Talk:Numerical model of solar system
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. | |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
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)
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] "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
