[MWForum]Elliptical orbits for planets

[Jeff Knope]

Dale wrote:


> But what is really interesting to me is this exercise illustrates the
> difference between modeling in the turtle world rather than the x-y
> coordinate system that is most often used.  Katy and I have been
developing
> an understanding of how this simple formula works by walking across the
> living room rug.  Looking at the world from an individuals point of view
> rather than a more collectivist vision.
>
> Deep philosophical/political/economic ramifications are at play here.
Logo
> is for sure low level, high level, and every level in between.    Dale
> ---
> >
>
****************
Gee, guys, I dunno.  Is it really a good idea to try to lay political
meaning over this?

It's true, there are fascinating and important distinctions about
point-of-view here.  The relative-movement commands (fd bk rt lt towards
etc.) place the mind's eye at floor level, and mimic the mind space or our
natural perception when walking around.  I often find this the most natural
way to think about moving around on the graphics plane.

 When working in the Cartesian Coordinate System (setx sety setpos seth
etc.), what you refer to as a "collectivist vision," is really closer to the
fiction writer's "omniscient" point-of-view.  That is, standing above the
action, able to see all the characters at once, aware of their relative
positions to each other, etc.  Many graphics purposes profit from this
viewpoint.

In truth, when you look under the hood of the relative-movement commands,
you find Cartesian transformations going on.

In any event, it seems to me the important thing is that both are useful,
and both are valid.  Rarely can we so clearly see alternative styles of
thinking standing side-by-side as available choices.  I'm deeply dubious of
the wisdom of laying "philosophical/political/economic ramifications" over
it.

-Jeff