Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Science: asteroid vs. hero physics
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7490197" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>Here’s a thought experiment for you: in your city frame, there’s a flagpole ahead of the car with a flag blowing in the wind. The wind blows left to right, so the flag blows left to right. The car is approaching the stationary flagpole. Now, let’s shift the frame to that of the car. Now, it appears that the car is stationary and the flagpole is approaching the car. But the flag – the flag is still blowing left to right with the wind. It doesn’t swivel to blow diagonally when you change the frame. </p><p></p><p>Here’s a second though experiment. Let’s use your setup and agree that the wind shifts direction when you change frames. Agreeing to that, can we also agree that the wind exerts a force on the car? In the city frame, that force is left to right, ie, it pushes the car to the right. Perhaps the car is steering to overcome or the friction of the tires to lateral movement is sufficient, but, in any case, the wind is a force acting to push the car to the right in the city frame, yes? Now, shift to the car frame and assume, for the sake of the argument, that the wind is now blowing diagonally down and right towards the car. There’s now some part of the force pushing the car backwards. If this is true, the car must compensate against the wind in two directions rather than one, and that means it must have some forward force even in the car stationary frame or the rate that the city moves past must slow with the added force. This is clearly not the case – the car isn’t dealing with a different force when you change the frame.</p><p></p><p>What you’ve done is a translation on velocity. In this translation, you’ve subtracted the velocity of the car and also subtracted that velocity from the city, resulting in the car having a zero velocity and the city gaining a velocity exactly opposite the car’s original velocity. But the wind is a force, ma, and ma+v doesn’t change the vector of the ma any more than moving a building would affect it’s velocity in the translation. Any given particle of the field of particles comprising the wind will, indeed, adopt the car’s velocity when you shift frames, but the force applied is still left to right.</p><p></p><p>To make an even more clear example, let’s go back to the ball and the car. In the field’s frame, the car has a velocity v(car) upwards and the ball has a velocity v(ball) leftwards. There’s a wind applying a force to both blowing from right to left (ie, accelerating the ball leftwards). The car, due to steering or friction, resists this leftward force of the wind. Now, let’s switch frames. The car’s velocity is subtracted so it now has a relative velocity of 0. The car’s velocity is also subtracted from the ball, so it now has the velocity of the car downward and now appears to move left and down towards the car (in the lower right-hand corner). The wind still blows. If the wind’s direction doesn’t change, then the ball is being accelerated leftwards and will, increasingly, appear to veer to the left as viewed by the car. But, if what you say is true, and the wind also shifts to blow left and down, then the ball merely accelerates towards the car in a straight line. But, if we sum the forces, we have a problem. In the field frame, the ball is experiencing a net force to the left and the car is experiencing the same force with a balancing force (steering or friction) to the right. Now, if we shift and use the former (my) assumption that the wind does not shift, the forces on everything are the same – the car is still at 0 net force and the ball is still being accelerated to the leftwards. If, however, we use your assumption that the wind shifts, the car is now experiencing a down and left force and must compensate by pushing back right (steering or friction) and forward (ie, using the motor) while the ball is experiencing a net acceleration down and right. Your assumption means the car has to press the gas to counter the force of the wind when you shift from the field frame to the car frame. The ball is there to illustrate that the real effect is that the force doesn’t change vectors and will still be accelerated leftwards and no left and down.</p><p></p><p>I may have just stumbled on a better way to say this: slope doesn’t change if you move the intercept. Y= mx+b. m is independent of b. Changing b is like the frame shifts we’re talking about – the force vector doesn’t change if you move around the velocities, just like the slope of a line doesn’t change if you move it’s y-intercept. To put it in calculus terms, you’re changing the +c, which doesn’t affect the integral.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The thing that jumps out at me here is that you’ve assumed that the translation to the Earth frame centers the line of approach on Earth’s center. It doesn’t. Look at the graphic I posted above. The size of the Earth isn’t negligible in this calculation – it’s a sizable fraction of the distance traveled in 1 hour for all the cases discussed. Further, the impact being on the circumference of a 6500km radius circle means that the approaching vectors will not be coming straight down for an observer at that point but will instead by steeply angled with respect to the vertical (again, reference the diagram). This affects your formula which assumes a point mass for Earth such that a perpendicular to the asteroid’s path is parallel to the tangent line at the point of impact. This isn’t so, and dramatically affects the outcomes. For instance, your formula now has a ‘right’ and a ‘wrong’ side for pushing, where a hypothetical deflection from one side’s perpendicular causes a miss but the opposite force on the other perpendicular still results in a hit. For that reason, your simplification fails a first approximation due to bad assumptions.</p><p></p><p>In the Solar frame, I can pretty easily figure what’s needed to generate a miss with either a lateral push or a slowdown push. The formulas are dependent on the asteroid speed and the time to impact.</p><p></p><p>V(slow) = V(ast)(1-t(i)/(t(i)+217)) -- Slowdown velocity is equal to the velocity of the asteroid times 1 minus the time of impact divided by the time of impact plus 217 seconds. The 217 comes from the time it takes Earth at 30km/s to clear it's own 6500km radius. That doesn't change.</p><p></p><p>V(lateral) = r(E)/t(i) -- lateral velocity is equal to the radius of the Earth divided by the time to impact.</p><p></p><p>This approximation treats Earth as a flat disc. For a sphere, you have to calculate a T(m) which is equal to r(E)/V(asteroid), or the time it takes the asteroid to travel a radius of the Earth. This is the time to clear the widest part of Earth from the impact point (assuming impact at the closest point). You add this to t(i) in the above. It complicates things a bit for a bit more fidelity. I'm going with the easy here.</p><p></p><p>So, for an asteroid going 20km/s 1 hour our, the V(s) is 20km/s(1-3600s/3817s) = 1.14 km/s. The V(l) is 1.81 km/s. Either of these will generate a miss. And optimal push would be at some angle between 0 and 90 degrees and would have a value of less than 1.14. </p><p></p><p>I've run out of time at this point. I might get back to the optimization in the Solar frame problem so that it could be checked against your formula.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7490197, member: 16814"] Here’s a thought experiment for you: in your city frame, there’s a flagpole ahead of the car with a flag blowing in the wind. The wind blows left to right, so the flag blows left to right. The car is approaching the stationary flagpole. Now, let’s shift the frame to that of the car. Now, it appears that the car is stationary and the flagpole is approaching the car. But the flag – the flag is still blowing left to right with the wind. It doesn’t swivel to blow diagonally when you change the frame. Here’s a second though experiment. Let’s use your setup and agree that the wind shifts direction when you change frames. Agreeing to that, can we also agree that the wind exerts a force on the car? In the city frame, that force is left to right, ie, it pushes the car to the right. Perhaps the car is steering to overcome or the friction of the tires to lateral movement is sufficient, but, in any case, the wind is a force acting to push the car to the right in the city frame, yes? Now, shift to the car frame and assume, for the sake of the argument, that the wind is now blowing diagonally down and right towards the car. There’s now some part of the force pushing the car backwards. If this is true, the car must compensate against the wind in two directions rather than one, and that means it must have some forward force even in the car stationary frame or the rate that the city moves past must slow with the added force. This is clearly not the case – the car isn’t dealing with a different force when you change the frame. What you’ve done is a translation on velocity. In this translation, you’ve subtracted the velocity of the car and also subtracted that velocity from the city, resulting in the car having a zero velocity and the city gaining a velocity exactly opposite the car’s original velocity. But the wind is a force, ma, and ma+v doesn’t change the vector of the ma any more than moving a building would affect it’s velocity in the translation. Any given particle of the field of particles comprising the wind will, indeed, adopt the car’s velocity when you shift frames, but the force applied is still left to right. To make an even more clear example, let’s go back to the ball and the car. In the field’s frame, the car has a velocity v(car) upwards and the ball has a velocity v(ball) leftwards. There’s a wind applying a force to both blowing from right to left (ie, accelerating the ball leftwards). The car, due to steering or friction, resists this leftward force of the wind. Now, let’s switch frames. The car’s velocity is subtracted so it now has a relative velocity of 0. The car’s velocity is also subtracted from the ball, so it now has the velocity of the car downward and now appears to move left and down towards the car (in the lower right-hand corner). The wind still blows. If the wind’s direction doesn’t change, then the ball is being accelerated leftwards and will, increasingly, appear to veer to the left as viewed by the car. But, if what you say is true, and the wind also shifts to blow left and down, then the ball merely accelerates towards the car in a straight line. But, if we sum the forces, we have a problem. In the field frame, the ball is experiencing a net force to the left and the car is experiencing the same force with a balancing force (steering or friction) to the right. Now, if we shift and use the former (my) assumption that the wind does not shift, the forces on everything are the same – the car is still at 0 net force and the ball is still being accelerated to the leftwards. If, however, we use your assumption that the wind shifts, the car is now experiencing a down and left force and must compensate by pushing back right (steering or friction) and forward (ie, using the motor) while the ball is experiencing a net acceleration down and right. Your assumption means the car has to press the gas to counter the force of the wind when you shift from the field frame to the car frame. The ball is there to illustrate that the real effect is that the force doesn’t change vectors and will still be accelerated leftwards and no left and down. I may have just stumbled on a better way to say this: slope doesn’t change if you move the intercept. Y= mx+b. m is independent of b. Changing b is like the frame shifts we’re talking about – the force vector doesn’t change if you move around the velocities, just like the slope of a line doesn’t change if you move it’s y-intercept. To put it in calculus terms, you’re changing the +c, which doesn’t affect the integral. The thing that jumps out at me here is that you’ve assumed that the translation to the Earth frame centers the line of approach on Earth’s center. It doesn’t. Look at the graphic I posted above. The size of the Earth isn’t negligible in this calculation – it’s a sizable fraction of the distance traveled in 1 hour for all the cases discussed. Further, the impact being on the circumference of a 6500km radius circle means that the approaching vectors will not be coming straight down for an observer at that point but will instead by steeply angled with respect to the vertical (again, reference the diagram). This affects your formula which assumes a point mass for Earth such that a perpendicular to the asteroid’s path is parallel to the tangent line at the point of impact. This isn’t so, and dramatically affects the outcomes. For instance, your formula now has a ‘right’ and a ‘wrong’ side for pushing, where a hypothetical deflection from one side’s perpendicular causes a miss but the opposite force on the other perpendicular still results in a hit. For that reason, your simplification fails a first approximation due to bad assumptions. In the Solar frame, I can pretty easily figure what’s needed to generate a miss with either a lateral push or a slowdown push. The formulas are dependent on the asteroid speed and the time to impact. V(slow) = V(ast)(1-t(i)/(t(i)+217)) -- Slowdown velocity is equal to the velocity of the asteroid times 1 minus the time of impact divided by the time of impact plus 217 seconds. The 217 comes from the time it takes Earth at 30km/s to clear it's own 6500km radius. That doesn't change. V(lateral) = r(E)/t(i) -- lateral velocity is equal to the radius of the Earth divided by the time to impact. This approximation treats Earth as a flat disc. For a sphere, you have to calculate a T(m) which is equal to r(E)/V(asteroid), or the time it takes the asteroid to travel a radius of the Earth. This is the time to clear the widest part of Earth from the impact point (assuming impact at the closest point). You add this to t(i) in the above. It complicates things a bit for a bit more fidelity. I'm going with the easy here. So, for an asteroid going 20km/s 1 hour our, the V(s) is 20km/s(1-3600s/3817s) = 1.14 km/s. The V(l) is 1.81 km/s. Either of these will generate a miss. And optimal push would be at some angle between 0 and 90 degrees and would have a value of less than 1.14. I've run out of time at this point. I might get back to the optimization in the Solar frame problem so that it could be checked against your formula. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Science: asteroid vs. hero physics
Top