Timeline for Planetary Scale Artworks
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 3, 2015 at 13:16 | vote | accept | Tim B | ||
| Dec 21, 2014 at 3:17 | comment | added | Free Consulting | @bowlturner, there is strong evidence for dark matter halo existence coming from orbital period of stars orbiting around galaxy center of mass, see astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/… | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 17:19 | comment | added | Aesin | Rather than single elements, I'd suggest making them single fluorescent crystals. That should mean you can pick up the artificial spectral lines from waaaaay away. And you can put the spectral lines into a pattern. | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 17:18 | history | edited | bowlturner | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 108 characters in body
|
| Dec 17, 2014 at 16:36 | comment | added | bowlturner | @HenryKeiter Actually I think the orbital period would be a good place for the Fibonacci sequence | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 16:35 | comment | added | Henry Keiter | Ideally, put all these planets in a perfectly straight line extending from the star, and all with the same orbital period, like a naive solar system model. Maybe they'd all mess with each other's orbits too much for this, though? | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 15:58 | comment | added | Free Consulting | @TimB, I don't agree with that. It depends on prehistoric molecular cloud mass, the process its collapse and collisions within protoplanetary disk. | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 15:34 | comment | added | Tim B | @FreeConsulting Actually that's not true. The star needs a strong enough gravity well to keep a firm grip on its planets, and the planets need to not interfere with each others orbits, etc. | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 15:24 | comment | added | Free Consulting | @2012rcampion, stars do not "support" planets. There is no hard limit of celestial bodies for given star mass. | |
| Dec 16, 2014 at 21:28 | comment | added | bowlturner | Well making the Carbon planet one big diamond would certainly stand out as a 'look what we did!' | |
| Dec 16, 2014 at 21:25 | comment | added | KSmarts | The mention of a pure-carbon planet made me think of a diamond planet. Then I thought: how about a planet with a crystalline surface, where the entire surface is a single crystalline structure? | |
| Dec 16, 2014 at 20:56 | comment | added | 2012rcampion | I think a 1-solar-mass star could support ten or so mercury-size planets (we do just fine with 8), and maybe even more if you can pack them closer to the star. Now that I think about it, if you skip the red giant phase and start with a white dwarf you could get some really tight orbits in. | |
| Dec 16, 2014 at 20:45 | comment | added | bowlturner | @2012rcampion Ya, the dozens was a little extreme, but if stable WOULD be impressive! If a small star would keep things in motion longer the yes it would be a better fit, though you'd have to have fewer planets on a smaller star. | |
| Dec 16, 2014 at 20:02 | comment | added | 2012rcampion | I would suggest using a small star, like our sun or smaller. That way the star will age into a white dwarf and eventually cool into a brown dwarf. As far as we know, a brown dwarf can survive for tens of billions of years, possibly indefinitely. Also, this way you avoid a violent core collapse that could disrupt the planets. (Speaking of disruption, don't use too many planets or their orbits will become unstable. I would suggest fewer than a dozen in geometric sequence) | |
| Dec 16, 2014 at 18:24 | history | edited | bowlturner | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
idea expansion #2
|
| Dec 16, 2014 at 17:27 | history | edited | bowlturner | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added a little to my answer.
|
| Dec 16, 2014 at 14:24 | history | answered | bowlturner | CC BY-SA 3.0 |