|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » [I]A DW question, or two
| [I]A DW question, or two [message #288943] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 06:52 |
|
Perhaps bordering on the offbeat, but: On earth, is the direction east
what would be considered turnwise, and west therefore widdershins?
Depending on hemisphere either north or south would be hubwards, but
there wouldn't be rimwards, unless you are a card carrying member of the
flat earth society.
Also, does anyone know whether the diskworld spins clockwise or counter
clockwise when viewed from above?
In case anyone wonders, I was prompted to enquire by the 'AFP has it
lost it's direction?' thread.
Blake
|
|
|
| Re: [I]A DW question, or two [message #288977 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 12:27 |
|
In article <WZ4lg.66122$JX1.23805 [at] edtnps82>, Blake says...
> Perhaps bordering on the offbeat, but: On earth, is the direction east
> what would be considered turnwise, and west therefore widdershins?
> Depending on hemisphere either north or south would be hubwards, but
> there wouldn't be rimwards, unless you are a card carrying member of the
> flat earth society.
Rimwards would be toward the equator (away from the hub) wouldn't it?
> Also, does anyone know whether the diskworld spins clockwise or counter
> clockwise when viewed from above?
I'm not sure, but I've always imagined it turning clockwise when viewed
from above.
--
PleegWat
Remove caps to reply
|
|
|
| Re: [R] A DW question, or two [message #288983 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 12:43 |
|
[Tag changed - discussions about Discworld, even about how it relates to
Earth, are definitely [R]elevant]
Blake wrote:
> Perhaps bordering on the offbeat, but: On earth, is the direction
> east what would be considered turnwise, and west therefore
> widdershins?
Yes, I reckon so.
> Depending on hemisphere either north or south would be
> hubwards, but there wouldn't be rimwards, unless you are a card
> carrying member of the flat earth society.
Actually, there is a rimwards on any object that rotates on a single
axis. The rim is reached by travelling as far from the axis as possible
in a perpendicular way.
As such, on Earth the equator is the rim, and the opposite of hubwards,
regardless of which hemisphere you find yourself on. If you're standing
on the rim, sorry, equator, it might be a tad confusing that you have
hubwards in two different directions, though.
> Also, does anyone know whether the diskworld spins clockwise or
> counter clockwise when viewed from above?
If tunrwise is the direction in which it's turning (as in rotating
towards), and this is east, it would rotate counterclockwise.
But I've only had one cup of coffee yet, so I might be wrong.
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [R] A DW question, or two [message #288987 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 12:54 |
|
Orjan Westin <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote:
>
>> Depending on hemisphere either north or south would be
>> hubwards, but there wouldn't be rimwards, unless you are a card
>> carrying member of the flat earth society.
>
> Actually, there is a rimwards on any object that rotates on a single
> axis. The rim is reached by travelling as far from the axis as possible
> in a perpendicular way.
>
> As such, on Earth the equator is the rim, and the opposite of hubwards,
> regardless of which hemisphere you find yourself on. If you're standing
> on the rim, sorry, equator, it might be a tad confusing that you have
> hubwards in two different directions, though.
I don't see that as a problem, considering rimwards is in infinitely
many different directions when youre standing on a hub.
mcv.
|
|
|
| Re: [R] A DW question, or two [message #289028 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 15:02 |
|
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 11:43:57 +0100, "Orjan Westin" <nospam [at] cunobaros.com>
wrote:
>As such, on Earth the equator is the rim, and the opposite of hubwards,
>regardless of which hemisphere you find yourself on. If you're standing
>on the rim, sorry, equator, it might be a tad confusing that you have
>hubwards in two different directions, though.
Not *that* confusing though. It'd be the equivalent of standing at none the
Poles - where EVERY direction is North (or South)
--
Andrew Nevill B.F. D.W. FdV. Reply address: anevill [at] btopenworld.com
AFPWorshipper to Spooky, AFPfiance to Sarah (Nanny Ogg) & A********.
AFPUncle to James Vaughan. You cannot value friends as pennies,
nor can you replace them as easily (Spooky in email, Aug 2001.)
Discworld Convention 2006. 18 - 26 Aug 2006 Hinckley Island Hotel
Hinckley, UK www.dwcon.org
|
|
|
| Re: [R] A DW question, or two [message #289033 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 15:19 |
|
Andrew Nevill wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 11:43:57 +0100, "Orjan Westin"
> <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote:
>
>
>> As such, on Earth the equator is the rim, and the opposite of
>> hubwards, regardless of which hemisphere you find yourself on. If
>> you're standing on the rim, sorry, equator, it might be a tad
>> confusing that you have hubwards in two different directions, though.
>
> Not *that* confusing though. It'd be the equivalent of standing at
> none the Poles - where EVERY direction is North (or South)
Yes, but the poles are one-dimensional; if you take just one step in any
direction you will have all four directions evailable to you again. At
the pole point, you have one direction instead of four.
The equtator is two-dimensional, so you can walk along it turnwise or
widdershins and still have two hubwards. Take a step off, and you
regain rimwards again, and have only one hubwards. At the rim line, you
have three directions instead of four, but one of them is going in
opposite directions.
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [R] A DW question, or two [message #289035 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 15:29 |
|
"Orjan Westin" <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote in message
news:4fkpdhF1jfivaU2 [at] individual.net...
> [Tag changed - discussions about Discworld, even about how it relates
> to Earth, are definitely [R]elevant]
>
> Blake wrote:
>> Perhaps bordering on the offbeat, but: On earth, is the direction
>> east what would be considered turnwise, and west therefore
>> widdershins?
>
> Yes, I reckon so.
>
<snip>
>> Also, does anyone know whether the diskworld spins clockwise or
>> counter clockwise when viewed from above?
>
> If tunrwise is the direction in which it's turning (as in rotating
> towards), and this is east, it would rotate counterclockwise.
>
Who's got a copy of the Mappe handy?
Steve
|
|
|
| Re: [I]A DW question, or two [message #289044 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 15:47 |
|
Blake wrote:
> Perhaps bordering on the offbeat, but: On earth, is the direction east
> what would be considered turnwise, and west therefore widdershins?
> Depending on hemisphere either north or south would be hubwards, but
> there wouldn't be rimwards, unless you are a card carrying member of the
> flat earth society.
>
> Also, does anyone know whether the diskworld spins clockwise or counter
> clockwise when viewed from above?
>
> In case anyone wonders, I was prompted to enquire by the 'AFP has it
> lost it's direction?' thread.
>
> Blake
>
In a book called 'Folklore Myths and Legends of Britain', which my
husband recently bought for me at a second hand bookstore, on page 19.
"The sun gave more than light and life. It was also a divine source of
order, a heavenly timepiece. To someone in the northern hemisphere, the
sun appears to move clockwise around the earth and sun worshippers were
always careful to perform their ritual dances and processions in a
clockwise or 'sun-wise', direction.
The feeling that turning 'widdershins' or anticlockwise, is somehow
wrong, is a hangover from a time when turning 'against the sun' was
believed to be evil and an open invitation to disaster."
From this I deduce that turnwise is clockwise, and Widdershins is
Widdershins.
It is a very interesting book, almost like a Pratchett annotation file
all of it's own, and for someone who has never been to Britain a very
interesting read. I've been meaning to mention it before in the Thread
about Dicworldish places to visit.
n
|
|
|
| Re: [R] A DW question, or two [message #289076 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 16:47 |
|
The time: 18 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: "Steve Rogers" <steve [at] soapietrekkers.demon.co.uk>
> "Orjan Westin" <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote in message
> news:4fkpdhF1jfivaU2 [at] individual.net...
>> Blake wrote:
>>> Also, does anyone know whether the diskworld spins
>>> clockwise or counter clockwise when viewed from above?
>>
>> If tunrwise is the direction in which it's turning (as in
>> rotating towards), and this is east, it would rotate
>> counterclockwise.
>
> Who's got a copy of the Mappe handy?
I do. And Turnwise is clockwise (or sunwise, or West[1]),
while Widdershins is, as Naomi says, widdershins.
Incidentally, opposite the Widdershins Gate on the A-M Mapp is
the Deosil gate. Deosil is Scots for sunwise.
[1]But I don't think this is entirely meaningful, given that
over the course of a Great Year the sun will rise (and set) on
*both* sides of any given point...
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
|
|
|
| Re: [I]A DW question, or two [message #289084 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 17:03 |
|
PleegWat wrote:
> In article <WZ4lg.66122$JX1.23805 [at] edtnps82>, Blake says...
>> Perhaps bordering on the offbeat, but: On earth, is the direction east
>> what would be considered turnwise, and west therefore widdershins?
>> Depending on hemisphere either north or south would be hubwards, but
>> there wouldn't be rimwards, unless you are a card carrying member of the
>> flat earth society.
>
> Rimwards would be toward the equator (away from the hub) wouldn't it?
>
>> Also, does anyone know whether the diskworld spins clockwise or counter
>> clockwise when viewed from above?
>
> I'm not sure, but I've always imagined it turning clockwise when viewed
> from above.
>
I've always thought of DW as *standing still* [1] with the *sun* going
around it. This is also how the cartoons show it.
That the inhabitants talk about "turning" is a reverse reference to our
"pre-Galileo" habits.
According to the Discworld Mappe, Turnwise is by the clock[2].
Pudde.
[1] Relative to A T'uin.
[2] I can't verify it 100% ATM.
|
|
|
| Re: [I]A DW question, or two [message #289092 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 17:20 |
|
naomi wrote:
> Blake wrote:
> > Perhaps bordering on the offbeat, but: On earth, is the direction east
> > what would be considered turnwise, and west therefore widdershins?
> > Depending on hemisphere either north or south would be hubwards, but
> > there wouldn't be rimwards, unless you are a card carrying member of the
> > flat earth society.
> >
> > Also, does anyone know whether the diskworld spins clockwise or counter
> > clockwise when viewed from above?
> >
> > In case anyone wonders, I was prompted to enquire by the 'AFP has it
> > lost it's direction?' thread.
> >
> > Blake
> >
>
>
> In a book called 'Folklore Myths and Legends of Britain', which my
> husband recently bought for me at a second hand bookstore, on page 19.
>
> "The sun gave more than light and life. It was also a divine source of
> order, a heavenly timepiece. To someone in the northern hemisphere, the
> sun appears to move clockwise around the earth and sun worshippers were
> always careful to perform their ritual dances and processions in a
> clockwise or 'sun-wise', direction.
>
> The feeling that turning 'widdershins' or anticlockwise, is somehow
> wrong, is a hangover from a time when turning 'against the sun' was
> believed to be evil and an open invitation to disaster."
>
>
> From this I deduce that turnwise is clockwise, and Widdershins is
> Widdershins.
>
> It is a very interesting book, almost like a Pratchett annotation file
> all of it's own, and for someone who has never been to Britain a very
> interesting read. I've been meaning to mention it before in the Thread
> about Dicworldish places to visit.
Hmm. I incline to say that there should be identity between
widdershins (as we know it) and Widdershins (in Discworld geography),
otherwise it potentially takes a lot of explaining, but the basis seems
to be that that Disc scholars know that the Disc turns under a sun in a
circular orbit, and of course under the more-or-less fixed stars. I'd
suppose that if you stand still at the rim of the disc, you are carried
Turnwise by the Disc's motion. Therefore the Disc turns clockwise.
This is going by the early and only footnote in _The Colour of Magic_.
If you stand at the North Pole of Roundworld with a sundial, in summer,
the shadow on the sundial turns clockwise. The sun buzzes around the
horizon in an apparent clockwise rotation (as you look from your head
to your feet, at /your/ shadow) and it never sets - until the season
changes. But the greater part of the actual motion taking place
(unless you're some kind of daft Tychonian) is that Roundworld and the
sundial and you yourself - at the pole - are rotating anticlockwise,
leaving the sun roughly stationary.
That is, the norrthern hemisphere of Earth turns widdershins.
Long-time viewers of BBC television, however, will recall a globe of
the earth rotating in the opposite direction to fact. (And a lot
faster than it should do, too.) I forget if this is also the case with
the Universal film studios.
Of course it is awfully easy to get this sort of thing wrong, and I may
have just done so.
|
|
|
| Re: [I]A DW question, or two [message #289100 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 17:54 |
|
Blake <blake_hugh [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps bordering on the offbeat, but: On earth, is the direction east
> what would be considered turnwise, and west therefore widdershins?
The sun rises in the east; therefore the earth spins _towards_ the east;
therefore east is turnwise.
> Depending on hemisphere either north or south would be hubwards, but
> there wouldn't be rimwards, unless you are a card carrying member of the
> flat earth society.
You now have two hubwardses, which is ugly, but borderline logical; by
the same notion, you could, indeed should, call the direction towards
the equator rimwards.
The big problem is that you now have a large line (and given that it is
usually hard to know without GPS whether you are ten miles north of the
equator or ten miles south, a large band) where the word "hubwards"
could mean either north _or_ south, and "rimwards" means nowhere. You
have the same problem with north and south on a spherical earth, but
only at two smaller areas where nobody lives anyway.
> Also, does anyone know whether the diskworld spins clockwise or counter
> clockwise when viewed from above?
Define "above". If you mean "from above the north pole", it spins
towards the east, so counter.
Richard
|
|
|
| Re: [I]A DW question, or two [message #289164 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 20:48 |
|
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 17:03:24 +0200, Pudde Fjord wrote:
> I've always thought of DW as *standing still* [1] with the *sun* going
> around it. This is also how the cartoons show it.
And how Pterry describes it, including the immortal line "the only time an
elephant has to cock its' leg to let the sun go past"
--
Kind regards,
Julian Hall
"I'm only on the planet because I missed the bus home"
|
|
|
| Re: [I]A DW question, or two [message #289165 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 20:50 |
|
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 13:47:57 +0000, naomi wrote:
> In a book called 'Folklore Myths and Legends of Britain', which my husband
> recently bought for me at a second hand bookstore, on page 19.
Is that the one called "A Companion to The Folklore...." etc? I have that
uhhh... somewhere in this room :)
---
Kind regards,
Julian Hall
"I'm only on the planet because I missed the bus home"
|
|
|
| Re: [I]A DW question, or two [message #289168 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 20:57 |
|
The time: 18 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: CeltiKaos
<lists [at] munged4usenet.removethatbitohandthisbit.kaotic.co.uk>
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 17:03:24 +0200, Pudde Fjord wrote:
>
>> I've always thought of DW as *standing still* [1] with the
>> *sun* going around it. This is also how the cartoons show
>> it.
>
> And how Pterry describes it, including the immortal line
> "the only time an elephant has to cock its' leg to let the
> sun go past"
Indeed. But...
Colour of Magic says the Disc revolves once every 800 days.
The Discworld Mapp says the spin changes occasionally (I get
the impression this is the DW version of the Earth's magnetic
field "flipping"). I'm sure there are other references to both
versions.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
|
|
|
| Re: [I]A DW question, or two [message #289181 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 21:25 |
|
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 18:57:38 +0000, Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
> Colour of Magic says the Disc revolves once every 800 days.
IIRC the exact wording of the cartoon says something about the sun
describing "a complicated path" around the DW meaning the elephant cocks
its' leg etc. Since a straight orbit is just a circle or an ellipse I
wouldn't have thought that would be decribed as "complicated" So I would
infer that there is some other jiggerypokery going on.
> The Discworld Mapp says the spin changes occasionally (I get the
> impression this is the DW version of the Earth's magnetic field
> "flipping"). I'm sure there are other references to both versions.
I don't have the Mappe so I will defer to you on that point :)
--
Kind regards,
Julian Hall
"I'm only on the planet because I missed the bus home"
|
|
|
| Re: [I]A DW question, or two [message #289190 ] |
So, 18 Juni 2006 21:49 |
|
raltbos [at] xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) (Hey! That's me!) wrote:
> Blake <blake_hugh [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Also, does anyone know whether the diskworld spins clockwise or counter
> > clockwise when viewed from above?
>
> Define "above". If you mean "from above the north pole", it spins
> towards the east, so counter.
Erm... ok, I missed the "disk"[1] there.
On the Discworld Mapp the direction marked Turnwise is clockwise.
Richard
[1] BTW, it's Dis_c_world.
|
|
|
| Re: [I]A DW question, or two [message #289242 ] |
Mo, 19 Juni 2006 01:17 |
|
CeltiKaos wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 13:47:57 +0000, naomi wrote:
>
>> In a book called 'Folklore Myths and Legends of Britain', which my husband
>> recently bought for me at a second hand bookstore, on page 19.
>
> Is that the one called "A Companion to The Folklore...." etc? I have that
> uhhh... somewhere in this room :)
> ---
> Kind regards,
>
> Julian Hall
> "I'm only on the planet because I missed the bus home"
Mine just says 'Folklore Myths and Legends of Great Britian' First
printing 1977, my copy 1979 by Reader's Digest.
I'd be interested in finding out if yours is a companion book. It is a
very interesting book.
N
|
|
|
| Re: [I]A DW question, or two [message #289316 ] |
Mo, 19 Juni 2006 14:14 |
|
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 23:17:37 +0000, naomi wrote:
> Mine just says 'Folklore Myths and Legends of Great Britian' First
> printing 1977, my copy 1979 by Reader's Digest. I'd be interested in
> finding out if yours is a companion book. It is a very interesting book.
The one I have is called:
A Companion to The Folklore Myths and Legends of Britain
Marc Alexander
CN 107370
Copyright 2002 (softback edition)
Looking on Amazon there are a couple of books of a similar nature.
--
Kind regards,
Julian Hall
"I'm only on the planet because I missed the bus home"
|
|
|
| Re: [R] A DW question, or two [message #289522 ] |
Di, 20 Juni 2006 13:49 |
|
Orjan Westin:
>
> Yes, but the poles are one-dimensional; if you take just one step in any
> direction you will have all four directions evailable to you again. At
> the pole point, you have one direction instead of four.
>
> The equtator is two-dimensional, so you can walk along it turnwise or
> widdershins and still have two hubwards.
The poles are zero-dimensional. The equator is one-dimensional. The
surface as a whole is two-dimensional.
--
\\\\ Jens Ayton, Fratello di Vetinari 36.3636363636364% insane
\\\\\__, Bringing sarcastic one-liners to the common hedgehog since 1999
\\\\\`/
|
|
|
| Re: [I]A DW question, or two [message #289523 ] |
Di, 20 Juni 2006 13:50 |
|
Pudde Fjord:
>>
> I've always thought of DW as *standing still* [1] with the *sun* going
> around it. This is also how the cartoons show it.
There are various references in the books to the disc rotating, and how
the elephants don't need any lubrication (ooh-er). The rotation of the
disc is also used to explain how seasons arise, although it only
succeeds in doing this if you don't think about it too hard.
--
\\\\ Jens Ayton, Fratello di Vetinari 36.3636363636364% insane
\\\\\__, Bringing sarcastic one-liners to the common hedgehog since 1999
\\\\\`/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dimensionality (was: A DW question, or two) [message #289528 ] |
Di, 20 Juni 2006 14:16 |
|
Jens Ayton wrote:
> Orjan Westin:
>>
>> Yes, but the poles are one-dimensional; if you take just one step in
>> any direction you will have all four directions evailable to you
>> again. At the pole point, you have one direction instead of four.
>>
>> The equtator is two-dimensional, so you can walk along it turnwise or
>> widdershins and still have two hubwards.
>
> The poles are zero-dimensional.
Nope. You can move horizontally on them.
> The equator is one-dimensional.
Again, you can move horizontally and still remain on the equator.
> The surface as a whole is two-dimensional.
Nope, Mount Everest, the Mariner Trench et al. disagree with you.
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dimensionality [message #289545 ] |
Di, 20 Juni 2006 17:11 |
|
Orjan Westin:
> Jens Ayton:
>>
>> The poles are zero-dimensional.
>
> Nope. You can move horizontally on them.
Since when? (You can move _vertically_ along the axis, but traditionally
only the point at the surface is the pole.)
>> The equator is one-dimensional.
>
> Again, you can move horizontally and still remain on the equator.
Yes. On one dimension.
>> The surface as a whole is two-dimensional.
>
> Nope, Mount Everest, the Mariner Trench et al. disagree with you.
You can only move in two orthogonal directions while remaining on the
surface. A third dimension is available, but takes you off the surface.
It is a two dimensional surface within a three-dimensional space, just
like the surface of a sheet of paper, and the fact that it's wrinkled
and closed does not change this.
--
\\\\ Jens Ayton, Fratello di Vetinari 36.3636363636364% insane
\\\\\__, Bringing sarcastic one-liners to the common hedgehog since 1999
\\\\\`/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dimensionality [message #289549 ] |
Di, 20 Juni 2006 18:09 |
|
Jens Ayton wrote:
> Orjan Westin:
>> Jens Ayton:
>>>
>>> The poles are zero-dimensional.
>>
>> Nope. You can move horizontally on them.
>
> Since when? (You can move _vertically_ along the axis, but
> traditionally only the point at the surface is the pole.)
D'Oh! Yes, I meant vertically, which makes it one-dimensional.
Traditionally, yes, only a zero-dimensional point is meant when the pole
is mentioned. At least when talking about the magnetic pole. For the
geographical, I'm not so sure.
>>> The equator is one-dimensional.
>>
>> Again, you can move horizontally and still remain on the equator.
>
> Yes. On one dimension.
D'Oh again. For horizontally, read vertically. Geosynchronous
satellites come to mind.
>>> The surface as a whole is two-dimensional.
>>
>> Nope, Mount Everest, the Mariner Trench et al. disagree with you.
>
> You can only move in two orthogonal directions while remaining on the
> surface.
This is true; my apologies. However, "surface" is somewhat misleading,
as both a surface ship and a submarine can be on the equator, for
instance. The ship might or might not be on the "surface", depending on
whether you define surface as the crust or as the boundary to the
atmosphere. The submarine might be below or above the surface, but
while it's submerged it can't be on the surface.
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dimensionality [message #289554 ] |
Di, 20 Juni 2006 18:25 |
|
Jens Ayton <UGPTDOVVSNIT [at] spammotel.com> wrote:
> Orjan Westin:
>
>>> The surface as a whole is two-dimensional.
>>
>> Nope, Mount Everest, the Mariner Trench et al. disagree with you.
>
> You can only move in two orthogonal directions while remaining on the
> surface. A third dimension is available, but takes you off the
> surface. It is a two dimensional surface within a three-dimensional
> space, just like the surface of a sheet of paper, and the fact that
> it's wrinkled and closed does not change this.
Yes, it does, because there are cases where there's more than one position
that corresponds to two coordinates. If I sit under a jutting overhang, I
still sit on the surface of the planet. If you sit at the top, you still
sit on the surface of the planet. We have the same exact longitude and
latitude, but we don't occupy the same exact part of the surface.
Regards,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [I]A DW question, or two [message #289558 ] |
Di, 20 Juni 2006 18:45 |
|
"Jens Ayton" <UGPTDOVVSNIT [at] spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:wiRlg.5579$E02.1608 [at] newsb.telia.net...
> Pudde Fjord:
>>>
>> I've always thought of DW as *standing still* [1] with the *sun*
>> going
>> around it. This is also how the cartoons show it.
>
> There are various references in the books to the disc rotating, and
> how
> the elephants don't need any lubrication (ooh-er). The rotation of the
> disc is also used to explain how seasons arise, although it only
> succeeds in doing this if you don't think about it too hard.
>
I dunno about thinking to hard about it. I mean it is stated that the
Disc's Sun travels a complex path, so how the seasons arise shouldn't be
to hard to imagine, although the equations to describe them would be
horrendous I think.
Heres another one. What do A'tuin and the elephants eat?
Steve
|
|
|
| Re: [I]A DW question, or two [message #289559 ] |
Di, 20 Juni 2006 19:06 |
|
Steve Rogers:
>
> Heres another one. What do A'tuin and the elephants eat?
Space debris, mostly asteroids. I'm pretty sure there's mention in the
book of A'tuin rolling over and snatching a comet.
--
\\\\ Jens Ayton, Fratello di Vetinari 36.3636363636364% insane
\\\\\__, Bringing sarcastic one-liners to the common hedgehog since 1999
\\\\\`/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dimensionality [message #289561 ] |
Di, 20 Juni 2006 19:10 |
|
Arthur Hagen:
> Jens Ayton:
>>
>> You can only move in two orthogonal directions while remaining on the
>> surface. A third dimension is available, but takes you off the
>> surface. It is a two dimensional surface within a three-dimensional
>> space, just like the surface of a sheet of paper, and the fact that
>> it's wrinkled and closed does not change this.
>
> Yes, it does, because there are cases where there's more than one
> position that corresponds to two coordinates. If I sit under a jutting
> overhang, I still sit on the surface of the planet. If you sit at the
> top, you still sit on the surface of the planet. We have the same exact
> longitude and latitude, but we don't occupy the same exact part of the
> surface.
The latitude/longitude system is a projection, not an attribute of the
surface itself. If you roll a paper into a cylinder, then attempt to
identify points on the surface[1] using a linear x/y coordinate system
in the enclosing 3D space, you will get duplicate points. This does not
mean that the act of rolling (or folding, or sufficiently crumpling) the
paper does not change it from a 2D surface to a 3D one.
[1] One side having been selected as "the surface" for
two-dimensionality purposes.
--
\\\\ Jens Ayton, Fratello di Vetinari 36.3636363636364% insane
\\\\\__, Bringing sarcastic one-liners to the common hedgehog since 1999
\\\\\`/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dimensionality [message #289648 ] |
Mi, 21 Juni 2006 03:18 |
|
Jens Ayton wrote:
> Arthur Hagen:
>> Jens Ayton:
>>>
>>> You can only move in two orthogonal directions while remaining on the
>>> surface. A third dimension is available, but takes you off the
>>> surface. It is a two dimensional surface within a three-dimensional
>>> space, just like the surface of a sheet of paper, and the fact that
>>> it's wrinkled and closed does not change this.
>>
>> Yes, it does, because there are cases where there's more than one
>> position that corresponds to two coordinates. If I sit under a jutting
>> overhang, I still sit on the surface of the planet. If you sit at the
>> top, you still sit on the surface of the planet. We have the same exact
>> longitude and latitude, but we don't occupy the same exact part of the
>> surface.
>
> The latitude/longitude system is a projection, not an attribute of the
> surface itself. If you roll a paper into a cylinder, then attempt to
> identify points on the surface[1] using a linear x/y coordinate system
> in the enclosing 3D space, you will get duplicate points. This does not
> mean that the act of rolling (or folding, or sufficiently crumpling) the
> paper does not change it from a 2D surface to a 3D one.
You have one too many nots.
s/does not change/changes/
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: [R]A DW question, or two [message #289706 ] |
Mi, 21 Juni 2006 16:05 |
|
"Jens Ayton" <UGPTDOVVSNIT [at] spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:jWVlg.5618$E02.1721 [at] newsb.telia.net...
> Steve Rogers:
>>
>> Heres another one. What do A'tuin and the elephants eat?
>
> Space debris, mostly asteroids. I'm pretty sure there's mention in the
> book of A'tuin rolling over and snatching a comet.
>
A'tuin yes, but I'm not sure it has ever been mentioned what the elephants
get.
Perhaps they graze on things swept over the rim?
Anthony
--
Good judgement comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgement.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dimensionality [message #289711 ] |
Mi, 21 Juni 2006 18:52 |
|
8'FED:
> Jens Ayton:
>>
>> The latitude/longitude system is a projection, not an attribute of the
>> surface itself. If you roll a paper into a cylinder, then attempt to
>> identify points on the surface[1] using a linear x/y coordinate system
>> in the enclosing 3D space, you will get duplicate points. This does not
>> mean that the act of rolling (or folding, or sufficiently crumpling) the
>> paper does not change it from a 2D surface to a 3D one.
>
> You have one too many nots.
>
> s/does not change/changes/
Nope. Does not, although it should be "does not change it from a 2D
object (a surface) into a 3D one (a volume)." A barycentric coordinate
system which fully covers the surface using two coordinates is equally
trivial to define in each case.
--
\\\\ Jens Ayton, Fratello di Vetinari 36.3636363636364% insane
\\\\\__, Bringing sarcastic one-liners to the common hedgehog since 1999
\\\\\`/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dimensionality [message #289712 ] |
Mi, 21 Juni 2006 19:01 |
|
Jens Ayton wrote:
> 8'FED:
>> Jens Ayton:
>>>
>>> The latitude/longitude system is a projection, not an attribute of the
>>> surface itself. If you roll a paper into a cylinder, then attempt to
>>> identify points on the surface[1] using a linear x/y coordinate system
>>> in the enclosing 3D space, you will get duplicate points. This does not
>>> mean that the act of rolling (or folding, or sufficiently crumpling) the
>>> paper does not change it from a 2D surface to a 3D one.
>>
>> You have one too many nots.
>>
>> s/does not change/changes/
>
> Nope. Does not, although it should be "does not change it from a 2D
> object (a surface) into a 3D one (a volume)."
That is, indeed, an alternative way to correct it.
> A barycentric coordinate
> system which fully covers the surface using two coordinates is equally
> trivial to define in each case.
Quite.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Dimensionality [message #289987 ] |
Fr, 23 Juni 2006 09:38 |
|
Orjan Westin wrote:
> Jens Ayton wrote:
>
>>Since when? (You can move _vertically_ along the axis, but
>>traditionally only the point at the surface is the pole.)
>
> D'Oh! Yes, I meant vertically, which makes it one-dimensional.
>
> Traditionally, yes, only a zero-dimensional point is meant when the pole
> is mentioned. At least when talking about the magnetic pole. For the
> geographical, I'm not so sure.
Say that the poles are the points of intersection of the surface
with a certain line.
>>>>The equator is one-dimensional.
>>>
>>>Again, you can move horizontally and still remain on the equator.
>>
>>Yes. On one dimension.
>
> D'Oh again. For horizontally, read vertically. Geosynchronous
> satellites come to mind.
Again, say that the equator is the line of intersection of the
surface with a certain plane.
He as been talking about the point and the line, while you have
been talking about the line and the plane.
--
Thomas M. Sommers -- tms [at] nj.net -- AB2SB
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 08:43:53 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,05144 Sekunden |
