| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
I was also thinking about difficulties in extrapolation while
simulating consequences of a disturbance imposed on a four stars
system. The initial situation was simple; four identical stars
revolving on the same circle. Then one star is moved suddenly into a
region where the field is less strong (along the radius of the circle).
That destroyed simplicity and motion started to look chaotic. But it
was not chaotic because everything was still governed by Newton's laws.
There were no randomness in simulation, except due to the finite number
of digits used in each calculation. Then my wife asked me to do do
something. When I came back, more than ten minutes later, the motion
was simple again -- two pairs of stars were created (each pair being a
single star). Each pair was revolving along an elliptical (nearly
circular orbit). And two elliptical trajectories had essentially the
same focal point -- r(min) of one orbit and r(min) of another orbit
were occurring at essentially the same time.
It would be impossible to predict something like this (transformation
of complexity into simplicity) by watching what was going on on my
screen during the first minute or so. And here is another illustration.
Is a segment of a trajectory, seen on my screen, part of a straight
line or is it part of a very very very long ellipse? I am using the
I.P. again. The program was designed by an intelligent designer who
used a theory d by Newton. But it simulates a system governed by laws
of nature. I was really surprised by the outcome of evolution displayed
on my screen.
P.S.
I can reproduce what was observed this morning by running the program
again. That would be impossible if randomness was involved.