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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > 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/ > >
