Stacking all the Planets

Cross-posted to William H Calhoun

You've probably come across this idea that all the planets could fit between Earth and the Moon. The usual representation looks like this image I found on Google:

It turns out, it's not entirely true. Here's a good article about this, published in Slate a few years ago. The planets can fit, but you have to make a lot of adjustments.

What got me thinking about this recently was an amazing video I found on YouTube by yeti dynamics (here's YD's channel). He has made a number of what-if? astronomy videos. The video that astonished me was a simulation of the Earth-Moon system with all the planets fitted inside the Moon's orbit. The view is from the Earth's surface, and the speed is greatly increased. It makes your head swim. But there's something spell-binding about these gigantic orbs circling so close to the Earth (that is, if it doesn't give you motion sickness, like it does for my wife).



What really astonished me is how much work it must have taken YD to construct this. He created his assets (images of planets, background landscape, 3-D modeling), programmed the animation, and created the video using Blender, 3dsMax, and Natron.

I was contemplating this Herculean task when I realized that I already had an application designed for astronomical simulation. It's called Celestia, and I've worked with it for years. It comes pre-loaded with visual assets (and you can simply add more), and the animation programming is done with script files, also included, which are easily modified. Celestia's basic job is to model the known universe, but you can also create alternative worlds, alien star systems, and break the laws of physics.

So I made a copy of Celestia's basic solar system script, and started modifying. I didn't want to disturb our solar system, so I chose a new Sun - 18 Scorpio, a star about the same size and composition as our own Sun. Then I started modifying the planetary data. First, I created a spreadsheet to help me work out the distances and orbital times (also called periods) for the planets. This is where I had to work out the adjustments I mentioned above to fit (or stack) the planets. Here's the list of adjustments:

• The Moon is permanently at apogee (greatest distance from Earth)
• All planetary orbits are circular (zero eccentricity)
• All planets are perfectly spherical (mean radius)
• Pluto is included even though it's not a planet anymore (it fit!)
• All bodies are evenly spaced (1666 km gap between bodies)
• Saturn is tilted 45 degrees so the rings won't slice through other planets
• Planets are not in their traditional order, but in order by size.

I took that last point from YD's video. I did try putting the planets in their traditional order, but the visual result was not impressive. This was an inspired move by YD.

Data was obtained from NASA's Planetary Fact Sheets.

Here's a screenshot of my spreadsheet:

This is a 7½-minute video of the final simulation recorded from Celestia. I've positioned the viewpoint in geosynchronous orbit about 8 miles above the Earth's surface, facing northeast, a 50-degree field of view, with the rate of time speeded up a thousandfold.



In case you download and install Celestia, here is a link for downloading a version of the script file I created. You can put it in Celestia's Extras folder, and modify as you wish.

I have shown this simulation to several people. It's quite mesmerizing. As another physics teacher told me, if this is what the sky looked like, we'd never get anything done. My students like it when I project it onto the big whiteboard in my classroom. I'm not sure there is much educational value to it, though. Students seem to recognize that it's "not real," but do understand that the planets would look like that up close. They don't get right away that it's speeded up, and the idea that the planets have been fitted into the Moon's orbit is pretty abstract. Not many people even spot the Moon. Hardly anyone realizes that there's no gravity in the simulation. With gravity, the whole system would collapse pretty quickly. There's no way this could have formed naturally.

But interesting questions do come up, and students like to guess which planet is which, and they sometimes just watch, like you would watch fish in a fish tank. Lankshear & Knobel, in their book New Literacies, describe the role of the teacher as elicitive. In this case, I suggest that, as a teacher, I am being evocative. And maybe that's OK.

New Physics Curriculum

Cross-posted from William H Calhoun

I was tasked this year with redesigning the physics curriculum at my school. Our state (MA) just upgraded their framework, so we needed to re-align. For the last decade, the state's framework was nothing more than a shopping cart of physics topics. There wasn't even an attempt to distinguish topics from concepts. The state assessment required students to have key vocabulary memorized, and to know how to pick out the right equation and apply it correctly to word problems. And that was about it.

My physics team has only three members. For good or for ill, we are all well-versed in the old state framework and assessment. The new framework is mostly based on the Next Generation Science Standards, so it’s quite different. I was excited about the change, because I think the NGSS is a worthy approach. But it’s very different from the old approach, and I wanted the team to have the time and opportunity to adapt. The new curriculum I wrote is organized in a way that looks similar to the old curriculum, but introduces and adapts the new framework language. The team already has a strong bias toward hands-on, project-based, team-oriented classwork. I wanted the physics team to continue moving in that direction, but to shift their conception of this project-based classwork from demonstration-of-topic to phenomenon-model-interaction.

To help our team, perhaps other science teams, and even our supervisors, to better understand the NGSS framework, I created a concept diagram. The diagram is not based directly on the NGSS framework, but is instead a representation of the new curriculum I wrote. I think of the new curriculum as a particular instance of the NGSS framework.

The old curriculum thinking was topic first, application second. The new curriculum flips that around to phenomenon first, model second. The basic interaction is that the phenomenon informs the model, and the model makes predictions about the phenomenon. We choose an anchor phenomenon that is sufficiently complex, has relevance to the lives of the students, and is interesting or engaging. As an aid in exploring this phenomenon, simpler and perhaps more accessible related phenomena are introduced.

The model is related to other models, largely through shared concepts such as force and energy. Through these core concepts, students can develop a picture of physics as a consistent viewpoint and approach to understanding the world, rather than merely a collection of topics. The model is represented and expressed in many ways. These multiple representations give students multiple pathways for exploring the relationship between model and phenomenon.

Finally, in keeping with the idea that learning comes from doing, I include a summary of what students could do as they explore the phenomenon-model relationship. This list is broadly in line with the goals stated in the standards of the new state framework.