RUS New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 3 of 3«123
Forum » SpaceEngine » Science and Astronomy Discussions » What way would you want earth? (Alternate history)
What way would you want earth?
AlekDate: Saturday, 02.07.2016, 06:35 | Message # 31
Pioneer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 322
Status: Offline
Quote Watsisname ()
the 3-body problem


Trying to make a circular orbit with 4 isnt any easier, it just ends up looking like a flower for awhile before going completely unstable (trust me back in the day I used to make these type of systems in a gravity simulator that had a max of 4 bodies for accuracy's sake)





Living among the stars, I find my way. I grow in strength through knowledge of the space I occupy, until I become the ruler of my own interstellar empire of sorts. Though The world was made for the day, I was made for the night, and thus, the universe itself is within my destiny.
 
spacerDate: Saturday, 02.07.2016, 06:44 | Message # 32
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Israel
Messages: 1258
Status: Offline
gonna try to create this in universe sandbox 2 happy




"we began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still"
-carl sagan

-space engine photographer
 
JackDoleDate: Saturday, 02.07.2016, 06:53 | Message # 33
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Germany
Messages: 1737
Status: Offline
Quote Watsisname ()
In all sincerity, I'm not trying to make a multi-post argument about it.

Okay, but I still wanted to say something to the 'Orbit StabilizerTM': biggrin

This device is absolutely infallible. It is in a crystal cube of 11.24 cm edge length, that can not be opened. If the device nevertheless gets broken, it will be thrown away, and a new device will be ordered in the Galactic network!





Don't forget to look here.



Edited by JackDole - Saturday, 02.07.2016, 06:53
 
WatsisnameDate: Saturday, 02.07.2016, 07:03 | Message # 34
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
Quote Alek ()
Trying to make a circular orbit with 4 isnt any easier, it just ends up looking like a flower for awhile before going completely unstable (trust me back in the day I used to make these type of systems in a gravity simulator that had a max of 4 bodies for accuracy's sake)


Oh yes. The chaos is not specific to 3 bodies. It only gets worse with increasing n (and n>2). (The n-body problem).

This is a really beautiful video showing the same thing not just with particles, but galaxies. happy






 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Tuesday, 05.07.2016, 07:48 | Message # 35
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3600
Status: Offline
Quote spacer ()
gonna try to create this in universe sandbox 2


I have created similar systems in it before but they all end up in much the same way as Watsisname's video. You can get some very stable layouts that last for decades and even centuries, but inevitably small disturbances over time cause imbalances that inevitably lead to planets being thrown from the system. If a civilization had gravity control and multiple redundant generators, which I think would be required, then I guess they could make such a layout work with constant adjustments.





Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
 
JackDoleDate: Tuesday, 05.07.2016, 09:58 | Message # 36
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Germany
Messages: 1737
Status: Offline
What about the 'Klemperer rosette'?

Because each planet is in the Lagrange point of another planet, this orbit should be fairly stable.
Originally I wanted to arrange my six worlds in this way.
But because so are arranged the worlds of Niven's Pierson's Puppeteers, I have put my three smaller worlds in a larger, slightly inclined orbit.


Maybe I'll change that now! biggrin





Don't forget to look here.

 
spacerDate: Tuesday, 05.07.2016, 10:08 | Message # 37
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Israel
Messages: 1258
Status: Offline
JackDole, gonna try do the hexagonal rosette in universe sandbox.
does the barycenter need to be a star they orbit in the same orbit?





"we began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still"
-carl sagan

-space engine photographer
 
JackDoleDate: Tuesday, 05.07.2016, 10:44 | Message # 38
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Germany
Messages: 1737
Status: Offline
Quote spacer ()
does the barycenter need to be a star they orbit in the same orbit?

No, the planets have their orbit around their common center of mass.





Don't forget to look here.

 
spacerDate: Tuesday, 05.07.2016, 10:46 | Message # 39
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Israel
Messages: 1258
Status: Offline
JackDole, tried to do it, but its very hard to do perfect hexagonal rosette so it always ruined :p
the 3 high mass objects i use is jupiter and i tried the 3 low mass objects to be earth or neptune. but its hard to do perfect hexagonal rosette. wacko





"we began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still"
-carl sagan

-space engine photographer


Edited by spacer - Tuesday, 05.07.2016, 10:47
 
JackDoleDate: Tuesday, 05.07.2016, 11:28 | Message # 40
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Germany
Messages: 1737
Status: Offline
spacer,
I just saw in the video that Watsisname has posted here, that this system is also not stable. At least not with galaxies. dry





Don't forget to look here.

 
steeljaw354Date: Tuesday, 05.07.2016, 18:45 | Message # 41
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 862
Status: Offline
Well is that a stable system in the long run for those planets? Can you give the SC file please?

Edited by steeljaw354 - Tuesday, 05.07.2016, 20:45
 
WatsisnameDate: Tuesday, 05.07.2016, 20:47 | Message # 42
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
Quote JackDole ()
Because each planet is in the Lagrange point of another planet, this orbit should be fairly stable.


Sorry, but this is wrong. These are not mutual stable Lagrange points (think L1-L3 which are like hills, not L4-L5 which are like valleys), and the configuration is extremely unstable. Even microscopic deviations from perfect symmetry will amplify exponentially with time. It is very much like the instability of a pencil on its point, or a marble on top of a needle.

Edit:
Quote JackDole ()
I just saw in the video that Watsisname has posted here, that this system is also not stable. At least not with galaxies.


Right. It's not stable with point masses, either.





 
butterarmyxjrblxDate: Wednesday, 06.07.2016, 02:25 | Message # 43
Astronaut
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 71
Status: Offline
Made the system I described in US2. The planets share very similar orbits. (It's the attachment.)
Attachments: 4599547.png(277Kb)





"You can't spell Challenge without change. You need to change to overcome challenges." -Bo Dallas

Edited by butterarmyxjrblx - Wednesday, 06.07.2016, 02:27
 
soapstermoavinisDate: Sunday, 11.09.2016, 08:00 | Message # 44
Observer
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 17
Status: Offline
I would like the Earth to be an disc planet or even a donut planet.Imagine that.I f someone does not know what a donut planet is just google it.
 
BananaDate: Monday, 12.09.2016, 21:43 | Message # 45
Astronaut
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 53
Status: Offline
I think a cube-shaped Earth would be interesting. Of course, a cubical planet would be impossible, but living on one would certainly be interesting.




Hello.

Edited by Banana - Monday, 12.09.2016, 21:44
 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Science and Astronomy Discussions » What way would you want earth? (Alternate history)
Page 3 of 3«123
Search: