Size of fictional planet based on gravity and density

AI Thread Summary
To determine the radius and surface area of a fictional planet with a gravitational force of 1.916G and the same density as Earth, one can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation and the formula for mass based on density and volume. The gravitational force equation allows for the calculation of the planet's radius by rearranging the terms to isolate R. The total mass of the planet can be derived from its density, which remains largely unaffected by the percentage of water coverage. Additionally, considerations for the planet's habitable zone and its ecological characteristics, such as extreme weather patterns, are also important for world-building. Understanding these concepts will aid in accurately portraying the planet's physical and environmental attributes in the book series.
rdanner3
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Given a planet of the same (relative) density as Earth, and a G-force on said planet of 1.916G, what is the procedure to determine the radius and surface area for such a planet, given it having only 57% water coverage?

I will admit that I am working on this for a book series I started in 2002, but my initial calculations obtained a ridiculously large planet size (17x Earth's surface area). Clearly, my own efforts were (at the time) incorrect equations, but I will admit that my math skills may not be up to the task, although much of the data I originally based the calculations on have been lost. Other planets in my series are Earth-type, albeit different due to the stars they orbit being far different from our Sun.

I want to ultimately be able to explain why such a planet would have a rotational period of 100,000 seconds, and an orbital period of 1,000 of those rotations (roughly 3.17 Terran years), yet be habitable.

Bear in mind that I am not requesting that someone do the work, just help me obtain the knowledge needed to do the work myself for this project.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Awesome project. Have you considered issues concerning the Habitable Zone?

The surface area of a planet is given by the radius (to good accuracy at least). Thus you just need the radius which is included in the equation for Newton's[/PLAIN] Law of Gravity:
F_g = G_N\frac{M_p m}{R^2}
Where G_N is Newton's constant; M_p is the mass of the planet, and m is the mass of the secondary object (e.g. a person feeling the force), and finally R is the radius of the planet.
From Newton's second law:
F = F_g = m a
where 'a' is the gravitational acceleration (on Earth this is usually called 'g'; what you called 'G').
You can combine these equations to remove 'm'. Also, you want a = 1.916 g.
The only other thing you need to solve for is the total mass of the planet, which is determined by its density and size:
M_p = \frac{4\pi}{3} \rho R^3
where \rho is the density (which you can look up on wikipedia for the earth---the amount of surface water won't make any noticeable difference).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
zhermes said:
Awesome project. Have you considered issues concerning the Habitable Zone?
Yes, I have, but finding correct data on the different star classes (or an actually-working visual calculator!) has been interesting.
zhermes said:
The surface area of a planet is given by the radius (to good accuracy at least). Thus you just need the radius which is included in the equation for Newton's Law of Gravity:
F_g = G_N\frac{M_p m}{R^2}
Where G_N is Newton's constant; M_p is the mass of the planet, and m is the mass of the secondary object (e.g. a person feeling the force), and finally R is the radius of the planet.
From Newton's second law:
F = F_g = m a
where 'a' is the gravitational acceleration (on Earth this is usually called 'g'; what you called 'G').
You can combine these equations to remove 'm'. Also, you want a = 1.916 g.
The only other thing you need to solve for is the total mass of the planet, which is determined by its density and size:
M_p = \frac{4\pi}{3} \rho R^3
where \rho is the density (which you can look up on wikipedia for the earth---the amount of surface water won't make any noticeable difference).
Okay, that does make sense, insofar as I actually understand what you've mentioned. I would be incorrect if I said I understood all of this. :-) And I acknowledge your near-rebuke regarding g and my incorrect use of the uppercase G for it. LOL
 
The only Habitable Zone "calculator" I've seen at all is useless for what I need; it only shows three very-general star types (basically, small, medium, super-huge) and is leaving me totally unable to figure out other critical data in re: the star classes of these star systems. Based on what I know (the orbital year of two of the planets), I expect one of the stars is a close cousin (so to speak) of the star we ourselves orbit. The one for Regelis, on the other hand, appears to be much hotter, as the HZ is obviously much further out from the star.

Based on the apparent ecology and temperature spreads I have created for Regelis (and the fact that their hurricane classification system has 10(!) steps, not 5, as ours does) I expect that Regelis is closer to the inner edge of its system's HZ than Earth is.

Worst directly-referenced hurricane (in the novels) has been a Class 7, although class 10s have been indirectly referred to, largely in historical context. (Either one would be intensely dangerous, probably destructive beyond anything we have concept of, to be honest.) Closest I can figure for the Class 7 is somewhere around 2000km across, with wind speeds exceeding 250mph, although meterology is decidedly not my strong suit. Been trying to research certain data from well-known storms now for several hours, to little effect. :-\
 
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Today at about 4:30 am I saw the conjunction of Venus and Jupiter, where they were about the width of the full moon, or one half degree apart. Did anyone else see it? Edit: The moon is 2,200 miles in diameter and at a distance of 240,000 miles. Thereby it subtends an angle in radians of 2,200/240,000=.01 (approximately). With pi radians being 180 degrees, one radian is 57.3 degrees, so that .01 radians is about .50 degrees (angle subtended by the moon). (.57 to be more exact, but with...
Back
Top