SPH model describing the "single impact throry" for the Moon

I was planning on, as a computer science project, simulating the collapse of
a turbulent gass cloud and the formation of starts, but I have come to
beleive the model is too complex and astronomy bound for me right now.

I would like to hear some things on the required complexity of a SPH model
of the creation of the moon from an impack into proto earth which threw out
debris into orbit. From my, non expert, point of view it seems that this can
be tested quite easily, but... what are the features that the model should
exhibit when testing it?

Am I being overly optimistic when thinking about this problem as two
objects, consisting of a number of particles of different type (different
materials) colliding and then this is just a n-body problem which does or
does not over time lump back into two new objects, one orbiting the other?
Which parameters should be included and how do I validate the results
afterwards?

On 21 Apr, 16:53, "Joe Taicoon" wrote:
I was planning on, as a computer science project, simulating the collapse of
a turbulent gass cloud and the formation of starts, but I have come to
beleive the model is too complex and astronomy bound for me right now.

I would like to hear some things on the required complexity of a SPH model
of the creation of the moon from an impack into proto earth which threw out
debris into orbit. From my, non expert, point of view it seems that this can
be tested quite easily, but... what are the features that the model should
exhibit when testing it?

Am I being overly optimistic when thinking about this problem as two
objects, consisting of a number of particles of different type (different
materials) colliding and then this is just a n-body problem which does or
does not over time lump back into two new objects, one orbiting the other?
Which parameters should be included and how do I validate the results
afterwards?

FAKE!

"Joe Taicoon" wrote in
:

I was planning on, as a computer science project, simulating the
collapse of a turbulent gass cloud and the formation of starts, but I
have come to beleive the model is too complex and astronomy bound for
me right now.

I would like to hear some things on the required complexity of a SPH
model of the creation of the moon from an impack into proto earth
which threw out debris into orbit. From my, non expert, point of view
it seems that this can be tested quite easily, but... what are the
features that the model should exhibit when testing it?

Am I being overly optimistic when thinking about this problem as two
objects, consisting of a number of particles of different type
(different materials) colliding and then this is just a n-body problem
which does or does not over time lump back into two new objects, one
orbiting the other? Which parameters should be included and how do I
validate the results afterwards?

Get a thesis advisor.

On Apr 21, 7:53*am, "Joe Taicoon" wrote:
I was planning on, as a computer science project, simulating the collapse of
a turbulent gass cloud and the formation of starts, but I have come to
beleive the model is too complex and astronomy bound for me right now.

I would like to hear some things on the required complexity of a SPH model
of the creation of the moon from an impack into proto earth which threw out
debris into orbit. From my, non expert, point of view it seems that this can
be tested quite easily, but... what are the features that the model should
exhibit when testing it?

Am I being overly optimistic when thinking about this problem as two
objects, consisting of a number of particles of different type (different
materials) colliding and then this is just a n-body problem which does or
does not over time lump back into two new objects, one orbiting the other?
Which parameters should be included and how do I validate the results
afterwards?

Can't but notice what a total crock of bogus replies you've gotten.
It seems they got you on their taboo NO FLY list.

Perhaps their SPH model isn't what they want anyone to put through any
outside review process. Are you as surprised as I am?

~ BG

Can't but notice what a total crock of bogus replies you've gotten.
It seems they got you on their taboo NO FLY list.
Perhaps their SPH model isn't what they want anyone to put through any
outside review process. Are you as surprised as I am?

I assume this group is read by a few people who actually know something
about the subject, even fewer who have personal experience with it and a
large group of people who know just enough to post those "bogus" replies.
:-)

I do however realize that I am trying to sit between two chairs here seing
that my hobby astronomy is not quite enough and that the computer science
part in itself will not help me simulate phenomena that I do not fully
understand. My advisor can also generally only advise me on the CS part,
which is the part I need least help with.

On Apr 25, 1:16*am, "Jason Who" wrote:
Can't but notice what a total crock of bogus replies you've gotten.
It seems they got you on their taboo NO FLY list.
Perhaps their SPH model isn't what they want anyone to put through any
outside review process. *Are you as surprised as I am?

I assume this group is read by a few people who actually know something
about the subject, even fewer who have personal experience with it and a
large group of people who know just enough to post those "bogus" replies.
:-)

I do however realize that I am trying to sit between two chairs here seing
that my hobby astronomy is not quite enough and that the computer science
part in itself will not help me simulate phenomena that I do not fully
understand. My advisor can also generally only advise me on the CS part,
which is the part I need least help with.

It's not that a "single impact theory" is outside of the physics box,
at least not any more so than my Selene capture via a lithobraking
encounter theory.

In the public owned domain are several spendy supercomputers that
could easily perform such complex 3D interactive simulations as based
entirely on the known laws of physics. For some reason, those are all
off-limits to outsiders like yourself.

Usenet/newsgroups are worldwide and even somewhat off-world accessible
to most anyone with half a 5th grade educated brain. Unfortunately,
99.9% of Usenet is saturated with brown-nosed clowns in charge of
mainstream and faith based damage-control.

~ BG

In the public owned domain are several spendy supercomputers that
could easily perform such complex 3D interactive simulations as based
entirely on the known laws of physics. For some reason, those are all
off-limits to outsiders like yourself.

It does not really matter that I do not have access to a large super
computer, or operate a botnet ;-)
The probect should only demonstrate to acertain degree the phenomena I am
considering. It is not supposed to break new grounds in astrophysics, so
offline calculation of less than 100k particles will do fine for my purpose.

On Apr 26, 12:01*am, "Jason Who" wrote:
In the public owned domain are several spendy supercomputers that
could easily perform such complex 3D interactive simulations as based
entirely on the known laws of physics. *For some reason, those are all
off-limits to outsiders like yourself.

It does not really matter that I do not have access to a large super
computer, or operate a botnet ;-)
The probect should only demonstrate to acertain degree the phenomena I am
considering. It is not supposed to break new grounds in astrophysics, so
offline calculation of less than 100k particles will do fine for my purpose.

I'm certain that large enough impacts from rogue items do happen, so
good luck with that.

Perhaps the Sanny AI computer can help. Sanny needs exactly this kind
of computing interaction in order to polish up his AI, so you've got
nothing to lose.

~ BG