupled body. It helps muchly if nobody is too bothered by the days or year
periods, or indeed the orbit, of the body used. There are various
allegations (Velikovsky's heresies and others) that the year was ~= 360
days until somewhere about 800 BC and changed due to Mars resonance issues.
On;y people who believe this believe this :-).

R
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership op

[John Gardner]

I don't see a problem with the Gregorian solution; issues with the

Second are dealt with in a highly arbitrary manner by comparison.


Heroic efforts involving celestial mechanics are unlikely to achieve

the Horological Millennium, as long as there's more than one clock,

anyway... :8)

...


On 1/30/18, RussellMc <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 January 2018 at 23:14, John Gardner <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The problem so-called Leap Years address is the Calendar, not the Clock,
>>
>> and jiggery-pokery with the Second does'nt address the problem, which is
>>
>> that it takes approximately 365+1/4 revolutions of the Earth around its
>> axis,
>>
>> 365+1/4 <Days>, for the Earth to complete one orbit of the Sun, or 1
>> Solar
>>
>> Year.
>
>
> ​Both my proposed solutions either individually or combined, address the
> problem completely. How to achieve them is left as an exercise for the
> student.
>
> One method that appears to have (perhaps) been "used" in the past is to
> play orbital resonance games with a suitably energetic and well enough
> coupled body. It helps muchly if nobody is too bothered by the days or year
> periods, or indeed the orbit, of the body used. There are various
> allegations (Velikovsky's heresies and others) that the year was ~= 360
> days until somewhere about 800 BC and changed due to Mars resonance issues.
> On;y people who believe this believe this :-).
>
> R
> --
> http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at

[RussellMc]

On 31 January 2018 at 01:58, John Gardner <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't see a problem with the Gregorian solution; issues with the
>
> ​...
> Heroic efforts involving celestial mechanics are unlikely to achieve
> ​ ​
> the Horological Millennium, as long as there's more than one clock,
> ​
> anyway... :8)


​Nay, sir.

When the orbital period (year) is integer divisible by the rotational
period (day) and adjustable to remain so to whatever tolerance is specified
and desired (just as AC grid frequency is ​adjusted to be "exact" longer
term) then the N clocks may differ on the margin of error wrt their
readings and actual BUT the "one clock" is then the actual system.

One clock to sync them all
...
And in the brightness blind them? "

Apologies to all relevant :-)


R
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listi

[David C Brown]

"One year is never precisely the amount of time the earth takes to orbit
the sun. Thus, leap years."

Nyat. The length of the year and the length of the day are (at least in
the short term) fixed and the number of days in a year is not an integer.
Thus leapyears.

You are obviously driven to insanity by being born on Feb 29 and are
desperately seeking a solution that will restore your lost birthdays and
allow you to vote before you have lived for 72 years. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

__________________________________________
David C Brown
43 Bings Road
Whaley Bridge
High Peak Phone: [phone]
Derbyshire eMail: ***@gmail.com
SK23 7ND web: www.bings-knowle.co.uk/dcb
<http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~dcb>



*Sent from my etch-a-sketch*

On 30 January 2018 at 06:01, Ryan O'Connor <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think you guys might be over-complicating it. My perspective involves
> improving the situation instead of completely fixing it:
>
> - One year is supposed to be the time the earth takes to orbit the sun, on
> average.
> - One year is never precisely the amount of time the earth takes to orbit
> the sun. Thus, leap years.
> - If the length of one second were increased by a small amount, then we
> would the time the earth takes to orbit the sun would, on average, be
> closer to 365 days exactly.
> - Because time would be closely aligned to exactly 365 days for one year,
> leap years wouldn't be required, meaning everyone can celebrate their
> birthday each year.
> - Minor discrepancies would still be synced internationally via the
> internet, as currently happens with leap seconds and daylight savings.
> However, the time jumps would be smaller (currently we see differences of
> around 1 millisecond per day above 24 hours).
> - Since sunlight hours vary so greatly in most of the world from day-to-day
> and are the main perceptual factor, that I don't really care about the
> precise length of a single day, as long as we can correct the days that
> February has being in flux and remove leap years. The discrepancies of the
> distance between the moon and the earth can be part of the regular syncing
> which has shown to be necessary anyway. For those without access to the
> internet, their rebuilt clocks and watches would be more precise anyway due
> to the corrected length of one second, and they wouldn't have to worry
> about observing leap years, or more importantly missing out on a birthday!
>
> Ryan
>
> On 30 January 2018 at 10:26, RussellMc <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ​
> > On 29 January 2018 at 22:48, David C Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Huh! Leap years don't compensate for a wrongly specified second.
> >
> >
> >
> > But, changing the orbital or rotational parameters can - see my response
> > above :-).
> >
> >
> > R
> >
> > ​
> > --
> > http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> > View/change your membership options at
> > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
> >
> --
> http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership op

[Ryan O'Connor]

David, yes I see my error now. Adjusting the length of 1 second slightly
would not compensate enough for 1/4 days per year, only the inaccuracy of
the length of one day.

I believe Russell's solution to be superior. I'll start building nukes to
make the orbital adjustments; might as well construct them in North Korea
since New Zealand is nuclear-free.

Ryan

On 30 January 2018 at 23:16, David C Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> "One year is never precisely the amount of time the earth takes to orbit
> the sun. Thus, leap years."
>
> Nyat. The length of the year and the length of the day are (at least in
> the short term) fixed and the number of days in a year is not an integer.
> Thus leapyears.
>
> You are obviously driven to insanity by being born on Feb 29 and are
> desperately seeking a solution that will restore your lost birthdays and
> allow you to vote before you have lived for 72 years. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
>
> __________________________________________
> David C Brown
> 43 Bings Road
> Whaley Bridge
> High Peak Phone: [phone]
> Derbyshire eMail: ***@gmail.com
> SK23 7ND web: www.bings-knowle.co.uk/dcb
> <http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~dcb>
>
>
>
> *Sent from my etch-a-sketch*
>
> On 30 January 2018 at 06:01, Ryan O'Connor <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think you guys might be over-complicating it. My perspective involves
> > improving the situation instead of completely fixing it:
> >
> > - One year is supposed to be the time the earth takes to orbit the sun,
> on
> > average.
> > - One year is never precisely the amount of time the earth takes to orbit
> > the sun. Thus, leap years.
> > - If the length of one second were increased by a small amount, then we
> > would the time the earth takes to orbit the sun would, on average, be
> > closer to 365 days exactly.
> > - Because time would be closely aligned to exactly 365 days for one year,
> > leap years wouldn't be required, meaning everyone can celebrate their
> > birthday each year.
> > - Minor discrepancies would still be synced internationally via the
> > internet, as currently happens with leap seconds and daylight savings.
> > However, the time jumps would be smaller (currently we see differences of
> > around 1 millisecond per day above 24 hours).
> > - Since sunlight hours vary so greatly in most of the world from
> day-to-day
> > and are the main perceptual factor, that I don't really care about the
> > precise length of a single day, as long as we can correct the days that
> > February has being in flux and remove leap years. The discrepancies of
> the
> > distance between the moon and the earth can be part of the regular
> syncing
> > which has shown to be necessary anyway. For those without access to the
> > internet, their rebuilt clocks and watches would be more precise anyway
> due
> > to the corrected length of one second, and they wouldn't have to worry
> > about observing leap years, or more importantly missing out on a
> birthday!
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> > On 30 January 2018 at 10:26, RussellMc <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > ​
> > > On 29 January 2018 at 22:48, David C Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Huh! Leap years don't compensate for a wrongly specified second.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > But, changing the orbital or rotational parameters can - see my
> response
> > > above :-).
> > >
> > >
> > > R
> > >
> > > ​
> > > --
> > > http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> > > View/change your membership options at
> > > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
> > >
> > --
> > http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> > View/change your membership options at
> > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
> >
> --
> http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/

[John Gardner]

Russell's Solution addresses a soon-to-be non-existent problem;

a space-based, space-faring society has no need of a Calendar

attuned to "Seasons."

Maybe... "8)



On 1/30/18, Ryan O'Connor <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> David, yes I see my error now. Adjusting the length of 1 second slightly
> would not compensate enough for 1/4 days per year, only the inaccuracy of
> the length of one day.
>
> I believe Russell's solution to be superior. I'll start building nukes to
> make the orbital adjustments; might as well construct them in North Korea
> since New Zealand is nuclear-free.
>
> Ryan
>
> On 30 January 2018 at 23:16, David C Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "One year is never precisely the amount of time the earth takes to orbit
>> the sun. Thus, leap years."
>>
>> Nyat. The length of the year and the length of the day are (at least in
>> the short term) fixed and the number of days in a year is not an integer.
>> Thus leapyears.
>>
>> You are obviously driven to insanity by being born on Feb 29 and are
>> desperately seeking a solution that will restore your lost birthdays and
>> allow you to vote before you have lived for 72 years. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
>>
>> __________________________________________
>> David C Brown
>> 43 Bings Road
>> Whaley Bridge
>> High Peak Phone: [phone]
>> Derbyshire eMail: ***@gmail.com
>> SK23 7ND web: www.bings-knowle.co.uk/dcb
>> <http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~dcb>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Sent from my etch-a-sketch*
>>
>> On 30 January 2018 at 06:01, Ryan O'Connor <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I think you guys might be over-complicating it. My perspective involves
>> > improving the situation instead of completely fixing it:
>> >
>> > - One year is supposed to be the time the earth takes to orbit the sun,
>> on
>> > average.
>> > - One year is never precisely the amount of time the earth takes to
>> > orbit
>> > the sun. Thus, leap years.
>> > - If the length of one second were increased by a small amount, then we
>> > would the time the earth takes to orbit the sun would, on average, be
>> > closer to 365 days exactly.
>> > - Because time would be closely aligned to exactly 365 days for one
>> > year,
>> > leap years wouldn't be required, meaning everyone can celebrate their
>> > birthday each year.
>> > - Minor discrepancies would still be synced internationally via the
>> > internet, as currently happens with leap seconds and daylight savings.
>> > However, the time jumps would be smaller (currently we see differences
>> > of
>> > around 1 millisecond per day above 24 hours).
>> > - Since sunlight hours vary so greatly in most of the world from
>> day-to-day
>> > and are the main perceptual factor, that I don't really care about the
>> > precise length of a single day, as long as we can correct the days that
>> > February has being in flux and remove leap years. The discrepancies of
>> the
>> > distance between the moon and the earth can be part of the regular
>> syncing
>> > which has shown to be necessary anyway. For those without access to the
>> > internet, their rebuilt clocks and watches would be more precise anyway
>> due
>> > to the corrected length of one second, and they wouldn't have to worry
>> > about observing leap years, or more importantly missing out on a
>> birthday!
>> >
>> > Ryan
>> >
>> > On 30 January 2018 at 10:26, RussellMc <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > ​
>> > > On 29 January 2018 at 22:48, David C Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Huh! Leap years don't compensate for a wrongly specified second.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > But, changing the orbital or rotational parameters can - see my
>> response
>> > > above :-).
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > R
>> > >
>> > > ​
>> > > --
>> > > http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
>> > > View/change your membership options at
>> > > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>> > >
>> > --
>> > http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
>> > View/change your membership options at
>> > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>> >
>> --
>> http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
>> View/change your membership options at
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mi

[David C Brown]

And will always be underpaid

__________________________________________
David C Brown
43 Bings Road
Whaley Bridge
High Peak Phone: [phone]
Derbyshire eMail: ***@gmail.com
SK23 7ND web: www.bings-knowle.co.uk/dcb
<http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~dcb>



*Sent from my etch-a-sketch*

On 28 January 2018 at 10:52, John Gardner <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> There are various schemes to gradually relocate the Earth to the
>
> orbit of Mars, as the Sun expands, giving us an extra 5 GY or so.
>
> Sounds like the Engineers will always be with us... :)
> --
> http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[s***@agilent.com]

It is how Planet Labs manoeuvre their "dove" nano sats. A number are launched at a time and distributed in orbit by presenting different friction profiles to the exceeding thin atmosphere. Orientation is controlled by electric reaction motors powered by solar arrays so manoeuvring is done without expendable propellant (which they don't have)

A very neat solution.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/14/14601938/india-pslv-rocket-launch-satellites-planet-doves

Stephen


-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-***@mit.edu [mailto:piclist-***@mit.edu] On Behalf Of James Cameron
Sent: Sunday, 28 January 2018 12:17 PM
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. <***@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [TECH]:: Track / view "The Humanity Star"

On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 05:25:32PM +0100, Mario wrote:
> Well, why it won't orbit forever? I guess that even at 500km's of
> altitude there's some friction. Is this the reason?

Yes, friction from atmosphere. Negligible, but adds up over time.
--
James Cameron
http://quozl.netrek.org/


--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist