Jump to content

Talk:Stability of the Solar System

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Predictability, Parallel Computation

[edit]

Regarding "Furthermore, the equations of motion describe a process that is inherently serial, so there is little gain from massively parallel computers," which equations of motion does this apply to?

Parallel computation is used frequently for doing physical 'motion' simulations. Furthermore, there are examples of n-body parallel simulations. For example, the OpenCL NBody simulations:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/cuda_opencl_new.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1sN1ELJfNo

I realize that this implementation is most likely cutting corners with Euler or RK4 integration, but I was under the impression that planetary forces could be accurately predicted over a given timeframe.

--74.177.90.103 (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction in the first paragraphs

[edit]

It currently states in the first paragraph:

… most precise long-term models … are not valid over more than a few tens of millions of years …

That is followed by this statement in the second paragraph:

The Solar System is stable in human terms, in that none of the planets will collide with each other or be ejected from the system in the next few billion years …

My understanding the first statement is correct, and the second statement can not really be made.

If someone with better understanding of the current scientific knowledge could clear this up, I would greatly appreciate this. Tony Mach (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Tony, the claim seems to be in beginning that orbits may change somewhat but not enough to cause collisions or ejected (so by laymen may seem same, sort of like not noticing when a house settles a few inches over 20 years)... but at end of article Laskar 2009 is giving a few scenarios where there are collisions. Overall I think that "none of the planets will collide with each other or be ejected from the system in the next few billion years" is wrong, should at most be stated as "probably none...", there are lots of extra facters, eg may be an unknown extra object in solar system that could eventually destablize, there could be objects outside or solar system that might pass through it in that time scale, or may be for example a change as result of intelligent beings... eg may be a way to trigger some fusion reactions on one side of jupiter... jupiter's gravity couldn't balance it so wouldn't be sustained like a star, but just short burst but may be enough to eject mass in one direction and send jupiter in another. Possible whoever or whatever in future has motive and means to move planets. 50.65.219.232 (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1:1 Resonance of Mercury with Jupiter poorly based

[edit]

Although a 1:1 resonance of Mercury with Jupiter is certainly possible for a short period of time, the scenario is not mentioned explicitely in the referenced articles, as far as I can see. Long-term chaos of the Mercury orbit is investigated in the papers, with ejection, collision, etc. as scenarios with a 1-2% probability, if I understand correctly. 93.231.165.89 (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1:1 Resonance of Mercury effects

[edit]

Has anyone scientifically considered what relativistic effects would occur (elsewhere in our system) in the event of the loss, major orbit shift, or even minor orbit shift of Mercury? Because, Mercury is so deep within the Sun's gravity well, time is slowed there quite significantly as seen from Earth's frame of reference (simple and even short-term telescope observations clear show it moves faster than Newtonian physics calculates). It seems to me, the shift of a significant mass (a small planet) within the largest 'relativistic zone' of the system would generated noticeable effects in the rest of the system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.46.59 (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newton

[edit]

The stability of the Solar System was in some degree mentioned by Newton. The later writers such as Laplace made more detailed calculations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeverrierGlass (talk • contribs) 12:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Scary

[edit]

I'm really freaked out now... can you put something about if we're likely to die or the sun goes supernova?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.0.145.132 (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stability of the Solar System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stability_of_the_Solar_System&oldid=1203801143"