SUGGESTION: N-body physics and predicting trajectories

An idea hit me this morning. I remember reading that while prediction of 2-body interactions is easy, n-body is impossible to predict with 100% accuracy. Therefore, while it will be simple to depict the projected orbital path of the planets and moons in real-time in PA, n-body path projection will have to be simplified in some way, while still giving useful information. I have a suggestion for how to get around this.

Predict the path using a 2-body model, where the parent is whichever body has the greatest gravitational influence on the child at the time. Instead of plotting this path as a line however, instead show a slowly expanding transparent cone. The rate at which this cone should expand will simply be dependant upon the gravitational influence of other bodies (i.e. not the parent) on the child. In the case of a stable orbit this should remain thin enough that it almost looks like a line, while orbital transfers will tend to show more uncertainty.

This method ought to require significantly less comuptation than a full n-body path prediction, while still providing you with an a accurate prediction of the movements of the orbital bodies. Tell me what you think.

Theres actually quite a lot of complication, and a couple of misunderstandings in this. I think it's time I sat down and wrote an epic explanation of gravity, integration methods, various models and numerical methods.

Ooh please do! Yeah I'm not going to pretend I'm an orbital mechanics buff - most of what I know is from playing Kerbal Space Program xD

I very much enjoy your epic sciencey posts - I think we'd get on well, you and I!

Well, while i'm almost completly ignorant on all this kind of discussions (sadly, i whish i was more incline to absorbing that kind of knowledge, but seems my brain is not accepting it), i love reading such things.

And by reading a thing, that directed me to an other thing...
I found this.

It has NOTHING to do with the topic (or almost nothing), but there was some big work done there.
Some people from Uber could maybe find some useful data in it !

Hehe that's cool. I melted 44% of the earth with it =D

The current accepted theory of orbital mechanics is pretty inconsistent considering the recently discovered history of our own solar system. It is quite exciting to see new advancements and theory's in this field that make sense. Hopefully we will see a decline in the mathmagical bullshit that makes the field of cosmology so uninteresting, and push for a return to the physical and logical sciences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oDnLk3aQh8

Great video for those of us who love space. Full version on vimeo linked in the movies description.

I'm afraid that the video in question scores moderately well on the well venerated Crackpot index. That doesn't mean it's completely and utterly wrong, and it's not the worst offender i've seen, but it does mean that it needs significantly more observational evidence before it will make it into the text books. If you are going to claim that accepted science is wrong, you really need to have a lot of exceptionally strong evidence on your side, and have spent a lot of time on the peer review circuit.

For the time being, it is more important to get planets and asteroids orbiting in a way which is physically sensible, and offers good opportunity for interesting mechanics. If you want to experiment with non-standard cosmologies, you should try and make a mod to see if the whole thing holds together.

How about you actually research the subject before calling it crackpot. You would see that they have far more practical experimental methods and comparative lab results than the majority of what is trying to be pushed forward as accepted.

The biggest thing holding this back is people like you, who call it names and denounce its validity without actually exploring the information they have. I implore you to start at the beginning of their videos if your lazy, or go read the books on the subjects, if your not. I wish I had more time to flesh out the concept in post, but alas I must do some work! Its all out there.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/eg-contents/ or http://www.holoscience.com/wp/ Lots of great information.

I have indeed researched the subject. I have also searched it for unique testable predictions, quantitative mathematical modelling, peer reviewed literature, and taken a look at the common criticisms and responses to those criticisms. So far, it still has yet to provide sufficient evidence to overturn over 100 years worth of evidence generated by more mainstream physics. I place no emotional investment in this, merely a requirement for balance of evidence. If this theory provides more unique testable predictions than mainstream physics, then it becomes accepted. If it does not, it falls by the wayside. It's that simple

Insulting people by claiming they are "holding back" science is really not a good way to go about promoting a theory. It is one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience that it's proponents spend more time attacking their detractors than their detractors' science. By insulting people, you play into this trope. I care nothing for who develops these theories (beyond establishing that they are qualified in the field they claim knowledge of), only for the theory itself. And so far, it hasn't done enough to displace the immense quantity of evidence generated over the last century. Maybe that will change in time. Maybe it won't. Either way, i'm still glad that alternative theories exist, as they safeguard the validities of the more mainstream approaches by providing tests for mainstream science to overcome. Maybe one day, we will have a truly revolutionary paradigm shift in the modern synthesis of Relativity and Quantum mechanics. But i doubt EU is it.

Anyhow, i'm not going to be drawn any further into a debate on the scientific method as applied to non-standard cosmology. I have actual scientific research to do instead. If you wish to discuss this matter, i suggest you take it somewhere else rather than hijacking poor beanspoon's thread.

As is often the case, xkcd is relevant:

So, cosmology for people who can't do maths. I think I'll pass on that.

(Oh, man, laughing at quacks never gets old)