Sorry, Gmail's "intelligent" control of saving and sending got me.
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:35 AM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > Space is big. > > Really... really... BIG > > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:09 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]> >> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >> 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 <[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/ >>> >>> >> >> >
