Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Parallelogram Law Summations

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    125

    Parallelogram Law Summations

    Hi all. Is there a way to automate Parallelogram Law summations, the way I have shown in the drawing below. [see the link below]. The sun is at the origin. I start at 1, and the arms of the parallelogram law, are v and g. I compute the resultant [shown as bold black arrow], I then use this at 2, where the arms of the second summation are, r and g, and so.

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tFDkItTrHW...cond+Law_4.bmp

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,380
    Hmm. That appears to work for any particular time step (defined by v). So the acceleration parameter must be hidden in there someplace. Of course, the g vector is constantly changing, because the distance to the Sun is always changing, so you're dealing with g1, g2, etc.

    Programming a Newtonian orbit is not too hard (I've even done it), but typically uses a different method. Given an initial position, velocity, and direction, you figure the acceleration and just update the position, velocity, and direction for each step. It's iterative.
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    125
    Cougar, yes you right. But this summation method does not predict closed loops [as can be seen in the drawing too] and I wanted to determine the rate of precession per revolution in relation to distance [inverse square]. If it's not too much trouble could you perhaps write a program that can compute these summations on html canvas? Or does this need a special software?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    125
    Here's a demonstration of the precession. Please go to 1:55 and you will see the marble tracing a flower orbit [aka precession].
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTY1Kje0yLg

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,121
    If you're just modeling two simple masses, there won't be any newtonian precession, except from artifacts of the modeling process.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    125
    grapes, but that's not what the vectors predict. Do you believe there are errors in my summation method? If so, please tell me what they are.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,121
    Since the equations for two body motion can be solved analytically exactly, of course I believe there's an error somewhere.

    It's possible, by discretizing the process you've introduced an artifact into the calculations. I dunno, I don't see any details. There could be a thousand other ways to get a wrong answer.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,409
    Quote Originally Posted by Goeton View Post
    Hi all. Is there a way to automate Parallelogram Law summations, the way I have shown in the drawing below. [see the link below]. The sun is at the origin. I start at 1, and the arms of the parallelogram law, are v and g. I compute the resultant [shown as bold black arrow], I then use this at 2, where the arms of the second summation are, r and g, and so.
    Use a spreadsheet. I use Excel. Put your initial values in row 1 (or row 2 if you like titles). In the next row use formulas to calculate the new values. Repeat that row as many times as you need. Then, if you want to graph some result column(s) just select those columns and create a chart.
    Depending on whom you ask, everything is relative.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Goeton View Post
    ....but that's not what the vectors predict. Do you believe there are errors in my summation method? If so, please tell me what they are.
    Well, from your first graphic, error is introduced mostly from the time step, which is not accounted for. The combination of the and vectors cause the orbiting body to move along in its orbit, right? But the velocity is constantly changing - every second. No every nanosecond. No, every infinitesimal amount of time. In any case, the value of has to be updated at very short intervals. Summing parallelograms formed by the and vectors does not incorporate this consideration.
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •