第一百日（1）作屎的老猫（第2/8页）

不过现在这条规定已经作废。

唐跃想去哪拉屎，就去哪拉屎。

两人把所有的粪便都带进了车库，这种捣屎的活肯定不能在主站内干，否则昆仑站还住不住人了。

唐跃把干燥粪便倒在车库地板上，随意清点了一下，发现他这三个月以来，排便还算均匀顺畅，这里所有的大便都是他自己的，再往前其他人的粪便和垃圾都已经被猎户座一号带走了。

老猫蹲下来，手中捏着一根不知道哪儿找来的棍子，饶有趣味地戳了戳地板上包装好的大便，“唐跃，我觉得你可能严重便秘且大便干燥，你看你拉的翔硬得跟大理石似的。”

唐跃戴上口罩，并不想搭理老猫这个话痨。

老猫还在戳地上的大便，翻过来覆过去地戳。

“唐跃你看，这坨翔像不像一颗真空包装的茶叶蛋？你是怎么拉出这么圆的屎蛋蛋来的？能不能演示一下？”

“还有这个，这坨翔大，我估计一下，起码得有五两重吧……”

“这坨很有艺术气息，看上去像是梵高的星空。”

“哎唐跃！你来看这个，这坨翔长得很像你诶！简直就是一个模子里刻出来的，你们真是一对父子……”

唐跃恼怒地抄起一块干燥的大便砸了过去。

对火星轨道变化问题的最后解释

作者君在作品相关中其实已经解释过这个问题。

不过仍然有人质疑——“你说得太含糊了”，“火星轨道的变化比你想象要大得多！”

那好吧，既然作者君的简单解释不够有力，那咱们就看看严肃的东西，反正这本书写到现在，嚷嚷着本书BUG一大堆，用初高中物理在书中挑刺的人也不少。

以下是文章内容：

Long-term integrations and stability of planetary orbits in our Solar system

Abstract

We present the results of very long-term numerical integrations of planetary orbital motions over 109 -yr time-spans including all nine planets. A quick inspection of our numerical data shows that the planetary motion， at least in our simple dynamical model， seems to be quite stable even over this very long time-span. A closer look at the lowest-frequency oscillations using a low-pass filter shows us the potentially diffusive character of terrestrial planetary motion， especially that of Mercury. The behaviour of the eccentricity of Mercury in our integrations is qualitatively similar to the results from Jacques Laskar's secular perturbation theory (e.g. emax～ 0.35 over ～± 4 Gyr). However， there are no apparent secular increases of eccentricity or inclination in any orbital elements of the planets， which may be revealed by still longer-term numerical integrations. We have also performed a couple of trial integrations including motions of the outer five planets over the duration of ± 5 × 1010 yr. The result indicates that the three major resonances in the Neptune–Pluto system have been maintained over the 1011-yr time-span.

1 Introduction

1.1Definition of the problem

The question of the stability of our Solar system has been debated over several hundred years， since the era of Newton. The problem has attracted many famous mathematicians over the years and has played a central role in the development of non-linear dynamics and chaos theory. However， we do not yet have a definite answer to the question of whether our Solar system is stable or not. This is partly a result of the fact that the definition of the term ‘stability’ is vague when it is used in relation to the problem of planetary motion in the Solar system. Actually it is not easy to give a clear， rigorous and physically meaningful definition of the stability of our Solar system.

Among many definitions of stability， here we adopt the Hill definition (Gladman 1993): actually this is not a definition of stability， but of instability. We define a system as becoming unstable when a close encounter occurs somewhere in the system， starting from a certain initial configuration (Chambers， Wetherill & Boss 1996; Ito & Tanikawa 1999). A system is defined as experiencing a close encounter when two bodies approach one another within an area of the larger Hill radius. Otherwise the system is defined as being stable. Henceforward we state that our planetary system is dynamically stable if no close encounter happens during the age of our Solar system， about ±5 Gyr. Incidentally， this definition may be replaced by one in which an occurrence of any orbital crossing between either of a pair of planets takes place. This is because we know from experience that an orbital crossing is very likely to lead to a close encounter in planetary and protoplanetary systems (Yoshinaga， Kokubo & Makino 1999). Of course this statement cannot be simply applied to systems with stable orbital resonances such as the Neptune–Pluto system.

1.2Previous studies and aims of this research