This is super important with treating anything like a pointer, or a map. There's no reference on the image and because its a circle with a radial line you can scale and rotate (either your view of the image) to fit 99.9% of everything. To use anything for directional bearing you need both reference and scale. Sure the UP points to Merope 5c, but without a scale I can en-large the image and rotate it to point at everything in the galaxy. There's no evidence or intellectual reason to use the image as a map.
The 'answer' we are looking for is going to be extremely objective so anyone would get the same answer through the same process. Just like the ship graphs. The UA started out with morse names to get us used to listening to morse, then stepped it up later forcing us to apply a method. This image is probably very similar. A form of communication we need to understand to better grasp something that will happen soon.
Treating it like a map IS one possibility. Establishing zero, orientation and scale is necessary, as you say. Given that, can the image and the information we have be used to that end? How about this:
1) All UP's point to Merope 5c. 1 piece of information. Doing our own surveying, we know all kinds of statistics about it.
2) The longitude lines (there are no latitude lines, just a second set of longitude lines 90 degrees apart) do not converge inside the circle. I interpret this to mean that what we are looking for is on the surface, not in orbit our outside of this sphere. IE: the circle is focusing at a portion of the sphere, not all of it.
3) Bottom right quadrant: a line. Many interpret as a direction or a radius. For this theory, I'm going to say it establishes a ZERO angle to use to make angle measurements. It also points to the correct quadrant once we establish correct orientation.
4) A quarter arc, outside of the circle (outside of the portion of the sphere in focus). The way the longitude lines are drawing, there are actually 2 axes. The question becomes, how to align them? There's nothing in space (that I've seen while trying to line them up) that are obvious and 90 degrees apart. Therefore, I choose to interpret this arc as a point that transcribes an arc as the celestial rotates about it's spin axis. That gives us alignment to something very obvious on Merope 5c.
5) However, there are still two possibilities: You can look "down" the spin axis, or you can look "up" the spin axis. We still don't know what side of the planet to plop our map onto. So we have the two concentric quarter arcs in the top right. Merope 5c is tidally locked to Merope 5 in a concentric orbit. Merope 5 also has rings, which resemble the arcs. Double meaning, or just coincidence? Don't care, both work. Now the axis of rotation for the planet is inclined. On one side, you're in the dark... IE: Merope 5 is below the horizon. On the other side, Merope 5 is above the horizon. Choosing the side with Merope 5 above the horizon, and orientating yourself so it's 45 degrees in your top right quadrant gives you a location to plop your map onto the surface, and the map orientation.
6) in 3, I stated that the line is not a radius, simply a "ZERO" mark to start measuring from. In the bottom left quadrant, we have 2 lines intersecting the circumference of the "focus" circle. They also extend outside the circle, where the planet's circumference is also found. But the question becomes, do we measure angles? Or do we measure arc length?
7) Get a CAD or drawing software and create a circle/ellipse (doesn't matter which, depends on how the image is stretched or not) and superimpose it over the focus circle. Make it fit as best you can. Then draw vertical and horizontal lines across the center lines of the grid. Observe where your "best fit" circle/ellipse center is. NOT coincident with the grid. Then try the following: Draw a line from the grid center to the outside tip for both lines in the bottom left quadrant. Do the same again from the center of the circle you placed, to the outside tips of the lines in the bottom right quadrant. You will notice that the lines from the focus circle center to the tips "FIT" much better. What does this mean? It means that they don't share a common center, so measuring angles in not correct. That leaves Arc Lengths. Which is perfect, because it doesn't matter what size you print it at, or how you scale your image, it still works.
8) print out the clue, or use CAD software like I did. Cut a string and wrap it around the focus circle. The end of the string coincides with the line in the bottom right quadrant. With a marker, mark where the two lines in the bottom left quadrant intersect your string. Now measure both lengths.
Do math:
First intersection divided by total string length = 0.095 of the total circumference.
Second intersection divided by total string length = 0.134 of the total circumference.
Now, ratio's don't really help us. However, the line segments point to the outside of the focus circle, where the spherical circumference is found AND the probe points to Merope 5c.
Merope 5c diameter is 1478 Km. Math therefore says Merope 5c Circumference is 4643 Km.
0.095 of 4643 = 441 km
0.135 of 4643 = 622 km.
Merope 5c radius is 1478 Km. Math therefore says Merope 5c Circumference is 9286 Km.
0.095 of 9286 = 882 km
0.135 of 9286 = 1254 km.
So, to summarize:
Location: Merope 5c, clue centered on spin axis, where the Merope 5 star can be seen above the horizon. Align the clue such that Merope 5 is in the top right quadrant (45 degrees is the only even way to place it in that quadrant). The line in the bottom right quadrant tells us what quadrant to search in AND gives us our zero to measure from. So we're looking down and right. Or right and down. We don't know which convention they use, so we have 2 possibilities. That seems like a reasonable solution.
I did all this just to prove you wrong. I can't take it any further until I get in the game and get a bearing from the pole with Merope 5 positioned correctly. I will do the science myself to take it further. Not asking anyone to go forth and do my bidding.
However, I'm not stuck on this BEING the solution. My entire point is, it COULD be a solution. Outright dismissing a possibility is naive. The clue could very well be a map.
