Thread 16741516

Why is it that no one can solve the three-body problem? I mean it's just three objects or particles lol.

>>16741516 (OP)
>no one
I already solved it. It was hard but not impossible. Did get stuck for a while though.

>>16741516 (OP)
Define solve.

>>16741516 (OP)
integrals can be written. they cannot be solved in closed form. it's the mathematician's fault desu. if they spent less time on esoteric bullshit and more time on integration techniques, we'd be able to do it.

>>16741542
Not true. It's been proven there is no general closed form solution.

>>16741526
Bro you know exactly what ‘solve’ means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-body_problem

>>16741550
Well, if they spent less time proving it isn't solvable and more time solving it, maybe we'd have a solution by now

Because there's an infinite number of starting positions for the three bodies and to solve it, you'd need a solution for every possibility. As is, a few specific starting positions have been solved, but there's no wider answer.

>>16741570
Nature is not chaotic.

>>16741591
Prove it.

>>16741567
I spent like three hours working on it and got nowhere. It is impossible.

>>16741591
You just need new friends.

>>16741709
So you basically proved it isn't solvable

>>16741715
Exactly. All evidence points to impossible. You cannot contradict evidence.

>>16741516 (OP)
just solved it, not going to show you how though, keep sucking dicks hoping for a solution

>>16741591
absolutely it is
you just probably conflate the word "chaos" with "unpredictable" or some such shit

>>16741687
>>16741790
The fact that it is possible to do science proves it.

>>16741516 (OP)
Cause we are brainlet monkeys, if something gets too complicated, it's "unsolvable" according to our brainlet monkey theorems.
Give it a few million years of evolution and a lot of unsolvable stuff will be considered elementary.

>>16741516 (OP)
>attempt to model 3 gravitationally bound bodies
>repeatedly model impact events
>insist it's chaotic
This is what fucking happens when you model point sources. Maybe try permitting impact? Because obviously it's part of the fucking equation.

>hey guys I couldn't solve a system of n dimensional nonlinear differential equations.
gravity doesn't exist
nobody gives a shit about orbit of some space rocks
your basedence is irrelevant
your model is wrong
newton was an unalloyed fool
ngmi

>>16741516 (OP)
>why can't i solve physics entirely in the abstract?

>>16741516 (OP)
our mathematics doesnt allow it.

Why can't you just solve the two-body problem for each pair then add the solutions together?

>>16741945
>why can't you just solve 2x then add a random y and get the answer

>>16741516 (OP)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LavXSS5Xtbg

>>16741866
They also need to add relativity into account. Where the bodies actually are, and where the gravity of the object implies it is, are two different things. That goes for each object, because they all have different velocities they need to model the effect of relativity in both directions

>>16741550
link the proof of GTFO

Look for the entry by Paul Mainwood, though others are useful too.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-3-body-problem-and-why-is-it-unsolvable

>>16741820
The ability to measure and recognize patterns does not at all imply that all things follow the rules we know.

The difficult part is that all three objects are influencing each other at the same time. Your equation that calculated the orbit of two planets is now wrong because Venus shifted the Sun, etc.

So it's a very difficult problem.

>>16741550
Just like Pythagoras proved there are no triangles with side lengths of 1.