🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 09:44:12 UTC No. 16619593
can you do an accurate simulation of the solar system using just math? how many thousands of years can you simulate using just numbers and still be accurate without correcting with real life observations? what starting info do you need? just weight, position, and speed of the sun, planet and satellites? or you need to add meteorites and debries to be accurate?
if you do it in a computer, do you need to special numbers or can you just use floats or doubles (checkem)?
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 11:16:48 UTC No. 16619653
>>16619593
no, you can never be truly accurate because we dont really know the precise weight of any astronomical bodies, not even the Earth.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 17:15:18 UTC No. 16619848
>>16619653
so how far into the future can the positions of the planets relative to the sun can be predicted
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 17:20:14 UTC No. 16619859
>>16619593
>>16619848
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-bod
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 17:21:40 UTC No. 16619862
>>16619593
every apparent line is an actual curve.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 17:28:22 UTC No. 16619876
>>16619848
Far enough to send probes on decades long journeys with minimal course corrections along the way.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 17:45:20 UTC No. 16619891
>>16619593
If you knew all of the physical quantities relevant to our current models of planetary motion, you would be accurate for quite some time. What is your definition of "accurate"? How close does the model need to be to observations to be considered "accurate"? Error always accumulates over time.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 19:31:30 UTC No. 16619983
>>16619593
>>16619859
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabi
>For this reason (among others), the Solar System is chaotic in the technical sense defined by mathematical chaos theory,[1] and that chaotic behavior degrades even the most precise long-term numerical or analytic models for the orbital motion in the Solar System, so they cannot be valid beyond more than a few tens of millions of years into the past or future – about 1% its present age.[2]
Pretty long for human observation.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 19:59:00 UTC No. 16620017
>>16619983
>so they cannot be valid beyond more than a few tens of millions of years into the past or future
a few tens of millions of years accuracy is pretty awesome, ngl
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 16:46:26 UTC No. 16620928
>>16619891
>Error always accumulates over time.
Error tends to be more Gaussian in nature. All these recursive, chaotic systems around us show a shocking amount of longterm stability.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 16:47:35 UTC No. 16620930
>>16620928
Is all about stabilizing mistakes