So can we assume that the long life equilibrium is a 3 body state. Do you think the model is a paralel of the proton with 3 particels as its assumed nowdays? Great video by the way!!!
Thanks for the comment! In this case the three-body situation being stable is probably just a coincidence. There were other cases where only two or even just one planet was remaining. And I think this system would also collapse into a 2-body system, given a bit more time
Good job! Visually, this is the most plausible model I've seen, although it's not perfect. According to my theoretical calculations, with a uniform distribution of matter on the area of the galaxy, the largest angular velocity will be in the outer orbits, and closer to the center, the force of gravitational interaction will decrease and the orbital velocity will decrease.
Can you run an experiment with a circular boundary of considerable radius encapsulating the system with the property of reflecting particles off its surface so the particles have a chance of returning back to the center without flying off into deep space? It's not as scientifically accurate, but it would be cool to see a conservation of mass within the local region.
I believe the law of attraction here does keep all the particles bound to each other, because the forces are inversely proportional to the distance, not the square of it. If I remember correctly, there is no escape velocity with this type of force. The evidence is not in the video, but when I zoomed out, there was only about 5-10% of all the particles off screen. And all of them weren't farther than twice the size of the visible part. So most of them end up in the bodies, packed tightly.
@@grox2417 You're saying that most of the mass was packed inside of the bodies? Do the particles have collision physics or do they just phase through each other? It looked like the balls were losing mass over time but if the particles are just overlapping each other then you can't tell how many particles there are just by looking at the size. Also. What do the colors represent? Is it a gradient showing the center of gravity of the system?
@@shubashuba9209 they do have collision physics, but... They kinda also don't? When overlapping, they experience a pushing force, depending on how much they overlap. Which looks almost exactly like usual collision physics, if the force is big enough. But, if there is something else pushing from the other direction, the particles cannot fly apart and stay in this "equilibrium". If there's a lot of particles in one place, all attracting to each other, a density gradient can form across the "planet" (with the core being the most dense bc all the mass outside is pushing on it). The density also increases as the planet accretes more and more particles, so overall its radius doesn't really change... if we don't count the rotation and gravitational effects of other bodies, which can expand/stretch the planet. That's probably why you thought they "lost mass", bc they did loose rotational energy. So yeah, you can't tell how much stuff there is in a planet judging only by its size, you have to look for other clues, such as: How much the planet is deformed by the outside forces; How fast do other particles and planets orbit the body/how much they are deformed by it (that's probably the most important detail, although you still have to account for rotation); How much stuff the planet leaves behind when it's torn apart/consumed by another body; etc. As for the colors, they represent linear velocity (of each individual particle). Still, it's kinda helpful for estimating the center of mass/the rotation axis
Well, all that stuff I said about estimating mass only applies if you're watching a video like this one. If you're doing it yourself, you can just zoom in on a planet, lol
So basically the only reason our existence is happening, is because we preseive time at a lower speed, compared to the collisions happening on a much larger scale... O_O ... Ultimately I can see a perfect civilization in harmony, before it implodes and repeats the cycle.
Uhh, with a circular-ish initial condition, shouldnt the rotation be more Keplerish? This is rotating almost like a solid body - almost constant angular velocity throughout. Seems very unrealistic, even if "pretty".
Yes, that is correct, for 3d space at least. In 2d, the more realistic version on Newton's law of gravity would be F=Gm1m2/r (not r^2, because there are only 2 dimensions). This is precisely why this thing is rotating like a solid object - in this uniform disk the velocities of particles are proportional to the distance to the center. In 3d, the analogue of this would be a uniform sphere. Of course, it still will not behave like a solid body, because the particles would have to move in different directions in order to stay in circular orbits. But still, their velocities would be proportional to the distance, and the outer particles will move faster than the inner ones. You can also read some stuff I wrote in the description about this
@@grox2417 Uhh, I dont believe that to be the case. In reality, yhou are modelling a 3D reality and then doing a 2D visualisation of it. It is not "intrinsiically" 2D. . ANd even assuming what you said to be true, my comment still stands. Even in Keplerian 2D, the inner parts would be expected to rotate much more rapidly.
@@starpawsy, yes, if I'm modelling 3d and then doing a visualisation, then this is wrong. But I never claimed to have done so. I'm modelling a 2d simulation from the start. And, come to think of it, i also have never claimed this sim to be realistic in the first place Secondly, I mean, I've done the math in the description, you can check it if you want, but this is also (kinda) confirmed by the motion of stars in the central region of the galaxy. Yes, the closest ones orbit a giant black hole, so they move faster (but i don't have a central object here, so nothing like that), but overall the velocities increase when you move out from the center, untill you hit the distance comparable to the height of the galaxy disk
I use Space Simulation Toolkit, the link to it, as well as its name is *(and always was)* in the description of every SST-related video, including this one
There's some cool maths with unjustified claims in the description *and also the game's name, as it always was*
Sorry for the "gravity spam" btw
E
It just smoothly transition into the 3 body problem
The end of the second version is a really good example of a binary star with a planet.
yeah that's what i thought too
How to stop room from rotating now?
Space core
4:27 my boy on the top left corner said "SURPRISE ATTACK!"
Fr
When it formed a stable trinary system, like damn!
Oh wonderful! A long simulation. Great work!
9:47 the one getting closer to another one is like an galaxy
rotational compensation had me puzzled for a while, because it should have collapsed immediately without rotation
So can we assume that the long life equilibrium is a 3 body state. Do you think the model is a paralel of the proton with 3 particels as its assumed nowdays? Great video by the way!!!
Thanks for the comment! In this case the three-body situation being stable is probably just a coincidence. There were other cases where only two or even just one planet was remaining. And I think this system would also collapse into a 2-body system, given a bit more time
Give me some more shrooms, Mal
Good job!
Visually, this is the most plausible model I've seen, although it's not perfect.
According to my theoretical calculations, with a uniform distribution of matter on the area of the galaxy, the largest angular velocity will be in the outer orbits, and closer to the center, the force of gravitational interaction will decrease and the orbital velocity will decrease.
Kinda nerdy, (can’t think of a better word, sorry) but neat nonetheless!
Finally some sph/ sst sim thats long
Can you run an experiment with a circular boundary of considerable radius encapsulating the system with the property of reflecting particles off its surface so the particles have a chance of returning back to the center without flying off into deep space? It's not as scientifically accurate, but it would be cool to see a conservation of mass within the local region.
I believe the law of attraction here does keep all the particles bound to each other, because the forces are inversely proportional to the distance, not the square of it. If I remember correctly, there is no escape velocity with this type of force.
The evidence is not in the video, but when I zoomed out, there was only about 5-10% of all the particles off screen. And all of them weren't farther than twice the size of the visible part. So most of them end up in the bodies, packed tightly.
Actually maybe there were even less than 5%...
@@grox2417 You're saying that most of the mass was packed inside of the bodies? Do the particles have collision physics or do they just phase through each other? It looked like the balls were losing mass over time but if the particles are just overlapping each other then you can't tell how many particles there are just by looking at the size. Also. What do the colors represent? Is it a gradient showing the center of gravity of the system?
@@shubashuba9209 they do have collision physics, but... They kinda also don't? When overlapping, they experience a pushing force, depending on how much they overlap. Which looks almost exactly like usual collision physics, if the force is big enough. But, if there is something else pushing from the other direction, the particles cannot fly apart and stay in this "equilibrium".
If there's a lot of particles in one place, all attracting to each other, a density gradient can form across the "planet" (with the core being the most dense bc all the mass outside is pushing on it).
The density also increases as the planet accretes more and more particles, so overall its radius doesn't really change... if we don't count the rotation and gravitational effects of other bodies, which can expand/stretch the planet. That's probably why you thought they "lost mass", bc they did loose rotational energy.
So yeah, you can't tell how much stuff there is in a planet judging only by its size, you have to look for other clues, such as:
How much the planet is deformed by the outside forces;
How fast do other particles and planets orbit the body/how much they are deformed by it (that's probably the most important detail, although you still have to account for rotation);
How much stuff the planet leaves behind when it's torn apart/consumed by another body;
etc.
As for the colors, they represent linear velocity (of each individual particle). Still, it's kinda helpful for estimating the center of mass/the rotation axis
Well, all that stuff I said about estimating mass only applies if you're watching a video like this one. If you're doing it yourself, you can just zoom in on a planet, lol
Good work we can understand how the universe work 👍
YAY! New vid!
very cool
Looks exactly like galaxies merging. Nothing quite the same real life though.
this needs a speed cap
Okay... at 5:55 I watched, I looked at my ashtray and the contents were spinning... ! lol
Other than that, excellent simulation thanks for sharing
Im dizzy and everything i see looks like is spinning
So basically the only reason our existence is happening, is because we preseive time at a lower speed, compared to the collisions happening on a much larger scale... O_O ... Ultimately I can see a perfect civilization in harmony, before it implodes and repeats the cycle.
??????
1 looks cool
Uhh, with a circular-ish initial condition, shouldnt the rotation be more Keplerish? This is rotating almost like a solid body - almost constant angular velocity throughout. Seems very unrealistic, even if "pretty".
Yes, that is correct, for 3d space at least. In 2d, the more realistic version on Newton's law of gravity would be F=Gm1m2/r (not r^2, because there are only 2 dimensions).
This is precisely why this thing is rotating like a solid object - in this uniform disk the velocities of particles are proportional to the distance to the center.
In 3d, the analogue of this would be a uniform sphere. Of course, it still will not behave like a solid body, because the particles would have to move in different directions in order to stay in circular orbits. But still, their velocities would be proportional to the distance, and the outer particles will move faster than the inner ones.
You can also read some stuff I wrote in the description about this
@@grox2417 Uhh, I dont believe that to be the case. In reality, yhou are modelling a 3D reality and then doing a 2D visualisation of it. It is not "intrinsiically" 2D. .
ANd even assuming what you said to be true, my comment still stands. Even in Keplerian 2D, the inner parts would be expected to rotate much more rapidly.
@@starpawsy, yes, if I'm modelling 3d and then doing a visualisation, then this is wrong. But I never claimed to have done so. I'm modelling a 2d simulation from the start. And, come to think of it, i also have never claimed this sim to be realistic in the first place
Secondly, I mean, I've done the math in the description, you can check it if you want, but this is also (kinda) confirmed by the motion of stars in the central region of the galaxy. Yes, the closest ones orbit a giant black hole, so they move faster (but i don't have a central object here, so nothing like that), but overall the velocities increase when you move out from the center, untill you hit the distance comparable to the height of the galaxy disk
@@grox2417 I think we'll leave it there.
@GroX24 how did you match the rotation of the system?
By trial and error. I used After Effects, if you meant a specific program. And I kinda just eyeballed it
What app do you use
I use Space Simulation Toolkit, the link to it, as well as its name is *(and always was)* in the description of every SST-related video, including this one
I’m dizzy now
Core space
If they don't add intel support at their game my brain will explode
Nice thing
My eyes are now wobbly. Help
WHAT ARE THOSE
What are the colors??
They represent velocities of the particles
@@grox2417 How do you show the velocities of the particles? ( In the game)
@@DanielAlves-og6ux in the "view" menu there are six buttons. The central bottom one enables this view
wow
I think auto rotating camera is a cool feature for the roadmap
Interesante xd
6:12
Lol
This doesnt look very intuitive
while very interesting, it's also nauseating to watch
first
Bruh I was first
Very nice, but I am very dizzy now.
Lol
Lol