Antarctica is melting

[KrazyHorse]

I recently wrote an n-body simulation which accurately predicted the motions of 64^3 = 262144 equal-sized masses. This was completed using a particle-mesh method on a 128^3 grid, applying periodic boundary conditions and the Zeldovich approximation to set initial conditions

[Solly]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I recently wrote an n-body simulation which accurately predicted the motions of 64^3 = 262144 equal-sized masses. This was completed using a particle-mesh method on a 128^3 grid, applying periodic boundary conditions and the Zeldovich approximation to set initial conditions

Try doing it with massively inequal sized masses and without approximations. Gimp.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Sandman

Is it scientifically possible a large object passing near the poles could cause a tidal movement disrupting the Antarctic ice shelf. If the moon orbited the poles the tidal motion would inhibit the growth of ice shelves. Marduk need not exist for this to be true... so try to stick to the subject being debated.

It's not scientifically possible for a large object to disrupt the tides without also more forcefully disrupting the Earth's orbit. Gravitational forces are inversely proportional to the square of the distance, but tidal forces are inversely proportional to the cube of the distance. That's why the Moon has a bigger effect on the tides than the Sun, despite the Sun having more gravitational influence on the Earth.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Park Avenue


Try doing it with massively inequal sized masses and without approximations. Gimp.

You're a ****ing tool.

a) The Zeldovich approximation was used to set an initial condition, not complete the integration.

b) Approximations can easily be used and their errors propagated to attain arbitrarily good levels of accuracy.

You don't know **** about the subject, but I suppose that's never stopped you before.



The so-called 3 body problem is certainly nonintegrable. This precludes analytic solutions for the motions of the bodies. But arbitrarily high degrees of precision may be attained in predicting future motion of the bodies using numerical methods to integrate the system of coupled differential equations.

Feel free to keep yammering, my little ignoramus.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Sandman


It's not scientifically possible for a large object to disrupt the tides without also more forcefully disrupting the Earth's orbit. Gravitational forces are inversely proportional to the square of the distance, but tidal forces are inversely proportional to the cube of the distance. That's why the Moon has a bigger effect on the tides than the Sun, despite the Sun having more gravitational influence on the Earth.

Not quite true. If a so-called quantum black hole had passed within a few feet of the ice cap the gravitational gradient would have been severe enough to tear off large chunks of it while the overall momentum imparted to the Earth by this near miss wouldn't have been enough to significantly disturb the Earth's motion.

[Solly]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


You're a ****ing tool.

a) The Zeldovich approximation was used to set an initial condition, not complete the integration.

b) Approximations can easily be used and their errors propagated to attain arbitrarily good levels of accuracy.

You don't know **** about the subject, but I suppose that's never stopped you before.



The so-called 3 body problem is certainly nonintegrable. This precludes analytic solutions for the motions of the bodies. But arbitrarily high degrees of precision may be attained in predicting future motion of the bodies using numerical methods to integrate the system of coupled differential equations.

Feel free to keep yammering, my little ignoramus.

Please do not disservice science. Where have your studies been printed?

There is no solution to 3+ orbital systems.

[KrazyHorse]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=n+body+simulation&btnG=Search

What an Apolyton moment this is. Spinkie, an Econ major with no science background, is lecturing me, a graduate student doing his research in cosmology, on the predictability of N-body systems.

[Solly]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...on&btnG=Search

Nice "simulations".

[KrazyHorse]

?

...and....

your point is?

[KrazyHorse]

Spink, you're always good for a laugh. Secretly, I'm happy with you. You bring discredit to every position you take.

[Solly]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
?

...and....

your point is?

A simulation is not science.

I ask again. What is the "climate change" hypothesis?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Park Avenue


A simulation is not science

Oh. My. ****ing. God.

[Winston]

Having more than two bodies in motion simultaneously is grossly perverted anyway.

[Solly]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse




Oh. My. ****ing. God.

Ditto.

[KrazyHorse]

Well, technically, the "2 and a half body problem" is integrable. So you're allowed two normals and a midget I guess.