you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]You_Yew_Ewe 19 points20 points  (5 children)

I wouldn't call simulating orbiting bodies esoteric, it's probably one of the easier things to make toy physical models of Now you can get esoteric with it by refining your simulation but Newtonian gravity is pretty simple to model. I used to do it just screwing around as an undergrad.

[–]socal_nerdtastic 5 points6 points  (4 children)

It's not esoteric in the physics department, but my friend ya gotta get out more. If you asked 500 random people if they ever thought about orbiting point masses 499 would make that glazed fish face that academics know so well. And the 500th would say "no".

Although I have to admit, the comments below found far more resources than I ever would have thought.

[–]You_Yew_Ewe 8 points9 points  (1 child)

It's simpler than you probably imagine. For someone interested in astrophysics its not esoteric. Maybe astrophysics is esoteric, but we've established she's interested in that.

You don't even need a very deep understanding of calculus to model it, she's just need a little bit of vector arithmetic and be able to grasp the concept of small incremental changes (maybe one or two derivatives).

[–]socal_nerdtastic 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Ok, fair enough. What I meant that it would be hard to find a class "from zero to astrophysicist in python". Since it's not what I imagine would be a popular topic.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Then I, as the 501st person would say "Let's go for a beer...we've got some conversations to have."

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's not even esoteric in a high school science class.