| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 22: |
Line 22: |
| | | | |
| | It's not space weather which makes position of planets hard to predict. It's the fact that while we have exact equations for two bodies, {{w|Three-body problem}} has no closed-form solution and leads to chaotic behaviour ... and there is little more than three bodies in our solar system. Also note that it gets even more complicated when you add theory of relativity into the mix. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 07:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC) | | It's not space weather which makes position of planets hard to predict. It's the fact that while we have exact equations for two bodies, {{w|Three-body problem}} has no closed-form solution and leads to chaotic behaviour ... and there is little more than three bodies in our solar system. Also note that it gets even more complicated when you add theory of relativity into the mix. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 07:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC) |
| − | :Space weather ''and'' uncountable minor bodies that have not yet been recorded ''and'' the inability to provide current motion/mass data to quite impossible levels (even for those bodies we haven't missed) lead to potentially chaotic divergences in the future.
| |
| − | :What Mars does in a million years might depend upon solar activity, precisely where it is in its orbit compared to the other major planets, whether any comet has purturbed its moons or indeed what ''humans'' have done to/around it (nudged some comets towards it, assembled a web of space elevators from its adjusted satellites and imported asteroid-belt masses, caused it to ''lose'' mass for various intentional practical or accidental reasons, who knows..?).
| |
| − | :Even ignoring anthropogenic changes, a slightly slower/faster orbit would effect the other planets (at least the inner rocky ones, but probably Jupiter gets resonated differently, eventually, thenceforth most of the system readjusts), which would in turn effect Mars again.
| |
| − | :It is a chaotic system, and basic unknowns such as whether one or more CME will directly engulf any given inner planet (and when) are a detail that can drastically change the already fuzzy propobabilities of exactly when resonances conspire to make great changes to the current astronomical models. Refining the probabilities (based upon current understanding of various odds involved) is a continuous problem, and can never even rule out something unpredictable making even 'short'-term predictions all wrong. You can emperically run an idealised N-body problem through (with multiple runs to encompass the latitude of uncertainty in overtly known values, if you wish, as with weather services) but when something makes it an (N+m)-body problem, all bets are off, to the degree you did not anticipate the extra complications. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.46|162.158.159.46]] 19:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
| |
| | | | |
| | Of course, we now know that the planets are actually styrofoam balls held up by bits of string. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.175.10|172.70.175.10]] 22:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC) | | Of course, we now know that the planets are actually styrofoam balls held up by bits of string. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.175.10|172.70.175.10]] 22:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC) |
| Line 34: |
Line 30: |
| | | | |
| | I just want to say that "This proposal was not well received in academia" was very funny! Well done, whoever wrote that. | | I just want to say that "This proposal was not well received in academia" was very funny! Well done, whoever wrote that. |
| − | :Thank you! I was originally going to explain how nonsensical the idea was. And how every time Velikovsky made an assertion in field X, all of the experts in that field thought it was silly but were willing to accept his claims about other fields. I was concerned that to do so might attract the attention of his loyal followers, who still are out there, which would result in edit wars and vandalism. Then I realized that a very dry NPOV would do. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 17:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | IF I understand quantum mechanics correctly the chance of switching orbits is the chance of the electron suddenly switching locations to a far distance (exceedingly low [citation needed]) multiplied by the inverse ratio of all the electrons in the planet (exceedingly high [citation needed]) which makes a super exceedingly low number [citation: all the math classes where I tried multiplying low ratio numbers and they got smaller. the lower the ratio the smaller the number -- {math is fun <yes it is shuttup>}] So I think that all scientists believe that the planets can switch their orbits, but the chances of this are a) VERY EXCEEDINGLY SUPER LOW and b) about 100% chance going to end up with an unstable orbit [citation the quantum possibility of the entire planet moving to another orbit doesn't change the velocity or acceleration with regard to the new orbital position's relation to the sun's gravitational pull thus with the old velocity and new position's gravitational pull the orbit is no longer a stable one].
| |
| − | CONCLUSION: the statement "This proposal was not well received in academia" may be inadequate. The chances are probably well within 1/TREE(3) chances of happening and I would be shocked if they were not withing 1/TREE(TREE(3)).
| |
| − | :QM applies to all objects, not just electrons. For example, all of the QM behaviour that we're used to applying to electrons is also seen for neutrons: diffraction, double-slit experiments, etc., but scaled appropriately for the mass difference. There ''is'' QM uncertainty associated with objects of planetary mass, it's just really ''really'' tiny. Planetary objects ''do'' change their orbits by absorption and emission of quanta, but the changes in those orbits are unobservably small. Velikovsky was proposing orbit changes on the scale of a solar system. Supposedly, after Venus was barfed out of Jupiter, QM effects caused it to go ping-ponging around the solar system, and its repeated passing by Earth created several of the Biblical miracles. One of the (many) problems with the concept is that it would require the absorption and emission of quanta that would be proportionately enormous, to account for the changes in energy and momentum. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 17:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | “ quantum uncertainty effects are not large enough to notice at the planetary scale…”
| |
| − | : What if you had a cat the size of six solar masses and put it in a box with…
| |
