Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

snip

I've got more issues with your response than with the original statement, but I'm not going to nitpick. I do get your main thrust - it's a system with interesting dynamics.
I just wish you were more precise with your statements, and make sure you don't say things you are not certain about - as a self-proclaimed armchair scientist you should hold yourself to high standards of discourse, IMHO.

Again, only the RESTRICTED 3-body problem has been fully mathematically solved. You DONT GET SPHERICAL OR ELLIPTICAL ORBITS in systems like the pluto-charon system.  Nix and Hydra are all over the damned place; without absolutely precise starting data, you simply cannot predict their orbits!! That means that the restricted 3-body solution DOES NOT WORK. (Without absolute precision, the prediction of the system will diverge from the empirical system's actual motions, given sufficient time.)

Snide remarks about "What Lagrange thought" not withstanding. (Who's solutions are clearly bound inside the restricted problem set, since they dealt with spherical and ellipsoidal orbits. Even thinking about Legrangian solutions in the Pluto-charon system is a giant fucking non-sequitur!)

I dont think I can make it any clearer than that.  There is more to the 3-body problem than the restricted set, which means that the full 3-body problem remains to be fully solved.  The restricted set just covers (what we feel should be) the majority of circumstances.  Pointing to the restricted set solutions and using that as argumentative proof that systems outside that bound cannot work is fallacy. Such systems MAY work, we just cant properly verify that they can or can't. (Which indicates that the model still needs revision!)

Your reaction implied "restricted 3-body problem" == "All of the 3-body problem".  It does not.

Study of systems with very complex orbital mechanics, like this one, is useful to fully solving the system in the remainder of the 3 body problem.  It gives an empirical system to observe, to better frame the mathematical model against.

Yeesh.

Or, do you want me to have to explain why a non-spheroid, or non-elliptical orbit in a 3 body system is outside the scope of the current model, as clarification for my original statement about how the 3-body problem has been a thorn in the side of science for years? (Last I checked, a problem that is over 400 years old, NOT BEING FULLY SOLVED, satisfies all of those conditions.)

[Il Palazzo]

Or, do you want me to have to explain why a non-spheroid, or non-elliptical orbit in a 3 body system is outside the scope of the current model, as clarification for my original statement about how the 3-body problem has been a thorn in the side of science for years? (Last I checked, a problem that is over 400 years old, NOT BEING FULLY SOLVED, satisfies all of those conditions.)

So, were you trying to say that the observation of Pluto's system might help solve this age-old problem? Is that about the gist of it?

[wierd]

No. I was saying that the observations of pluto may help resolve the currently remaining parts of the 3-body problem.

[Il Palazzo]

By the remaining parts you mean reaching a complete solution of the 3-body problem?

[wierd]

Yes. A complete solution, with complimentary proofs.

[Il Palazzo]

Can you also tell me what is a 'spheroid orbit'?

[wierd]

That's me being tired. I DID mean "Semi-circular", however, with complex orbits like the ones being discussed, an object moving in a semi-spherical shell volume instead of a plane may be possible. (Say, how an S orbital on a hydrogen atom is spheroid.)

[Il Palazzo]

I'm still not getting it. A semi-circular orbit - you mean half a circle? Can you give me an example?

[wierd]

Would the completely bogus "pseudo-circular" make you happier, oh pedantic one? An orbit better approximated by a circle, than by an ellipse, since the semi major and semi minor axes are nearly identical.

[Il Palazzo]

Alright I got it.

Would you like me to explain what I find questionable about the contents of your posts?

[Radio Controlled]

Am I... This is the space thread, right? Did I stumble into an oral exam by accident? 

Palazzo, you're gonna give him a passing grade right? Look how hard he's trying!

[wierd]

Certainly--  Since the DEFINING characteristic of the restricted 3-body solution set is that they are constrained to circular and elliptical orbits, and that ONLY the restricted set is solved with accompanying proofs.

Logically, the complete set of 3-body interactions is greater than this restricted set, and thus, the 3-body problem is only partially solved.

I fully expect that your argument will basically boil down to "I dont like your language choice" though.

[Niccolo]

And I fully expect you and il palazzo to cool the fuck down before Toady brings out the Hammer. Seriously guys, we're all here to discuss how awesome space is, not debate over mathematical proofs.

Now let's all point at the Philae lander and say "Holy shit that thing's still alive!"

I do like how one of the ESA staff mentioned that if the lander had landed where originally intentioned, the Sun would have cooked the electronics. I love happy accidents. And I just get a lovely thrill out of how it's eleven years old and functions like a boss.

[wierd]

Well, The comet's bulk was helping to protect the electronics from being fried by raw radiation exposre, the fact that the battery survived in the state of complete discharge this long is very impressive though.

However, the original purpose of the Philae and Rosetta pair were to study the composition and sublimation of the comet nucleus as it approached the sun. The mission is still useful, but not for that original purpose, since the nucleus is no longer "Virgin".

I am happy that the lander is alive and well though.  IIRC, the Philae team put the lander into a power saving mode to wait out the trip after learning that the harpoon trick did not go as planned.

[Il Palazzo]

@wierd: we cool, eh? Those kids say we be fightin' or somesuch nonsense.

I had a longer post in mind, but I'll keep it short: the three body problem is known to be unsolvable outside restricted cases since the late 19th century (Largrange first hinted at it but couldn't prove it, and this is why I mentioned him originally), so nobody's going to look to solve it now;
The restricted 3-body system includes orbits of the small body that are not circular - see horseshoe orbit or tadpole orbit. Circularity is the restriction placed on orbits of the primary and the secondary.
These were the two main issues I had with your posts. The first one is what started it, the second one popped up later.
I hope it's all clear now on both sides.