These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

Do Newton's Second and Third Law hold true in EVE?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nanatoa
#1 - 2012-11-19 23:16:47 UTC
We all know that movement in EVE flies in the face of Newton's First Law, but what's the status of his Second and Third Laws?

In particular, I'd be interested to know if, when bumping, increasing my ship's mass by x% will have the same effect as increasing my velocity by x% (since F=ma). Furthermore, will all my F result in precisely -F for my target?

To put this differently: exactly how does Destiny handle collisions between ship balls?

"Stay the course, we have done this many times before." - (CCP) Hilmar, June 2011
Shederov Blood
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
#2 - 2012-11-19 23:33:16 UTC
Nanatoa wrote:
To put this differently: exactly how does Destiny handle collisions between ship balls?
That sounds like a painful place to be bumped.

Who put the goat in there?
ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#3 - 2012-11-19 23:42:20 UTC
From what I'm led to believe; EVE's simulation deals with space as a Superfluid rather then a body of space that accurately models newtonian physics; which in and of itself is a misnomer as we know that Newtonian physics are only good enough for non relativistic speeds.

So it approximates what *feels* right to a person, but is not at all mathematically correct, except for being correct as far as the EVE Physics model goes.

Now, an interesting question (to me is) what would EVE be like if we had a space physics model like the old games Independance War and Edge of Chaos had ?

[b]ISD Suvetar Captain/Commando Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]
Nanatoa
#4 - 2012-11-19 23:50:05 UTC
ISD Suvetar wrote:
So it approximates what *feels* right to a person, but is not at all mathematically correct, except for being correct as far as the EVE Physics model goes.


Aye, we know that that's true in EVE for Newton's First Law, since you don't keep moving forever if no force is applied (or you have to assume the space in New Eden is different and space itself exerts a force) - but what about the Second and Third? I don't see why (or even how) those should (or could) be 'dumbed down' to feel right. Do we know if/how they are implemented?

"Stay the course, we have done this many times before." - (CCP) Hilmar, June 2011
vyshnegradsky
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#5 - 2012-11-19 23:51:19 UTC
Newtons second law is Σf = Δp / Δt. Or the resultant force = the rate of change of momentum. A simpler version is Σf=ma. This is pretty simple for someone to go out and test. As long as experimental conditions are maintained it should be simple for determine.

Newtons third law states that when an object A exerts a force on object B, Object B exerts a reaction force of equal magnitude and opposite direction on Object A. Seeing as when you are in the captains quarters you don't usually ( its bugged a few times for me) fall through the floor, or the fact that there is any motion at all, implies that yes, Newtons third law is also in effect.

tldr: GTFO noob

P.S: Yay now i feel motivated enough to finish my work on particle physics \o/

This one's a bit over the edge guys.

Locked for breaking... well, pretty much all the rules.

  • CCP Falcon
Nanatoa
#6 - 2012-11-19 23:55:33 UTC
vyshnegradsky wrote:
implies that yes, Newtons third law is also in effect.

If the choice is either "Third Law" or "Nothing", yes - but there are other options, since a programmer might implement this in any number of ways, for better or for worse.


vyshnegradsky wrote:
P.S: Yay now i feel motivated enough to finish my work on particle physics \o/

Glad to have been of service o7

"Stay the course, we have done this many times before." - (CCP) Hilmar, June 2011
Lance Rossiter
CHAINS Corp
#7 - 2012-11-19 23:59:11 UTC
F=MA isn't as useful for this purpose (I think) as E=1/2MVV.

F=MA deals with the force acting on a single object and how it affects the motion of that objerct, but here we're interested in how two different objects interact when they collide. That's going to be some sort of kinetic energy transfer, so you want to maximise the kinetic energy of the bumping ship in order to have the greatest effect on the target.

As E=1/2MVV, Velocity is much more important than mass. Getting hit by a car travelling at speed is much more devastating than getting hit by a truck that's barely moving.

I think that's right, it's been a while...
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
#8 - 2012-11-20 00:01:03 UTC
I think you confusing a few different things in OP, we do not really care about the force involved in bumping, just the kinetic energies.

IIRC eve simulates elastic collisions between ships, so no %mass does not equal %velocity increase in terms of bumping
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
#9 - 2012-11-20 00:03:21 UTC
Lance Rossiter wrote:
F=MA isn't as useful for this purpose (I think) as E=1/2MVV.

F=MA deals with the force acting on a single object and how it affects the motion of that objerct, but here we're interested in how two different objects interact when they collide. That's going to be some sort of kinetic energy transfer, so you want to maximise the kinetic energy of the bumping ship in order to have the greatest effect on the target.

As E=1/2MVV, Velocity is much more important than mass. Getting hit by a car travelling at speed is much more devastating than getting hit by a truck that's barely moving.

I think that's right, it's been a while...



this^

Although I think the mass fraction is important in determining which of the 2 bodies receives the kinetic energy after the collision, normally in eve we want to get the target moving as fast as possible, so having a high mass is also important even though it doesn't contribute as much to the total kinetic energy.
vyshnegradsky
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#10 - 2012-11-20 00:03:41 UTC  |  Edited by: vyshnegradsky
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
I think you confusing a few different things in OP, we do not really care about the force involved in bumping, just the kinetic energies.

IIRC eve simulates elastic collisions between ships, so no %mass does not equal %velocity increase in terms of bumping


Perfectly elastic collisions make baby jesus cry

edit: Ke = p^2 / 2m ... Σf = Δp / Δt therefore Δp = Δt.f ... (Δt.f)^2/2m = Ke where F also = ma so (mat)^2/2m = m(at)^2/2 = Ke. If this is correct (i probably made a mistake somwhere, its midnight and im sleepy so please tear it apart ^^) You dont actually have to have a large velocity to gain a large Ke, just a large acceleration over a small period of time.

This one's a bit over the edge guys.

Locked for breaking... well, pretty much all the rules.

  • CCP Falcon
Nanatoa
#11 - 2012-11-20 00:09:33 UTC
Oi, it seems I opened a can of worms here.

What I understand from the above posts is that you can't just combine F=ma and F=-F. I figured that that would be possible, since the first Law does not apply: a constant force is needed to be at a certain speed, and if you suddenly slow down to 0 in a (well aimed) bump, all that F has to be in the target. Is that an absolutely stupid line of thinking? (In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not exactly a physics major :P)

"Stay the course, we have done this many times before." - (CCP) Hilmar, June 2011
vyshnegradsky
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#12 - 2012-11-20 00:19:52 UTC
Nanatoa wrote:
Oi, it seems I opened a can of worms here.

What I understand from the above posts is that you can't just combine F=ma and F=-F. I figured that that would be possible, since the first Law does not apply: a constant force is needed to be at a certain speed, and if you suddenly slow down to 0 in a (well aimed) bump, all that F has to be in the target. Is that an absolutely stupid line of thinking? (In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not exactly a physics major :P)


It depends on the nature of the collision. For that to occure the collision would have to be perfectly inelastic, meaning no kinetic energy is conserved. This cannot be true, as there are cases where kinetic energy is conserved. Maybe your getting confused with momentum being conserved?

This one's a bit over the edge guys.

Locked for breaking... well, pretty much all the rules.

  • CCP Falcon
Kobal81
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#13 - 2012-11-20 00:41:43 UTC
Nanatoa wrote:
We all know that movement in EVE flies in the face of Newton's First Law, but what's the status of his Second and Third Laws?

In particular, I'd be interested to know if, when bumping, increasing my ship's mass by x% will have the same effect as increasing my velocity by x% (since F=ma). Furthermore, will all my F result in precisely -F for my target?

To put this differently: exactly how does Destiny handle collisions between ship balls?


No, Newton was not GOD therefore the law was meant to be broken

"Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit"
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2012-11-20 00:53:16 UTC
Kobal81 wrote:
Nanatoa wrote:
We all know that movement in EVE flies in the face of Newton's First Law, but what's the status of his Second and Third Laws?

In particular, I'd be interested to know if, when bumping, increasing my ship's mass by x% will have the same effect as increasing my velocity by x% (since F=ma). Furthermore, will all my F result in precisely -F for my target?

To put this differently: exactly how does Destiny handle collisions between ship balls?


No, Newton was not GOD therefore the law was meant to be broken


God breaks his own laws all the time... like the time he allegedly stopped the earth from spinning and no one living on the equator noticed they were suddenly moving at 1000 mph (500mph at the point where this supposedly happened)

"Little ginger moron" ~David Hasselhoff 

Want to see what Surf is training or how little isk Surf has?  http://eveboard.com/pilot/Surfin%27s_PlunderBunny
Ranzabar
Doomheim
#15 - 2012-11-20 00:55:14 UTC
What would Sheldon Cooper do?

Abide
Nathalie LaPorte
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2012-11-20 01:17:29 UTC
think of that apparatus with 5 shiny metal balls. the reason they behave as they do is that their collisions conserve most of the energy, so then you effectively end up applying both conservation of momentum, and conservation of energy, to constrain the final result. If ship collisions in EVE behave similarly, then you'd need to conserve both momentum and energy there as well. To say that conservation of one is more important than the other, dependent on their relative sizes, is not really something that makes any sense. Either one is conserved, or both, or neither. It's not a question of importance.
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2012-11-20 01:46:08 UTC
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
think of that apparatus with 5 shiny metal balls.


I can think of a few.... but only 1 is what you're talking about Cool

"Little ginger moron" ~David Hasselhoff 

Want to see what Surf is training or how little isk Surf has?  http://eveboard.com/pilot/Surfin%27s_PlunderBunny
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#18 - 2012-11-20 01:49:09 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Nanatoa wrote:
exactly how does Destiny handle collisions?

Well there was only one episode of SGU that I can recall where Destiny collides with something other than a star (which it was of course designed to do). It seemed to respond as you'd expect a really big ship to when grazing against another ship just after coming out of FTL.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#19 - 2012-11-20 01:56:30 UTC
vyshnegradsky wrote:
Newtons second law is Σf = Δp / Δt. Or the resultant force = the rate of change of momentum. A simpler version is Σf=ma. This is pretty simple for someone to go out and test. As long as experimental conditions are maintained it should be simple for determine.

Newtons third law states that when an object A exerts a force on object B, Object B exerts a reaction force of equal magnitude and opposite direction on Object A. Seeing as when you are in the captains quarters you don't usually ( its bugged a few times for me) fall through the floor, or the fact that there is any motion at all, implies that yes, Newtons third law is also in effect.

tldr: GTFO noob

P.S: Yay now i feel motivated enough to finish my work on particle physics \o/


You seems to be applying a lot of non-essential math to some very simple principles that don't require it. You're also expanding on Newtons Laws,and adding to them.

Actually:

Quote:
I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.


Don't overdo it, you might strain yourself.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#20 - 2012-11-20 02:00:20 UTC
Mars Theran wrote:
vyshnegradsky wrote:
Newtons second law is Σf = Δp / Δt. Or the resultant force = the rate of change of momentum. A simpler version is Σf=ma. This is pretty simple for someone to go out and test. As long as experimental conditions are maintained it should be simple for determine.

Newtons third law states that when an object A exerts a force on object B, Object B exerts a reaction force of equal magnitude and opposite direction on Object A. Seeing as when you are in the captains quarters you don't usually ( its bugged a few times for me) fall through the floor, or the fact that there is any motion at all, implies that yes, Newtons third law is also in effect.

tldr: GTFO noob

P.S: Yay now i feel motivated enough to finish my work on particle physics \o/


You seems to be applying a lot of non-essential math to some very simple principles that don't require it. You're also expanding on Newtons Laws,and adding to them.

Actually:

Quote:
I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.


Don't overdo it, you might strain yourself.

It's not like anything he said was wrong or didn't directly follow from Newton's laws.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
123Next page