[1725] This is it!

[Daedalus]

Symbolism or real?

[ed1300]

She didn't...

Ahh crap, she did didn't she.

She recreated part of the bloody arrow.

Well as last resorts go this is pretty much it considering what the original did.

[Lightice]

Nothing beats the unspoken plan guarantee!

[ctso74]

Sept 19, 2016 7:04:52 GMT ed1300 said:

She didn't...

Ahh crap, she did didn't she.

She recreated part of the bloody arrow.

Well as last resorts go this is pretty much it considering what the original did.

Seems like it. It would explain her saying, "Don't make me use it." Not only does she no Jeanne's been through enough, but I doubt Kat would want to use Diego's arrow.
Or she just made Kryptonite. Is she Katman?

[fish]

Sept 19, 2016 7:11:40 GMT Lightice said:

Nothing beats the unspoken plan guarantee!

Holy shit, Kat, what did you do?!

edit: I didn't mean to quote you, Lightice. That's what happens if you try to post something two minutes after waking up.

[brokshi]

All we know is that it glows green, like the arrow. We don't know that it functions the same way, all we can assume is it's built on the same (magi)tech.

[madragoran]

Kat have you stared in to the eyes of the beast too long deary?

[Daedalus]

Sept 19, 2016 7:38:12 GMT brokshi said:

All we know is that it glows green, like the arrow. We don't know that it functions the same way, all we can assume is it's built on the same (magi)tech.

It's a reasonable guess given that nothing else in the comic has glowed green in the same way...

[arf]

A "MUAHAHA!" is in order.

[Jelly Jellybean]

Sept 19, 2016 7:04:52 GMT ed1300 said:

She didn't...
Ahh crap, she did didn't she.
She recreated part of the bloody arrow.
Well as last resorts go this is pretty much it considering what the original did.

Sept 19, 2016 8:21:25 GMT arf said:

A "MUAHAHA!" is in order.

No worries, this is all part of the scientific method. Repeatability confirmed. Now Kat just needs to trap enough souls so she can test various methods of freeing them. Mice should do, but she has also heard of some subjects in Foley that will volunteer to do anything for a name

[calpal]

So assuming this is an arrow, and Kat DOES decide to use it on Jeanne, then...

I'm guessing that would be an even worse-case scenario than simply freeing Jeanne? Like they do NOT save their intended target, trapping both inside this green arrow thing; the Annan Waters open up for passage by either side; and they all get into super-trouble for messing with Court business.

SHOULD BE A BLAST!

[Nnelg]

You know, the only thing I can think of is how the direction of light on the moon seems impossible.

[Per]

Sept 19, 2016 11:14:35 GMT Nnelg said:

You know, the only thing I can think of is how the direction of light on the moon seems impossible.

It doesn't show how the moon-sun pairs are matched up, though.

[Nnelg]

Sept 19, 2016 11:40:05 GMT Per said:

Sept 19, 2016 11:14:35 GMT Nnelg said:

You know, the only thing I can think of is how the direction of light on the moon seems impossible.

It doesn't show how the moon-sun pairs are matched up, though.

Well, it's a pretty thin crescent, so the sun and moon shcould be in the sky together for ar least 80% of the day, and I can only see at most 30% of the moon's arc in this picture lining up.

Edit:
Now that I think about it, their paths crossing is even worse an error, since the only way that could happen is if the moon had an orbital period of only a few days.

[arf]

Sept 19, 2016 12:43:29 GMT Nnelg said:

Sept 19, 2016 11:40:05 GMT Per said:

It doesn't show how the moon-sun pairs are matched up, though.

Well, it's a pretty thin crescent, so the sun and moon shcould be in the sky together for ar least 80% of the day, and I can only see at most 30% of the moon's arc in this picture lining up.

Edit:
Now that I think about it, their paths crossing is even worse an error, since the only way that could happen is if the moon had an orbital period of only a few days.

That's no Moon...
That's Cityface having an evening fly.

[dramastix]

I'm torn between hoping the partial box at the bottom right of the page opens up into a gorgeous full-page picture of the actual device, and wanting the plot to keep chugging along....

[Per]

Sept 19, 2016 12:43:29 GMT Nnelg said:

Sept 19, 2016 11:40:05 GMT Per said:

It doesn't show how the moon-sun pairs are matched up, though.

Well, it's a pretty thin crescent, so the sun and moon shcould be in the sky together for ar least 80% of the day, and I can only see at most 30% of the moon's arc in this picture lining up.

Edit:
Now that I think about it, their paths crossing is even worse an error, since the only way that could happen is if the moon had an orbital period of only a few days.

I thought it should be possible to find something Tom might have used for a reference, but the closest I found was this:



Different phase and no crossing.

Go home, Chang'e, you're drunk.

[Trillium]

Sept 19, 2016 11:40:05 GMT Per said:

Sept 19, 2016 11:14:35 GMT Nnelg said:

You know, the only thing I can think of is how the direction of light on the moon seems impossible.

It doesn't show how the moon-sun pairs are matched up, though.

I'm good with it giving the impression of time passing, "Kat worked day and night." It's more interesting than a montage of clock faces. 

Kat may be the first person to really understand Diego and unravel his designs. 

[Nepycros]

I can't help but feel that after 19 moons are shown, they should be in different phases... Or does all of the phase changing take place in the last 9 days of the cycle?

[Grabix]

If you are so smart astronomers, please tell me now, based on paths of moon and sun, what is Court's geographical latitude

[eyemyself]

Sept 19, 2016 15:14:22 GMT Trillium said:

Sept 19, 2016 11:40:05 GMT Per said:

It doesn't show how the moon-sun pairs are matched up, though.

I'm good with it giving the impression of time passing, "Kat worked day and night." It's more interesting than a montage of clock faces. 

Kat may be the first person to really understand Diego and unravel his designs. 

It does look like a time lapse photo, though.

My guess would be that Tom was trying to convey the passing of hours - a transition from day to night - rather than the passing of days. Hence the sun and moon change position in the sky but do not change phases.

[puntino]

Sept 19, 2016 13:33:11 GMT Per said:

Sept 19, 2016 12:43:29 GMT Nnelg said:

Well, it's a pretty thin crescent, so the sun and moon shcould be in the sky together for ar least 80% of the day, and I can only see at most 30% of the moon's arc in this picture lining up.

Edit:
Now that I think about it, their paths crossing is even worse an error, since the only way that could happen is if the moon had an orbital period of only a few days.

I thought it should be possible to find something Tom might have used for a reference, but the closest I found was this:

Image thingy.

Different phase and no crossing.

Go home, Chang'e, you're drunk.

You may notice that, unlike the picture you pasted in here, Tom's version has a lot of perspective to it, looking like those fish-eye lens pictures. That could alter the perception of orbit of both sun and moon.

I'm no astronomer though, so my opinion and nothing are one and the same.

[TBeholder]

Sept 19, 2016 9:47:52 GMT Jelly Jellybean said:

No worries, this is all part of the scientific method. Repeatability confirmed. Now Kat just needs to trap enough souls so she can test various methods of freeing them. Mice should do, but she has also heard of some subjects in Foley that will volunteer to do anything for a name

Foleys can give somewhat more coherent reports than mice. And if a trap doesn't open as planned, it's not like they don't know a simple way to finish the experiment.

[zbeeblebrox]

Sept 19, 2016 16:45:59 GMT Nepycros said:

I can't help but feel that after 19 moons are shown, they should be in different phases... Or does all of the phase changing take place in the last 9 days of the cycle?

It's a time lapse of a single day and night.
In any case, Superman is screwed now.

[arf]

Sept 19, 2016 23:36:22 GMT zbeeblebrox said:

Sept 19, 2016 16:45:59 GMT Nepycros said:

I can't help but feel that after 19 moons are shown, they should be in different phases... Or does all of the phase changing take place in the last 9 days of the cycle?

It's a time lapse of a single day and night.
In any case, Superman is screwed now.

I sincerely hope it's the time lapse of a single day and night.

Otherwise, Donlan, you're a) slacking off, and b) *really* need a shower and laundry change.

[saardvark]

Sept 19, 2016 13:33:11 GMT Per said:

Sept 19, 2016 12:43:29 GMT Nnelg said:

Well, it's a pretty thin crescent, so the sun and moon shcould be in the sky together for ar least 80% of the day, and I can only see at most 30% of the moon's arc in this picture lining up.

Edit:
Now that I think about it, their paths crossing is even worse an error, since the only way that could happen is if the moon had an orbital period of only a few days.

I thought it should be possible to find something Tom might have used for a reference, but the closest I found was this:



Different phase and no crossing.

Go home, Chang'e, you're drunk.

If you look close, there is a slight difference in the sun-moon separation from bottom to top of the image.  There *is* a crossing (outside the image), but a
very gradual one - the actual angle between the orbits is much shallower than drawn.   But there must be a crossing somewhere, otherwise you would never get eclipses.

The angle between the orbital paths is not as sharp as Tom drew.   Call it artistic license... or the fish-eye lens perspective puntino mentions could warp the angle if the lens orientation was just right.  Or maybe when Annie left her lunar fingerprint, she altered the moon's orbit!  

No moon phase change, so I agree, it's likely Tom's way of saying Kat worked round the clock....

[Jelly Jellybean]

Tom uses the Sun to represent the Forest and Annie and the Moon to represent the Court and Kat.  I don't know if Tom meant the meaning of the time lapse frame to extend to the interplay of the Forest and Court, or Annie and Kat, but both extensions fit.

[Nnelg]

Sept 20, 2016 1:48:38 GMT saardvark said:

Sept 19, 2016 13:33:11 GMT Per said:

I thought it should be possible to find something Tom might have used for a reference, but the closest I found was this:



Different phase and no crossing.

Go home, Chang'e, you're drunk.

If you look close, there is a slight difference in the sun-moon separation from bottom to top of the image.  There *is* a crossing (outside the image), but a
very gradual one - the actual angle between the orbits is much shallower than drawn.   But there must be a crossing somewhere, otherwise you would never get eclipses.

But the moon's apparent motion in the sky isn't caused by its orbit, it's caused by the earth's rotation. Since that's the same source as the sun's apparent motion, the two paths should be parallel. (At least, roughly. Maybe they get closer together then farther apart, but they should never cross.)

In order for the moon's orbit to affect its apparent motion in a noticable way, its period has to be so short that a significant portion elapses within a single night; maybe a week at most.

[Sky Schemer]

Full moons rise at sunset and set at sunrise, and new moons rise and set with the sun. A thin crescent moon is within a few days of a new moon, typically no more than five or six.

The moon orbits the earth roughly every 27 days, but has a phase length of about 30 days because the phase is based on its position relative to the sun as viewed from the earth and of course the earth is moving, too. What this means is that, at the mid latitudes, the moon rises about 40 minutes to an hour later each night (depending on where it is in its phase). Around new moons it is closer to 40 minutes later each night.

That means that a crescent moon can be about 4 hours ahead of or behind the sun. Any earlier or later in it's phase and it no longer looks like a crescent. A thin crescent is usually within 1 or 2 hours of the sun.

The lighted side/crescent should always point "towards" the sun. I put that in quotes because in reality the sun is far, far, far behind the moon and not really to one side as we see it in the sky, but the effect of the apparent orientation still holds. As the moon crosses the sky, the crescent should rotate slightly to point at the sun's position. As it crosses from rise to set, it should rotate pretty close to 180 degrees (the sun goes from being "up above" the horizon to "down below").

Putting that together, the orientation of the crescent in the comic suggests that the moon we are seeing is before a new moon, and thus leading rather than following the sun. However, the comic's depiction is impossible because the crescent isn't rotating and isn't pointing towards the sun, and it's also crossing the sun's path at a severe angle, which it shouldn't do at this point in it's phase. (The moon can cross the sun's path, otherwise eclipses wouldn't work).

But it's a comic and it's drawn for artistic effect not hyper-realism.

[saardvark]

Sept 20, 2016 4:14:01 GMT Nnelg said:

Sept 20, 2016 1:48:38 GMT saardvark said:

If you look close, there is a slight difference in the sun-moon separation from bottom to top of the image.  There *is* a crossing (outside the image), but a
very gradual one - the actual angle between the orbits is much shallower than drawn.   But there must be a crossing somewhere, otherwise you would never get eclipses.

But the moon's apparent motion in the sky isn't caused by its orbit, it's caused by the earth's rotation. Since that's the same source as the sun's apparent motion, the two paths should be parallel. (At least, roughly. Maybe they get closer together then farther apart, but they should never cross.)

In order for the moon's orbit to affect its apparent motion in a noticable way, its period has to be so short that a significant portion elapses within a single night; maybe a week at most.

the moon's apparent motion in the sky is caused by both earth's rotation (dominant effect, 1 day timescale) and its own orbital motion (~27 day timescale).  One effect is just slower and more subtle.  The paths must cross, or you would never have lunar or solar eclipses (where both are coincident at the crossing point).  So the paths will nearly parallel (angle between them is about 5 degrees). (I actually *am* an astronomer!  )