![]() ![]() The confirmation that its orbit is retrograde and co-orbital with Jupiter came from these additional observations. The paper by Paul Wiegert of the University of Western Ontario, Canada, published in March in Nature, describes how object 2015 BZ509, detected in January 2015, using the Panoramic Survey Telescope & Rapid Response System (Pan-STARRS) in Hawaii, was tracked using the Large Binocular Telescope in Arizona. In partnership with Fathi Namouni at the Côte d'Azur Observatory in France, Morais developed a general theory on retrograde co-orbitals and retrograde orbital resonance. So, we're sure the asteroid is retrograde, co-orbital and stable." Now it's been confirmed after more observations that reduced the number of errors in the orbital parameters. We've known about this asteroid since 2015, but the orbit hadn't been clearly determined, and it wasn't possible to confirm the co-orbital configuration. "I was sure retrograde co-orbits existed. "It's good to have confirmation," Morais told. Morais had predicted the discovery two years earlier, so much so that the article describing observations of the asteroid published in Nature, is noted by Morais in the News & Views section of the same issue of the journal. The asteroid with the retrograde co-orbit was identified by Helena Morais, a professor at São Paulo State University's Institute of Geosciences & Exact Sciences (IGCE-UNESP). ![]() This is the same orbital period as that of Jupiter, which shares its orbit but moves in the opposite direction to the planet's motion. Asteroid 2015 BZ509, also known as Bee-Zed, takes 12 years to make one complete orbit around the Sun. In our solar system, an asteroid orbits the Sun in the opposite direction to the planets. Prices for horses that can breed racers go up.ĭemand for all new horses go up.Image: Co-orbital bodies that orbit the Sun in the same direction as a planet can follow trajectories (blue curves with arrows) that, from the perspective of the planet, look like tadpoles, horseshoes or 'quasi-satellites'. With racers making good money, prices for racers go up. You'd see racers generating serious income again like back in August (a horse like Sugar Buzz would make 1eth a month). Allow horses to enter 3 races at a time again, remove fatigue. If 1000 races at a time were happening, you'd have to undo the race limiters. The points system should expand to all 12 ranks. Because 90% of the races at their bad distances will result in 8th place. The 3 I have stuck in class 1 I could force into down classes, but it'll cost sooooooooo much money they'd never recoup it. But when you declass a horse on purpose, you have to make it worth the money before you class up again, so these horses are going to the big purses (except for the craziness this tourny is bringing). But this is an issue of horses being very specialized more than anything else. Yes, some horses are very good at X distance, and very bad at Y, allowing them to downclass themselves very easily, and cost effectively. They are doomed to be class 1 forever, so they only do 2$ races because their is no downside. I have 3 horses that almost always finish 1-8 (usually 3-8). With odds, she could have been possibly thrown into bigger purses at lower tiers. So she got to rank 1 carrying a negative ROI. Jane only had one "free" win before getting to rank 1. So if you have a horse like St Louis Blues, or Coeur d'Alene Jane, it'll quickly move out of rank 3 to 2, and then 2 to 1 while you're still exploring it. Flames will let you know what it's good at, but it takes way too much data to know "how good". If you bred a horse, you need to figure out how good it is, and what its good at to know how to race it. if we had 100 classes x 10 races per class, you'd see a lot more loser horses winning.Ģ and 3 are why I hate the removal of odds so much. What we need is more classes, a race of every distance at every class at all times, and expand classes as needed. the point system is very common in racing and is fine. It does not matter if they ever win, You can get 4th-8th every race, and eventually get to class 1. Horses like sugar buzz would be dominating those small purse races because they'd be no downside to entering them. Without classes, why would you make racing harder for your self? I'd much rather win 70% of races vs 15%. So you do $20 races, and you do worse, but win more money than if you ranked up. ![]() If you have a horse that is good, you do not want to go for small purses because you'll win too easily, and advance up against harder horses.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |