Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process
The bad news negates itself: Considering C of E, a miss-aimed craft could not apply more energy to a planet than was originally applied to the craft to bring it up to speed. A continent-melting crash requires that more than a continent-melting supply of fuel has been applied to/used by the craft. Another consideration: The craft has to carry with it a similar amount of energy, stored, to use for deceleration. And twice that again, to come home. If you account for different depths of gravity wells, it comes out different, but not much. We were talking about speeds up towards light, no? So conservation of energy, having obliterated CF (a little gratuitous snark), now moves on to ruin our dreams of visiting other stars. Dave B. On 1/10/2014 5:14 PM, David Roberson wrote: That is amazing! -snip- I have never considered how much damage a space craft traveling near light speed would inflict, but apparently it would be bad news. Dave
Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet The *Bussard ramjet* is a theoretical method of spacecraft propulsionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_propulsionproposed in 1960 by the physicist Robert W. Bussard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Bussard, popularized by Poul Anderson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poul_Anderson's novel *Tau Zero http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_Zero*, Larry Nivenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Nivenin his Known Space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Known_Space series of books, Vernor Vinge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_Vinge in his Zones of Thoughthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zones_of_Thoughtseries, and referred to by Carl Sagan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan in the televisionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Televisionseries and book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos_(book) *Cosmos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos:_A_Personal_Voyage*. Bussard proposed a ramjet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramjet variant of a fusion rocket http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_rocket capable of reasonable interstellar spaceflight, using enormous electromagnetic fields (ranging from kilometers to many thousands of kilometers in diameter) as a ram scoop to collect and compress hydrogenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogenfrom the interstellar medium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium. High speeds force the reactive mass into a progressively constricted magnetic field, compressing it until thermonuclear fusion occurs. The magnetic field then directs the energy as rocket http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket exhaust opposite to the intended direction of travel, thereby accelerating the vessel. When this hydrogen collection strategy is integrated with cold fusion, there is no limitation on the amount of energy that that be applied to a Ram Jet propulsion ship. The conceptual implications of magnetically induced cold fusion is currently beyond the imaginations of most people at this early juncture. On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 7:20 PM, David L Babcock olb...@gmail.com wrote: The bad news negates itself: Considering C of E, a miss-aimed craft could not apply more energy to a planet than was originally applied to the craft to bring it up to speed. A continent-melting crash requires that more than a continent-melting supply of fuel has been applied to/used by the craft. Another consideration: The craft has to carry with it a similar amount of energy, stored, to use for deceleration. And twice that again, to come home. If you account for different depths of gravity wells, it comes out different, but not much. We were talking about speeds up towards light, no? So conservation of energy, having obliterated CF (a little gratuitous snark), now moves on to ruin our dreams of visiting other stars. Dave B. On 1/10/2014 5:14 PM, David Roberson wrote: That is amazing! -snip- I have never considered how much damage a space craft traveling near light speed would inflict, but apparently it would be bad news. Dave
Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 4:20 PM, David L Babcock olb...@gmail.com wrote: A continent-melting crash requires that more than a continent-melting supply of fuel has been applied to/used by the craft. You make an excellent point. But we should not become too complacent in feeling safe that no mis-aimed spaceship will obliterate us. If they have a (hypothetical) cold-fusion-powered thruster, the amount of energy they can draw upon is quite high, provided they have enough fuel (whatever that is). Assuming they don't use a trick with a wormhole or something similar, would the main gating factor not be the maximum thrust/power and the distance from us at which they set out? Also, they could use Dave's slingshot trick to get quite a boost, perhaps even a continent obliterating one. Drivers licenses will be especially important for interstellar travel. Eric
Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process
David L Babcock olb...@gmail.com wrote: The bad news negates itself: Considering C of E, a miss-aimed craft could not apply more energy to a planet than was originally applied to the craft to bring it up to speed. A continent-melting crash requires that more than a continent-melting supply of fuel has been applied to/used by the craft. I don't think this adds up. First, the fuel would be used slowly, over many hours or days as the ship speeds up. Or if it were incoming from another star, the fuel might have been used up over years. Suppose, for example, something goes wrong and it never reverses thrust to slow down. It comes in out of control after accelerating for 5 years in a 10-year trip. Wham! Second, you might actually use up a continent-melting supply of fuel, if it was external to the ship. This statement does not follow: Another consideration: The craft has to carry with it a similar amount of energy, stored, to use for deceleration. And twice that again, to come home. The fuel might be expended at a fixed orbiting base that accelerates the ship with something like a laser beam. Or, as mentioned, the fuel might be scooped out of interstellar space. The hydrogen in the flight path might be deployed in space before the flight, by robots that keep the space lanes filled with gigantic quantities of hydrogen from surrounding star systems. You might find a way to tap a significant fraction of the sun's output to power a ship without vaporizing the ship. I cannot imagine how, but there might be a way. This is enough solar energy to easily accelerate a million-ton ship to 0.9 c. It might power the ship for 0.5 light years out, with another gigantic machine at the destination star to slow it down. The point is, the ship would not have to carry the fuel or the reactors. You might need a gigantic mass of fuel, or building material, for some of these schemes. More than you can conveniently mine from planets and asteroids. In the far distant future suppose people figure out a way to convert the energy from the sun back into mass. The sun loses 4.7 million tons of matter per second in mass-energy conversion. If you could intercept a small part of that and convert it to mass, you would soon have plenty of free hydrogen to deploy in the space lanes, or enough to build a gigantic shell to intercept and concentrate solar energy, and other construction projects as large as the solar system. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process
When I read about the damage to Earth from extraterrestrial objects impacting based on size, it seems they always use speeds close to escape velocity. I've always wondered why is that -- It seems to me that objects could come in at any velocity up to infinity ( or relativistic equivalent energy of infinity ). What would happen if a million mile per hour 1 ton rock impacted? From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2014 11:09 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process Well, I guess that program makes sense of this discovery. Now, we might need to worry about the multitude of other objects that are out there heading in random directions. I have a suspicion that the Earth and other planets and moons have been impacted by this type of debris in the distant past. Let's hope it does not occur too frequently. Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 10, 2014 12:53 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process As luck would have it: Surprising new class of “hypervelocity stars” discovered escaping the galaxy http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2014/01/hypervelocity-stars/ On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Steven, A few years back I also wrote a program that handled a central large star like object with another orbiting it. I had a plan to eventually include a small number of other objects that were to interact gravitationally, but never found the time to complete the project. I was curious about how different attraction laws effected the orbits of planets, and the answer was loud and clear; forget about anything except for the second order case! I observed the elliptical orbits and that was about the end of that project. I am happy to hear that you did something similar but much more extensive. If you get a chance, take a look at that program that I was mentioning (Planets). One item that I find particularly interesting is that you can call up a flood of small planets to interact simultaneously. The behavior that you witness is quite impressive and it makes the fact that our solar system is relatively stable seem fortunate. I did notice that very few moons appear orbiting my planets. My suspicion is that most of the moons seen today are a result of collisions between the main planet and smaller objects. Apparently the blast kicks out a mass of material that then condenses into the many moons. Each of these mirrors the original formation of the sun and its system. I am confident that some of the early moons found themselves ejected by their brothers on occasion. If you are curious, you can load Linux in parallel with your standard system that preserves your original operating system and data. That is what I did to be able to use whichever one I desire. Unfortunately, I went overboard and now have three Windows Vista systems and two Linux systems present on this one computer. Hey, I had the 3 hard drives available! :-) Dave -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 3, 2014 8:39 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process Hi Dave, I tend to concur with your suspicions that the effect is most likely real, this based on my own computations of simple planetary orbits. I have used both single precision and double precision in my simulations. Rounding off errors appeared to be negligible. As far as my own personal observations went I saw little if no difference between SP vs DP. A science program like NOVA recently did a program on how NASA began to use sophisticated gravity assist trajectories in order to shoot satellites out in to further regions of the solar system. The point being, if you have a lot of extra patience the trip can be performed with far less rocket fuel than traditional means. On a related matter, a couple of months ago you may recall I posted on Vort a personal discovery I made concerning what I later learned is actually a derivative of Kepler’s 3rd law, that the square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit. I stumbled across a much more simplified observation of the 3rd law: All orbits that share the same orbital period also share the same distance in their major radius. I didn’t know at the time whether this observation had been made by others, so I posted my findings out on Vortex. See: http://personalpen.orionworks.com/kepler4thlaw.htm Someone eventually was kind enough to point me to a link that correlated my personal observation with Kepler’s 3rd law. Yes, the observation had already been made. Alas, my hope for fame (and bragging rights) had been dashed. Nevertheless, it was fun to discover the fact
Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 6:13 AM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. hoyt-stea...@cox.netwrote: What would happen if a million mile per hour 1 ton rock impacted? There's an interesting xkcd writeup on a similar question (posed by an eight year-old): If a meteor made out of diamond and 100 feet in diameter was traveling at the speed of light and hit the earth, what would happen to it?” http://what-if.xkcd.com/20/ Eric
RE: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process
Thanks for the link. This reminds me of a 1945 science fiction story Things Pass By http://www.troynovant.com/Franson/Leinster/Things-Pass-By.html Not about an impact, but just the effects of very fast but small objects passing nearby with huge relativistic mass -- enough to cause earthquakes etc. From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 8:55 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 6:13 AM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. hoyt-stea...@cox.net wrote: What would happen if a million mile per hour 1 ton rock impacted? There's an interesting xkcd writeup on a similar question (posed by an eight year-old): If a meteor made out of diamond and 100 feet in diameter was traveling at the speed of light and hit the earth, what would happen to it?” http://what-if.xkcd.com/20/ Eric --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: There's an interesting xkcd writeup on a similar question (posed by an eight year-old): If a meteor made out of diamond and 100 feet in diameter was traveling at the speed of light and hit the earth, what would happen to it?” http://what-if.xkcd.com/20/ Amazing. I did not realize such a small object could cause so much damage, even at high speeds. If people ever make large interstellar spaceships the travel at a significant fraction of the speed of light, they better be careful how they steer them. If one goes out of control and whacks into a planet it will cause terrific damage according to these calculations. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process
That is amazing! I suspect that we are safe in assuming that none of the large objects will be traveling at greater than 3000 kilometers/second (1% of the speed of light). Unfortunately, that is plenty fast to destroy the planet if the object is large. I have never considered how much damage a space craft traveling near light speed would inflict, but apparently it would be bad news. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 10, 2014 3:36 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: There's an interesting xkcd writeup on a similar question (posed by an eight year-old): If a meteor made out of diamond and 100 feet in diameter was traveling at the speed of light and hit the earth, what would happen to it?” http://what-if.xkcd.com/20/ Amazing. I did not realize such a small object could cause so much damage, even at high speeds. If people ever make large interstellar spaceships the travel at a significant fraction of the speed of light, they better be careful how they steer them. If one goes out of control and whacks into a planet it will cause terrific damage according to these calculations. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process
Unfortunately that narrative leaves a huge gap between 72km/s and 0.01c (3000km/s) -- and it is right in the geometric middle of this gap that 1 million miles per hour falls: 500km/s. This is important because although it is disappearingly unlikely that one of these hypervelocity (million mph) stars would collide with anything in our solar system, the potential exists for a vastly larger number of vasly smaller objects -- objects on the order of the size of the 100ft diameter diamond asteroid exemplar of the narrative. What is the statistical distribution of such small, hypervelocity objects? Even if all of the potential hypervelocity starts were being ripped apart into precisely 100ft diameter diamonds traveling at 500km/s, I conjecture the odds of any of them impacting anything in our solar system, including the sun, would still be disappearingly small. Nevertheless, this would be an interesting exercise in astronomical numbers. On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 6:13 AM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. hoyt-stea...@cox.net wrote: What would happen if a million mile per hour 1 ton rock impacted? There's an interesting xkcd writeup on a similar question (posed by an eight year-old): If a meteor made out of diamond and 100 feet in diameter was traveling at the speed of light and hit the earth, what would happen to it?” http://what-if.xkcd.com/20/ Eric
Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process
It would be interesting for that speed gap to be filled. We might be able to guesstimate the density of these smaller object in some manner, although at the moment I am at a loss. The main thought that comes to my mind is along the lines that I mentioned previously about the bombardment of Earth, moon, and other planets that happened around a billion years after they were formed. The current theory as I recall is that these missiles came from our solar system when they were diverted by outer planets changing orbits. Of course, the history is mucked up by now and I doubt that the proof is there. Perhaps instead of being home grown, many of these arrived due to being ejected as nearby stars formed. It is likely that many moderate sized objects would be sent fleeing the inner regions of these new stars as large heavy planets take shape and give them the boot. It takes time to reach our sun and a billion years might be enough although I have not calculated how far they might travel during that period. The planet formation period is measured in the millions of years so that period would be relatively brief compared to billions. I am curious as to the distribution of the speeds of these objects as they head outwards. Would we expect them to arrive in waves or slowly dribble into our area? The density of impacts seen upon the moon look like a large gauge shotgun was the source. Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 10, 2014 6:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process Unfortunately that narrative leaves a huge gap between 72km/s and 0.01c (3000km/s) -- and it is right in the geometric middle of this gap that 1 million miles per hour falls: 500km/s. This is important because although it is disappearingly unlikely that one of these hypervelocity (million mph) stars would collide with anything in our solar system, the potential exists for a vastly larger number of vasly smaller objects -- objects on the order of the size of the 100ft diameter diamond asteroid exemplar of the narrative. What is the statistical distribution of such small, hypervelocity objects? Even if all of the potential hypervelocity starts were being ripped apart into precisely 100ft diameter diamonds traveling at 500km/s, I conjecture the odds of any of them impacting anything in our solar system, including the sun, would still be disappearingly small. Nevertheless, this would be an interesting exercise in astronomical numbers. On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 6:13 AM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. hoyt-stea...@cox.net wrote: What would happen if a million mile per hour 1 ton rock impacted? There's an interesting xkcd writeup on a similar question (posed by an eight year-old): If a meteor made out of diamond and 100 feet in diameter was traveling at the speed of light and hit the earth, what would happen to it?” http://what-if.xkcd.com/20/ Eric
Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process
In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 10 Jan 2014 01:09:28 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] Well, I guess that program makes sense of this discovery. Now, we might need to worry about the multitude of other objects that are out there heading in random directions. I have a suspicion that the Earth and other planets and moons have been impacted by this type of debris in the distant past. Let's hope it does not occur too frequently. Dave ...apparently not. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process
As luck would have it: Surprising new class of “hypervelocity stars” discovered escaping the galaxy http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2014/01/hypervelocity-stars/ On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Steven, A few years back I also wrote a program that handled a central large star like object with another orbiting it. I had a plan to eventually include a small number of other objects that were to interact gravitationally, but never found the time to complete the project. I was curious about how different attraction laws effected the orbits of planets, and the answer was loud and clear; forget about anything except for the second order case! I observed the elliptical orbits and that was about the end of that project. I am happy to hear that you did something similar but much more extensive. If you get a chance, take a look at that program that I was mentioning (Planets). One item that I find particularly interesting is that you can call up a flood of small planets to interact simultaneously. The behavior that you witness is quite impressive and it makes the fact that our solar system is relatively stable seem fortunate. I did notice that very few moons appear orbiting my planets. My suspicion is that most of the moons seen today are a result of collisions between the main planet and smaller objects. Apparently the blast kicks out a mass of material that then condenses into the many moons. Each of these mirrors the original formation of the sun and its system. I am confident that some of the early moons found themselves ejected by their brothers on occasion. If you are curious, you can load Linux in parallel with your standard system that preserves your original operating system and data. That is what I did to be able to use whichever one I desire. Unfortunately, I went overboard and now have three Windows Vista systems and two Linux systems present on this one computer. Hey, I had the 3 hard drives available! :-) Dave -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 3, 2014 8:39 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process Hi Dave, I tend to concur with your suspicions that the effect is most likely real, this based on my own computations of simple planetary orbits. I have used both single precision and double precision in my simulations. Rounding off errors appeared to be negligible. As far as my own personal observations went I saw little if no difference between SP vs DP. A science program like NOVA recently did a program on how NASA began to use sophisticated gravity assist trajectories in order to shoot satellites out in to further regions of the solar system. The point being, if you have a lot of extra patience the trip can be performed with far less rocket fuel than traditional means. On a related matter, a couple of months ago you may recall I posted on Vort a personal discovery I made concerning what I later learned is actually a derivative of Kepler’s 3rd law, that the square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit. I stumbled across a much more simplified observation of the 3rd law: All orbits that share the same orbital period also share the same distance in their major radius. I didn’t know at the time whether this observation had been made by others, so I posted my findings out on Vortex. See: http://personalpen.orionworks.com/kepler4thlaw.htm Someone eventually was kind enough to point me to a link that correlated my personal observation with Kepler’s 3rd law. Yes, the observation had already been made. Alas, my hope for fame (and bragging rights) had been dashed. Nevertheless, it was fun to discover the fact that some personal observations I had made about planetary motion based on computer simulations I had personal designed turned out to be confirmed as true. I still think the observation should officially be described as Kepler’s honorary 4th law of planetary motion. ;-) PS: The Kiplinger letter for this Friday made the comment that China’s recent successful rover landing on the moon will fuel some fears in congress that NASA should get a little extra funding boost for planetary research. It will be nothing near the glories of the space race of the sixties. But a modest financial boost never the less. (I love watching the movie: “The Right Stuff.”) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process
Well, I guess that program makes sense of this discovery. Now, we might need to worry about the multitude of other objects that are out there heading in random directions. I have a suspicion that the Earth and other planets and moons have been impacted by this type of debris in the distant past. Let's hope it does not occur too frequently. Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 10, 2014 12:53 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process As luck would have it: Surprising new class of “hypervelocity stars” discovered escaping the galaxy http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2014/01/hypervelocity-stars/ On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Steven, A few years back I also wrote a program that handled a central large star like object with another orbiting it. I had a plan to eventually include a small number of other objects that were to interact gravitationally, but never found the time to complete the project. I was curious about how different attraction laws effected the orbits of planets, and the answer was loud and clear; forget about anything except for the second order case! I observed the elliptical orbits and that was about the end of that project. I am happy to hear that you did something similar but much more extensive. If you get a chance, take a look at that program that I was mentioning (Planets). One item that I find particularly interesting is that you can call up a flood of small planets to interact simultaneously. The behavior that you witness is quite impressive and it makes the fact that our solar system is relatively stable seem fortunate. I did notice that very few moons appear orbiting my planets. My suspicion is that most of the moons seen today are a result of collisions between the main planet and smaller objects. Apparently the blast kicks out a mass of material that then condenses into the many moons. Each of these mirrors the original formation of the sun and its system. I am confident that some of the early moons found themselves ejected by their brothers on occasion. If you are curious, you can load Linux in parallel with your standard system that preserves your original operating system and data. That is what I did to be able to use whichever one I desire. Unfortunately, I went overboard and now have three Windows Vista systems and two Linux systems present on this one computer. Hey, I had the 3 hard drives available! :-) Dave -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 3, 2014 8:39 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process Hi Dave, I tend to concur with your suspicions that the effect is most likely real, this based on my own computations of simple planetary orbits. I have used both single precision and double precision in my simulations. Rounding off errors appeared to be negligible. As far as my own personal observations went I saw little if no difference between SP vs DP. A science program like NOVA recently did a program on how NASA began to use sophisticated gravity assist trajectories in order to shoot satellites out in to further regions of the solar system. The point being, if you have a lot of extra patience the trip can be performed with far less rocket fuel than traditional means. On a related matter, a couple of months ago you may recall I posted on Vort a personal discovery I made concerning what I later learned is actually a derivative of Kepler’s 3rd law, that the square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit. I stumbled across a much more simplified observation of the 3rd law: All orbits that share the same orbital period also share the same distance in their major radius. I didn’t know at the time whether this observation had been made by others, so I posted my findings out on Vortex. See: http://personalpen.orionworks.com/kepler4thlaw.htm Someone eventually was kind enough to point me to a link that correlated my personal observation with Kepler’s 3rd law. Yes, the observation had already been made. Alas, my hope for fame (and bragging rights) had been dashed. Nevertheless, it was fun to discover the fact that some personal observations I had made about planetary motion based on computer simulations I had personal designed turned out to be confirmed as true. I still think the observation should officially be described as Kepler’s honorary 4th law of planetary motion. ;-) PS: The Kiplinger letter for this Friday made the comment that China’s recent successful rover landing on the moon will fuel some fears in congress that NASA should get a little extra funding boost for planetary research. It will be nothing near the glories of the space race of the sixties
Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process
Space is big. Really... Really... BIG On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:09 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Well, I guess that program makes sense of this discovery. Now, we might need to worry about the multitude of other objects that are out there heading in random directions. I have a suspicion that the Earth and other planets and moons have been impacted by this type of debris in the distant past. Let's hope it does not occur too frequently. Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 10, 2014 12:53 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process As luck would have it: Surprising new class of “hypervelocity stars” discovered escaping the galaxy http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2014/01/hypervelocity-stars/ On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Steven, A few years back I also wrote a program that handled a central large star like object with another orbiting it. I had a plan to eventually include a small number of other objects that were to interact gravitationally, but never found the time to complete the project. I was curious about how different attraction laws effected the orbits of planets, and the answer was loud and clear; forget about anything except for the second order case! I observed the elliptical orbits and that was about the end of that project. I am happy to hear that you did something similar but much more extensive. If you get a chance, take a look at that program that I was mentioning (Planets). One item that I find particularly interesting is that you can call up a flood of small planets to interact simultaneously. The behavior that you witness is quite impressive and it makes the fact that our solar system is relatively stable seem fortunate. I did notice that very few moons appear orbiting my planets. My suspicion is that most of the moons seen today are a result of collisions between the main planet and smaller objects. Apparently the blast kicks out a mass of material that then condenses into the many moons. Each of these mirrors the original formation of the sun and its system. I am confident that some of the early moons found themselves ejected by their brothers on occasion. If you are curious, you can load Linux in parallel with your standard system that preserves your original operating system and data. That is what I did to be able to use whichever one I desire. Unfortunately, I went overboard and now have three Windows Vista systems and two Linux systems present on this one computer. Hey, I had the 3 hard drives available! :-) Dave -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 3, 2014 8:39 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process Hi Dave, I tend to concur with your suspicions that the effect is most likely real, this based on my own computations of simple planetary orbits. I have used both single precision and double precision in my simulations. Rounding off errors appeared to be negligible. As far as my own personal observations went I saw little if no difference between SP vs DP. A science program like NOVA recently did a program on how NASA began to use sophisticated gravity assist trajectories in order to shoot satellites out in to further regions of the solar system. The point being, if you have a lot of extra patience the trip can be performed with far less rocket fuel than traditional means. On a related matter, a couple of months ago you may recall I posted on Vort a personal discovery I made concerning what I later learned is actually a derivative of Kepler’s 3rd law, that the square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit. I stumbled across a much more simplified observation of the 3rd law: All orbits that share the same orbital period also share the same distance in their major radius. I didn’t know at the time whether this observation had been made by others, so I posted my findings out on Vortex. See: http://personalpen.orionworks.com/kepler4thlaw.htm Someone eventually was kind enough to point me to a link that correlated my personal observation with Kepler’s 3rd law. Yes, the observation had already been made. Alas, my hope for fame (and bragging rights) had been dashed. Nevertheless, it was fun to discover the fact that some personal observations I had made about planetary motion based on computer simulations I had personal designed turned out to be confirmed as true. I still think the observation should officially be described as Kepler’s honorary 4th law of planetary motion. ;-) PS: The Kiplinger letter for this Friday made the comment that China’s recent successful rover landing on the moon will fuel some fears in congress that NASA
Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process
Space is big. Really... really... BIG On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:09 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Well, I guess that program makes sense of this discovery. Now, we might need to worry about the multitude of other objects that are out there heading in random directions. I have a suspicion that the Earth and other planets and moons have been impacted by this type of debris in the distant past. Let's hope it does not occur too frequently. Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 10, 2014 12:53 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process As luck would have it: Surprising new class of “hypervelocity stars” discovered escaping the galaxy http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2014/01/hypervelocity-stars/ On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Steven, A few years back I also wrote a program that handled a central large star like object with another orbiting it. I had a plan to eventually include a small number of other objects that were to interact gravitationally, but never found the time to complete the project. I was curious about how different attraction laws effected the orbits of planets, and the answer was loud and clear; forget about anything except for the second order case! I observed the elliptical orbits and that was about the end of that project. I am happy to hear that you did something similar but much more extensive. If you get a chance, take a look at that program that I was mentioning (Planets). One item that I find particularly interesting is that you can call up a flood of small planets to interact simultaneously. The behavior that you witness is quite impressive and it makes the fact that our solar system is relatively stable seem fortunate. I did notice that very few moons appear orbiting my planets. My suspicion is that most of the moons seen today are a result of collisions between the main planet and smaller objects. Apparently the blast kicks out a mass of material that then condenses into the many moons. Each of these mirrors the original formation of the sun and its system. I am confident that some of the early moons found themselves ejected by their brothers on occasion. If you are curious, you can load Linux in parallel with your standard system that preserves your original operating system and data. That is what I did to be able to use whichever one I desire. Unfortunately, I went overboard and now have three Windows Vista systems and two Linux systems present on this one computer. Hey, I had the 3 hard drives available! :-) Dave -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 3, 2014 8:39 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process Hi Dave, I tend to concur with your suspicions that the effect is most likely real, this based on my own computations of simple planetary orbits. I have used both single precision and double precision in my simulations. Rounding off errors appeared to be negligible. As far as my own personal observations went I saw little if no difference between SP vs DP. A science program like NOVA recently did a program on how NASA began to use sophisticated gravity assist trajectories in order to shoot satellites out in to further regions of the solar system. The point being, if you have a lot of extra patience the trip can be performed with far less rocket fuel than traditional means. On a related matter, a couple of months ago you may recall I posted on Vort a personal discovery I made concerning what I later learned is actually a derivative of Kepler’s 3rd law, that the square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit. I stumbled across a much more simplified observation of the 3rd law: All orbits that share the same orbital period also share the same distance in their major radius. I didn’t know at the time whether this observation had been made by others, so I posted my findings out on Vortex. See: http://personalpen.orionworks.com/kepler4thlaw.htm Someone eventually was kind enough to point me to a link that correlated my personal observation with Kepler’s 3rd law. Yes, the observation had already been made. Alas, my hope for fame (and bragging rights) had been dashed. Nevertheless, it was fun to discover the fact that some personal observations I had made about planetary motion based on computer simulations I had personal designed turned out to be confirmed as true. I still think the observation should officially be described as Kepler’s honorary 4th law of planetary motion. ;-) PS: The Kiplinger letter for this Friday made the comment that China’s recent successful rover landing on the moon will fuel some fears in congress that NASA
Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process
Sorry, Gmail's intelligent control of saving and sending got me. On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:35 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Space is big. Really... really... BIG On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:09 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Well, I guess that program makes sense of this discovery. Now, we might need to worry about the multitude of other objects that are out there heading in random directions. I have a suspicion that the Earth and other planets and moons have been impacted by this type of debris in the distant past. Let's hope it does not occur too frequently. Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 10, 2014 12:53 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process As luck would have it: Surprising new class of “hypervelocity stars” discovered escaping the galaxy http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2014/01/hypervelocity-stars/ On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Steven, A few years back I also wrote a program that handled a central large star like object with another orbiting it. I had a plan to eventually include a small number of other objects that were to interact gravitationally, but never found the time to complete the project. I was curious about how different attraction laws effected the orbits of planets, and the answer was loud and clear; forget about anything except for the second order case! I observed the elliptical orbits and that was about the end of that project. I am happy to hear that you did something similar but much more extensive. If you get a chance, take a look at that program that I was mentioning (Planets). One item that I find particularly interesting is that you can call up a flood of small planets to interact simultaneously. The behavior that you witness is quite impressive and it makes the fact that our solar system is relatively stable seem fortunate. I did notice that very few moons appear orbiting my planets. My suspicion is that most of the moons seen today are a result of collisions between the main planet and smaller objects. Apparently the blast kicks out a mass of material that then condenses into the many moons. Each of these mirrors the original formation of the sun and its system. I am confident that some of the early moons found themselves ejected by their brothers on occasion. If you are curious, you can load Linux in parallel with your standard system that preserves your original operating system and data. That is what I did to be able to use whichever one I desire. Unfortunately, I went overboard and now have three Windows Vista systems and two Linux systems present on this one computer. Hey, I had the 3 hard drives available! :-) Dave -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 3, 2014 8:39 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process Hi Dave, I tend to concur with your suspicions that the effect is most likely real, this based on my own computations of simple planetary orbits. I have used both single precision and double precision in my simulations. Rounding off errors appeared to be negligible. As far as my own personal observations went I saw little if no difference between SP vs DP. A science program like NOVA recently did a program on how NASA began to use sophisticated gravity assist trajectories in order to shoot satellites out in to further regions of the solar system. The point being, if you have a lot of extra patience the trip can be performed with far less rocket fuel than traditional means. On a related matter, a couple of months ago you may recall I posted on Vort a personal discovery I made concerning what I later learned is actually a derivative of Kepler’s 3rd law, that the square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit. I stumbled across a much more simplified observation of the 3rd law: All orbits that share the same orbital period also share the same distance in their major radius. I didn’t know at the time whether this observation had been made by others, so I posted my findings out on Vortex. See: http://personalpen.orionworks.com/kepler4thlaw.htm Someone eventually was kind enough to point me to a link that correlated my personal observation with Kepler’s 3rd law. Yes, the observation had already been made. Alas, my hope for fame (and bragging rights) had been dashed. Nevertheless, it was fun to discover the fact that some personal observations I had made about planetary motion based on computer simulations I had personal designed turned out to be confirmed as true. I still think the observation should officially be described as Kepler’s honorary 4th law of planetary motion. ;-) PS: The Kiplinger
[Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process
Recently we had a short discussion concerning objects being ejected from planetary systems such as ours. I was toying with the Planets program that I stumbled upon when testing Linux. That program is very interesting and it is easy to fiddle away hours of time just observing how planets interact in a two dimensional stellar system. I recommend that anyone desiring to be fascinated give it a try! One interesting observation that caught my attention was that so many objects appeared to be ejected from the system as they interacted with others orbiting the star. My concern is that this suggested that perhaps millions of these large and dangerous objects would be drifting in open space and some might actually find their way to earth. I made a short post to the list and some of the vorts suggested that the reason for the apparent onslaught was rounding off errors in the math calculating the inverse square law interactions. I looked into the issue further and come away believing that the effect is real and they are out there. In further playing with these types of systems, I generated some with two similar sized star equivalents in orbit around themselves. Each one was orbiting the center of mass of the system at a fairly fast rate. When I introduced planets to the system, it was brutal. Almost every one of the planets that passed near the stars was immediately sent rapidly exiting the system or found itself being destroyed by one of the pair. This effect was so pronounced that I realized that there must be something that demonstrated its powerful influence under these conditions. I reviewed planetary orbits and found the reason fairly quickly. The escape velocity associated with a star or planet is only the square root of two times larger than the orbital velocity at that radius. Also, gravity assist is used to send space probes into and beyond the outer reaches of the solar system all the time and is quite effective. A typical probe can gain the orbital velocity of the object that it encounters by a moderately close fly by. With this process available, an object that begins at a position that is for example located at the distance of the Earth from the sun can fly by Mercury and gain sufficient speed to escape the suns gravity entirely. This same effect would result in the ejection of many random objects that find their way near to inner planets. This would likely happen often and the program appears to demonstrate this nicely. To add some numbers to the words: The escape velocity for an object at the distance of Mercury from the Sun is 67.7 kilometers/second. The same figure for an Earth distance object is 42.1 kilometers/second. So our object orbiting at the Earth's distance from the Sun would be moving at 42.1 km/sec / 1.1414 or 29.77 km/sec. Now, if we direct the object toward Mercury and pick up its orbital velocity of 67.7 km/sec / 1.414 which is 47.87 km/sec , then it is evident that it will have sufficient velocity to escape the Sun's influence. For these reasons, I believe that empty space between stars is more than likely not empty at all and that many large objects are passing through the solar system every year as they wander about. The probability of collisions is small, but not zero due to the enormous dimensions of space and one day we might observe a close encounter of the nasty kind. I would not be surprised if it eventually is determined that hoards of these asteroids and comets have impacted us in the past and come in groups as each of the nearby star ejection events during their births reach our distance. Since planetary systems stabilize in a few million years from what I have read, the ejections and resulting collisions should occur during relatively short historical time frames. It would be interesting to calculate how far one of these hoards reaches in a billion years and compare that to the distance between forming stars. Perhaps someone needs a hobby? :-) Dave
RE: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process
Hi Dave, I tend to concur with your suspicions that the effect is most likely real, this based on my own computations of simple planetary orbits. I have used both single precision and double precision in my simulations. Rounding off errors appeared to be negligible. As far as my own personal observations went I saw little if no difference between SP vs DP. A science program like NOVA recently did a program on how NASA began to use sophisticated gravity assist trajectories in order to shoot satellites out in to further regions of the solar system. The point being, if you have a lot of extra patience the trip can be performed with far less rocket fuel than traditional means. On a related matter, a couple of months ago you may recall I posted on Vort a personal discovery I made concerning what I later learned is actually a derivative of Kepler's 3rd law, that the square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit. I stumbled across a much more simplified observation of the 3rd law: All orbits that share the same orbital period also share the same distance in their major radius. I didn't know at the time whether this observation had been made by others, so I posted my findings out on Vortex. See: http://personalpen.orionworks.com/kepler4thlaw.htm Someone eventually was kind enough to point me to a link that correlated my personal observation with Kepler's 3rd law. Yes, the observation had already been made. Alas, my hope for fame (and bragging rights) had been dashed. Nevertheless, it was fun to discover the fact that some personal observations I had made about planetary motion based on computer simulations I had personal designed turned out to be confirmed as true. I still think the observation should officially be described as Kepler's honorary 4th law of planetary motion. ;-) PS: The Kiplinger letter for this Friday made the comment that China's recent successful rover landing on the moon will fuel some fears in congress that NASA should get a little extra funding boost for planetary research. It will be nothing near the glories of the space race of the sixties. But a modest financial boost never the less. (I love watching the movie: The Right Stuff.) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
Re: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process
Steven, A few years back I also wrote a program that handled a central large star like object with another orbiting it. I had a plan to eventually include a small number of other objects that were to interact gravitationally, but never found the time to complete the project. I was curious about how different attraction laws effected the orbits of planets, and the answer was loud and clear; forget about anything except for the second order case! I observed the elliptical orbits and that was about the end of that project. I am happy to hear that you did something similar but much more extensive. If you get a chance, take a look at that program that I was mentioning (Planets). One item that I find particularly interesting is that you can call up a flood of small planets to interact simultaneously. The behavior that you witness is quite impressive and it makes the fact that our solar system is relatively stable seem fortunate. I did notice that very few moons appear orbiting my planets. My suspicion is that most of the moons seen today are a result of collisions between the main planet and smaller objects. Apparently the blast kicks out a mass of material that then condenses into the many moons. Each of these mirrors the original formation of the sun and its system. I am confident that some of the early moons found themselves ejected by their brothers on occasion. If you are curious, you can load Linux in parallel with your standard system that preserves your original operating system and data. That is what I did to be able to use whichever one I desire. Unfortunately, I went overboard and now have three Windows Vista systems and two Linux systems present on this one computer. Hey, I had the 3 hard drives available! :-) Dave -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jan 3, 2014 8:39 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:[OT]Star Object Ejection Process Hi Dave, I tend to concur with your suspicions that the effect is most likely real, this based on my own computations of simple planetary orbits. I have used both single precision and double precision in my simulations. Rounding off errors appeared to be negligible. As far as my own personal observations went I saw little if no difference between SP vs DP. A science program like NOVA recently did a program on how NASA began to use sophisticated gravity assist trajectories in order to shoot satellites out in to further regions of the solar system. The point being, if you have a lot of extra patience the trip can be performed with far less rocket fuel than traditional means. On a related matter, a couple of months ago you may recall I posted on Vort a personal discovery I made concerning what I later learned is actually a derivative of Kepler’s 3rd law, that the square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit. I stumbled across a much more simplified observation of the 3rd law: All orbits that share the same orbital period also share the same distance in their major radius. I didn’t know at the time whether this observation had been made by others, so I posted my findings out on Vortex. See: http://personalpen.orionworks.com/kepler4thlaw.htm Someone eventually was kind enough to point me to a link that correlated my personal observation with Kepler’s 3rd law. Yes, the observation had already been made. Alas, my hope for fame (and bragging rights) had been dashed. Nevertheless, it was fun to discover the fact that some personal observations I had made about planetary motion based on computer simulations I had personal designed turned out to be confirmed as true. I still think the observation should officially be described as Kepler’s honorary 4th law of planetary motion. ;-) PS: The Kiplinger letter for this Friday made the comment that China’s recent successful rover landing on the moon will fuel some fears in congress that NASA should get a little extra funding boost for planetary research. It will be nothing near the glories of the space race of the sixties. But a modest financial boost never the less. (I love watching the movie: “The Right Stuff.”) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
