E

yeah that's what i thought too

Space core

Fr

Kinda nerdy, (can’t think of a better word, sorry) but neat nonetheless!

Thanks for the comment! In this case the three-body situation being stable is probably just a coincidence. There were other cases where only two or even just one planet was remaining. And I think this system would also collapse into a 2-body system, given a bit more time

By trial and error. I used After Effects, if you meant a specific program. And I kinda just eyeballed it

I believe the law of attraction here does keep all the particles bound to each other, because the forces are inversely proportional to the distance, not the square of it. If I remember correctly, there is no escape velocity with this type of force. The evidence is not in the video, but when I zoomed out, there was only about 5-10% of all the particles off screen. And all of them weren't farther than twice the size of the visible part. So most of them end up in the bodies, packed tightly.

Actually maybe there were even less than 5%...

@@grox2417 You're saying that most of the mass was packed inside of the bodies? Do the particles have collision physics or do they just phase through each other? It looked like the balls were losing mass over time but if the particles are just overlapping each other then you can't tell how many particles there are just by looking at the size. Also. What do the colors represent? Is it a gradient showing the center of gravity of the system?

@@shubashuba9209 they do have collision physics, but... They kinda also don't? When overlapping, they experience a pushing force, depending on how much they overlap. Which looks almost exactly like usual collision physics, if the force is big enough. But, if there is something else pushing from the other direction, the particles cannot fly apart and stay in this "equilibrium". If there's a lot of particles in one place, all attracting to each other, a density gradient can form across the "planet" (with the core being the most dense bc all the mass outside is pushing on it). The density also increases as the planet accretes more and more particles, so overall its radius doesn't really change... if we don't count the rotation and gravitational effects of other bodies, which can expand/stretch the planet. That's probably why you thought they "lost mass", bc they did loose rotational energy. So yeah, you can't tell how much stuff there is in a planet judging only by its size, you have to look for other clues, such as: How much the planet is deformed by the outside forces; How fast do other particles and planets orbit the body/how much they are deformed by it (that's probably the most important detail, although you still have to account for rotation); How much stuff the planet leaves behind when it's torn apart/consumed by another body; etc. As for the colors, they represent linear velocity (of each individual particle). Still, it's kinda helpful for estimating the center of mass/the rotation axis

Well, all that stuff I said about estimating mass only applies if you're watching a video like this one. If you're doing it yourself, you can just zoom in on a planet, lol

I use Space Simulation Toolkit, the link to it, as well as its name is *(and always was)* in the description of every SST-related video, including this one

I think auto rotating camera is a cool feature for the roadmap

??????

They represent velocities of the particles

@@grox2417 How do you show the velocities of the particles? ( In the game)

@@DanielAlves-og6ux in the "view" menu there are six buttons. The central bottom one enables this view

Yes, that is correct, for 3d space at least. In 2d, the more realistic version on Newton's law of gravity would be F=Gm1m2/r (not r^2, because there are only 2 dimensions). This is precisely why this thing is rotating like a solid object - in this uniform disk the velocities of particles are proportional to the distance to the center. In 3d, the analogue of this would be a uniform sphere. Of course, it still will not behave like a solid body, because the particles would have to move in different directions in order to stay in circular orbits. But still, their velocities would be proportional to the distance, and the outer particles will move faster than the inner ones. You can also read some stuff I wrote in the description about this

@@grox2417 Uhh, I dont believe that to be the case. In reality, yhou are modelling a 3D reality and then doing a 2D visualisation of it. It is not "intrinsiically" 2D. . ANd even assuming what you said to be true, my comment still stands. Even in Keplerian 2D, the inner parts would be expected to rotate much more rapidly.

@@starpawsy, yes, if I'm modelling 3d and then doing a visualisation, then this is wrong. But I never claimed to have done so. I'm modelling a 2d simulation from the start. And, come to think of it, i also have never claimed this sim to be realistic in the first place Secondly, I mean, I've done the math in the description, you can check it if you want, but this is also (kinda) confirmed by the motion of stars in the central region of the galaxy. Yes, the closest ones orbit a giant black hole, so they move faster (but i don't have a central object here, so nothing like that), but overall the velocities increase when you move out from the center, untill you hit the distance comparable to the height of the galaxy disk

@@grox2417 I think we'll leave it there.

Bruh I was first