Talk:Numerical model of the Solar System

Physics Start‑class Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Systems: Dynamical systems Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the field of Dynamical systems.

Accuracy Claim

The article claims that it is possible to achieve accurate results in a Runge-Kutta integration of a Solar System model with a step size of 10 days. This is fine for the planets (if errors of a few kilometers in position are acceptable), but not for their satellites. The orbit of the Moon, for example, with its ~28 day period, would not be accurately modeled with a 10-day step size. I'm going to change this and clarify this section, if nobody has any objections. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(random heading)

(inserted by Said: Rursus (☻) 13:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

This article needs a complete rewrite, because it goes into far too much detail. It might be appropriate for an undergrad report, or perhaps for a textbook, but not for an encyclopaedia. Nevertheless, simulation of the Solar system, or more generally, simulation of n-body systems, is certainly a topic fit for Wikipedia. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Also, the current content has to be original research, because no respectible source on solar system dynamics would recommend such a bad algorithm. All physical quantities should be normalized, not in SI; the motion of the sun should be absorbed into the interaction; the positions should be advanced along Keplerian orbits, not this Verlet business; the outer planets should have longer time steps; and if we care about conserving energy, the integrator should be symplectic. And if we don't want to go through the trouble, would it be so terrible to splurge on Runge-Kutta? Ayá. Melchoir 06:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I give it a try. Rather focusing on the idea behind it than going in deep mathematical details --Tauʻolunga 00:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

I moved this article from Numerical model of Solar system to Numerical model of solar system, keeping in line with the lower-case usage at solar system. Please see Talk:Solar_system/Archive_001#Solar_System_vs_Solar_system and Talk:Solar_system/Archive_001#Requested_move (with discussion) for rationale. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Complications"

That paragraph is a train-wreck. It is confusing, has a couple of typos, and just generally needs re-written. Perhaps the entire article needs a "clean up" flag, or something? 74.133.133.186 05:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Derek[reply]

"Tayler series"

There is a problem with the Tayler series equation, the t over 2! should be t^2 I think, someone should change it

Yep, you're probably right, so I changed it. Thanks for your note. Do you know that you could have changed it yourself if you are confident about it? Just click on "edit" at the top of the article. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

solar energy

what exactly is solar technology —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.91.208.71 (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ehhmm!

Eehh, why this name? What is the topic range of "Numerical model"? Numerical computations for planet positions have been performed for at the very least 2400 years (Hipparchus) if not much more. Hipparchus was the first to create models, based on cycles and epicycles, which he used to compute the planet positions. Ptolemy improved on this, and so Arabic astronomers. Copernicus switched cycle assembly system, but kept the cycles and epicycles. Kepler was the first to leave cycles and epicycles for ellipses. First semi-modern computation, using Kepler's formulae. Then Newton took the effort to derive three of Kepler's laws from a general formula of gravitation that he developed, partially pilfering an inversed square from Robert Hooke, without giving proper credit. First fully modern modelling, where laws are derived from each other. Einstein created the relativistic system, which is used just in special cases of higher gravity, then mostly to derive size of perturbations. Latest modern computation. Newton's formula seems to me to be the one on which most modern numerical computations rely on, therefrom deriving VSOP:s, DE400, N-body models and such. The article could be such an overview, linking to individual models. Said: Rursus (☻) 13:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sections: Integration and Modern method are just about N-body successive integration with unspecified integration method. I would think that those section would be the basis for an article about N-body computations. Said: Rursus (☻) 13:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm partially wrong: Celestial mechanics is about the aforementioned models. "Numerical model of solar system" is a misnomer for "Newtonian gravity based numerical models", which is not a good title either. A name change would be good though. Said: Rursus (☻) 13:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]