Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Aikanaro
Posts: 1801
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:43 pm UTC
Location: Saint Louis, MO

Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

Postby Aikanaro » Thu Oct 20, 2016 6:23 pm UTC

Question tied to a complicated issue I've never been quite able to wrap my head around..

Hypothesis: For any two complicated bodies you could create in an otherwise empty universe, there is at least one hypothetical "perfect" combination of distance and relative speed which would allow them to maintain perpetual orbit.

True or false?
Dear xkcd,

On behalf of my religion, I'm sorry so many of us do dumb shit. Please forgive us.

Love, Aikanaro.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8509
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

Postby Zohar » Thu Oct 20, 2016 6:32 pm UTC

In classical physics the answer is definitely yes - choose a large enough distance between the two objects and you can push them quickly enough to orbit each other. I don't know about the general relativity calculations for orbital mechanics, but you can read about them here.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Aikanaro
Posts: 1801
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:43 pm UTC
Location: Saint Louis, MO

Re: Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

Postby Aikanaro » Thu Oct 20, 2016 6:35 pm UTC

Okay, so next question: What if one of the bodies is a planet that contains a lot of oceans? Orbital balance is still possible, right?
Dear xkcd,

On behalf of my religion, I'm sorry so many of us do dumb shit. Please forgive us.

Love, Aikanaro.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5526
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

Postby doogly » Thu Oct 20, 2016 6:56 pm UTC

No, they'll slosh energy away and decay. If you want to go to infinity, you need symmetric perfection. Fluids are not forever.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8509
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

Postby Zohar » Thu Oct 20, 2016 6:57 pm UTC

Also oceans imply liquid water, which adds limits on temperature, gravity, atmosphere, possibly a magnetic field (to keep said atmosphere so water doesn't evaporate), etc.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Aikanaro
Posts: 1801
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:43 pm UTC
Location: Saint Louis, MO

Re: Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

Postby Aikanaro » Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:06 pm UTC

What form will the energy take? Thermal? And couldn't the decay be countered by placing the balance either slightly closet or further?
Dear xkcd,

On behalf of my religion, I'm sorry so many of us do dumb shit. Please forgive us.

Love, Aikanaro.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8509
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

Postby Zohar » Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:14 pm UTC

The energy will dissipate into heat, yes. And no, the system will lose energy no matter how you place it.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

Sandor
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:25 am UTC

Re: Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

Postby Sandor » Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:22 am UTC

Zohar wrote:In classical physics the answer is definitely yes - choose a large enough distance between the two objects and you can push them quickly enough to orbit each other. I don't know about the general relativity calculations for orbital mechanics, but you can read about them here.

See also gravitational waves, which will radiate away from any pair of orbiting bodies, causing them to lose energy and (very slowly) spiral in.

doogly wrote:
Aikanaro wrote:Okay, so next question: What if one of the bodies is a planet that contains a lot of oceans? Orbital balance is still possible, right?

No, they'll slosh energy away and decay. If you want to go to infinity, you need symmetric perfection. Fluids are not forever.

Most of the energy loss will be due to tides. If the two bodies are 1:1 tidally locked to each other (so the same sides are always facing each other), losses due to "sloshing" will be much less.

To expand on "fluids are not forever": for two bodies in an otherwise empty universe, there is no background radiation. The two bodies will be forever radiating away thermal energy, so will be getting closer and closer to absolute zero. In the end everything will end up frozen, and there won't be any oceans.

User avatar
eternauta3k
Posts: 519
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 12:19 am UTC
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

Postby eternauta3k » Sat Oct 22, 2016 6:29 pm UTC

Conservation of orbital angular momentum would give you a lower bound for the distance between two rigid bodies. However, I'm not sure that orbital angular momentum is actually conserved here (maybe the bodies torque each other and turn orbital into spin).
VectorZero wrote:It takes a real man to impact his own radius

That's right, slash your emo-wrists and spill all your emo-globin

Tal-Seto
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Listen to BFBS

Re: Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

Postby Tal-Seto » Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:52 pm UTC

The energy-density of two rotating bodies is far too low for a wave.

Tal-Seto
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Listen to BFBS

Re: Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

Postby Tal-Seto » Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:51 am UTC

Ooops! Sorry for inconveniece. This was a side effect from a replay to the past. If you encounter some other artifacts, ignore it.

Gold luck!
(...i [ClassicSpellError] a malkavian...)
Spoiler:
IamveryproudofmyT9.Ihaveverywell eductedit.Itdoeseverytngwng.Ys,itis encrgd,btwittefrststpsyutretng schatng,itbcmswatyumdeoit.
(it keeps secret messages (and now six complete sentences exactly i written. and some single "t"s. (oookay, that's weird, now it grows)))

Tal-Seto
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Listen to BFBS

Re: Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

Postby Tal-Seto » Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:06 am UTC

SCNR
(...i [ClassicSpellError] a malkavian...)
Spoiler:
IamveryproudofmyT9.Ihaveverywell eductedit.Itdoeseverytngwng.Ys,itis encrgd,btwittefrststpsyutretng schatng,itbcmswatyumdeoit.
(it keeps secret messages (and now six complete sentences exactly i written. and some single "t"s. (oookay, that's weird, now it grows)))

Tal-Seto
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Listen to BFBS

Re: Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

Postby Tal-Seto » Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:50 pm UTC

Gravity waves? What sort of thing should that be? What should there "waving"?

What is a wave?


P.S.:
Trust me, the higgs-boson is a hoax.
(...i [ClassicSpellError] a malkavian...)
Spoiler:
IamveryproudofmyT9.Ihaveverywell eductedit.Itdoeseverytngwng.Ys,itis encrgd,btwittefrststpsyutretng schatng,itbcmswatyumdeoit.
(it keeps secret messages (and now six complete sentences exactly i written. and some single "t"s. (oookay, that's weird, now it grows)))

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26726
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:07 pm UTC

Ah, wonderful. A crackpot.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8509
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

Postby Zohar » Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:28 pm UTC

Tal-Seto wrote:P.S.:
Trust me, the higgs-boson is a hoax.

OK, I'll trust you! You definitely convinced me!
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

Tal-Seto
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Listen to BFBS

Re: Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

Postby Tal-Seto » Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:34 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Ah, wonderful. A crackpot.


With a perfect explanation =:)
(...i [ClassicSpellError] a malkavian...)
Spoiler:
IamveryproudofmyT9.Ihaveverywell eductedit.Itdoeseverytngwng.Ys,itis encrgd,btwittefrststpsyutretng schatng,itbcmswatyumdeoit.
(it keeps secret messages (and now six complete sentences exactly i written. and some single "t"s. (oookay, that's weird, now it grows)))

Tal-Seto
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Listen to BFBS

Re: Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

Postby Tal-Seto » Thu Jan 12, 2017 7:01 pm UTC

And i have some background-info.

The book "Knaur's Buch der modernen Physik"  in a edition of the early seventies, together with some lecture about the history of science, points to my conclusion.

...while i'm thinking about it, my explanation is completely without math.
(...i [ClassicSpellError] a malkavian...)
Spoiler:
IamveryproudofmyT9.Ihaveverywell eductedit.Itdoeseverytngwng.Ys,itis encrgd,btwittefrststpsyutretng schatng,itbcmswatyumdeoit.
(it keeps secret messages (and now six complete sentences exactly i written. and some single "t"s. (oookay, that's weird, now it grows)))

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8509
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

Postby Zohar » Thu Jan 12, 2017 7:45 pm UTC

That's very impressive. Astounding that so many physicists in the past fifty years have overlooked this. Surely you've published your results and received professorship offers from multiple universities!
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26726
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:16 pm UTC

Tal-Seto wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Ah, wonderful. A crackpot.

With a perfect explanation =:)

If you posted a picture of a horse and I responded, "Oh look, a horse," would you also complain about the lack of explanation for my statement?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

Postby Copper Bezel » Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:36 pm UTC

I think they meant that they have an explanation, which they're promoting someone to ask for.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
WibblyWobbly
Can't Get No
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:03 pm UTC

Re: Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

Postby WibblyWobbly » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:01 pm UTC

Gee, that's a shame. Anyone have any intention of doing that? No? OK, moving on.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3408
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

Postby Eebster the Great » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:11 pm UTC

I think the problem with this thread is that it's supposed to be about gravity, but it tries to look at real world possibilities, in which everything else gets in the way. You wouldn't need orbiting bodies at all to see that stability is impossible. You could just have a block of cheese sitting in the vacuum, or whatever. Eventually it will evaporate. There isn't really any way around this. Everything evaporates. In the case of orbiting bodies, the vapor will produce drag. Also, the vapor cloud will eventually extend past the other body, thus reducing effective mass. So even in Newtonian physics, even with perfectly rigid and symmetrical bodies, you are going to have problems.

But if you throw all that out and just look at gravity, ignoring other physics, then sure, stable orbits are easily possible in Newtonian physics. In fact, almost all 2-body orbits are stable. The only way for them to be unstable is if both point masses are moving straight towards each other with no perpendicular motion at all, and they crash and form a singularity. Otherwise, you will end up with elliptical, parabolic, or hyperbolic orbits.

Tal-Seto
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Listen to BFBS

Re: Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

Postby Tal-Seto » Thu Jan 12, 2017 11:54 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Tal-Seto wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Ah, wonderful. A crackpot.

With a perfect explanation =:)

If you posted a picture of a horse and I responded, "Oh look, a horse," would you also complain about the lack of explanation for my statement?


Ok, i need a explanation of the principles of a wave from wich i go further.
(...i [ClassicSpellError] a malkavian...)
Spoiler:
IamveryproudofmyT9.Ihaveverywell eductedit.Itdoeseverytngwng.Ys,itis encrgd,btwittefrststpsyutretng schatng,itbcmswatyumdeoit.
(it keeps secret messages (and now six complete sentences exactly i written. and some single "t"s. (oookay, that's weird, now it grows)))

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

Postby Copper Bezel » Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:25 am UTC

I don't think anyone's asking that of you, Tai-Seto.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26726
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:34 am UTC

Tal-Seto wrote:i need a explanation of the principles of a wave

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tal-Seto
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Listen to BFBS

Re: Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

Postby Tal-Seto » Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:04 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Tal-Seto wrote:i need a explanation of the principles of a wave

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave


TL;DR
I suppose you know what you talking about.

I need only a brief explanation of the principles of a wave just to make sure we talk about the same.

At the moment, i won't give such an explanation to avoid manipulation.
(...i [ClassicSpellError] a malkavian...)
Spoiler:
IamveryproudofmyT9.Ihaveverywell eductedit.Itdoeseverytngwng.Ys,itis encrgd,btwittefrststpsyutretng schatng,itbcmswatyumdeoit.
(it keeps secret messages (and now six complete sentences exactly i written. and some single "t"s. (oookay, that's weird, now it grows)))

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3408
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

Postby Eebster the Great » Fri Jan 13, 2017 5:37 am UTC

This isn't a game where we try to trick you into saying something stupid. This is a thread where nobody is really waiting to here about your brilliant idea because nobody cares and that isn't the subject of the thread.

Tal-Seto
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Listen to BFBS

Re: Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

Postby Tal-Seto » Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:50 pm UTC

It's not that i think someone here will manipulate my explanations.
It's because of a third person can't argue i manipulate your point of view in my explanation. Yes, i will change it, but don't manipulate.

The math in the standard theory reminds me to an chess- game against a computer, while the operator of the computer is arguing that computers somtime in the future evolve a bigger intellect than a human.

You can't argue thru such an concrete-wall of counting power.

You must communicate directly with the operator because he is ignoring the fact that he must set up the computer to do what he want.

My thoughts are based on a data set wich most of the interestet non-experts are able to recognise.
(...i [ClassicSpellError] a malkavian...)
Spoiler:
IamveryproudofmyT9.Ihaveverywell eductedit.Itdoeseverytngwng.Ys,itis encrgd,btwittefrststpsyutretng schatng,itbcmswatyumdeoit.
(it keeps secret messages (and now six complete sentences exactly i written. and some single "t"s. (oookay, that's weird, now it grows)))

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26726
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Ideal balance of two bodies in orbit

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:19 pm UTC

Put up or shut up.

Just get to whatever point you want to make, or stop wasting database space with these posts that don't actually say anything.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests