|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Kevin Wampler <wam### [at] u washington edu> wrote:
> > (There's also the problem that some of the points will get too close
> > to the surface that way. If the location we are measuring the gravity
> > from happens to be too close to such a point, the result will be way too
> > high. In practice you have a small black hole near the surface of the
> > torus, and the test location is too close to it, skewing the result.)
> I would think that any approach based on approximating the torus as a
> bunch of point masses would have this problem.
Only if you start measuring inside the torus.
> > I think it's just easier to scale the point masses according to a simple
> > quadratic function. It's just the exact function I'm looking for.
> Does just scaling the mass proportionally to a point's distance from the
> torus' axis not work here? If you're looking for an exact equation
> based on the actual mass of the torus, just run a post-process
> normalization pass where you scale the mass of each point so that they
> sum to the total mass of the torus.
I explained the details in my original post.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |