Building Planets: Explaining Expression (??) in Planet Construction

  • Thread starter Thread starter vaibhavtewari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Planets
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on understanding a concept from a document about planet construction, specifically regarding the expression that measures cost-effectiveness in building a planet. Participants clarify that a "constant contour" refers to a surface where the expression remains uniform across all points, which is crucial for maximizing gravitational contribution while minimizing mass. The conversation emphasizes the need to prioritize mass placement based on each point's contribution to the integral that defines gravity. A participant notes that if the surface did not align with the contour, it would lead to inefficiencies in gravity maximization. The thread concludes with a request for mathematical representation of the concepts discussed.
vaibhavtewari
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
Hello Everyone,
I kind of followed this document

http://pages.physics.cornell.edu/~aalemi/random/planet.pdf

until on page 3, author explains

What we are trying to due, is build the planet such that each chunk con-
tributes as much as possible to this integrand. So, if we pause for a second
and think about expression (??) as a sort of measure of cost effectiveness, it
isn’t long before we realize that our planet’s surface should correspond to a
constant contour of this expression.

which does not makes too much sense to me. Can some one explain this to me, or give an alternative solution.

Thank You
 
Physics news on Phys.org
vaibhavtewari said:
Hello Everyone,
I kind of followed this document

http://pages.physics.cornell.edu/~aalemi/random/planet.pdf

until on page 3, author explains

What we are trying to due, is build the planet such that each chunk con-
tributes as much as possible to this integrand. So, if we pause for a second
and think about expression (??) as a sort of measure of cost effectiveness, it
isn’t long before we realize that our planet’s surface should correspond to a
constant contour of this expression.

which does not makes too much sense to me. Can some one explain this to me, or give an alternative solution.

Thank You

"constant contour of this expression" means a surface where that expression ( equation (1) given above the quoted paragraph) is the same at every point.

To maximize the integral that gives you g at some point, while minimizing the used mass, you have to fill the space with mass in the order in which each point contributes to the integral (most contributing points first). So the planet surface will be an iso-surface of the spatial function that gives you the contribution factor for each point.
 
Last edited:
thanks for replying but this is almost reworded version of the statement...can you show them in equations and math

To maximize the integral that gives you g at some point, while minimizing the used mass, you have to fill the space with mass in the order in which each point contributes to the integral (most contributing points first).

Thanks
 
vaibhavtewari, If the surface of the planet did not follow the contour, there would have to be some of the planetary surface sticking outside the contour and some of the planetary surface still inside the contour. And then if you took some of the part that's outside and moved it to a place where the surface is inside, you would increase the gravity. So by contradiction, when you can no longer do this, none of the surface remains outside.
 
What Bill said.

A very nice problem BTW, with a rather disappointing result: "So, after all that work, in the end of the day, you can only do about 1.03 times better than the sphere if you want to maximize your gravity"
 
can you show it in math. Like this is the integral, something that is not worded. I am pretty sure any thing in physics that can be worded can be written in equations.

Thanks
 
Topic about reference frames, center of rotation, postion of origin etc Comoving ref. frame is frame that is attached to moving object, does that mean, in that frame translation and rotation of object is zero, because origin and axes(x,y,z) are fixed to object? Is it same if you place origin of frame at object center of mass or at object tail? What type of comoving frame exist? What is lab frame? If we talk about center of rotation do we always need to specified from what frame we observe?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
4K