11 ms·

I gather from this article that its orbital radius varies between 65 AU and 2300 AU, which is an extremely eccentric ellipse. I wonder if that high eccentricity

by wycy 8y ago

I gather from this article that its orbital radius varies between 65 AU and 2300 AU, which is an extremely eccentric ellipse. I wonder if that high eccentricity would disqualify it from "planet" status. Most other bodies considered "planets" are far closer to circular. It's also unclear to me if the Goblin orbits in the usual planetary plane.

pas 8y ago
Probably the simple fact that it does not clear its orbit disqualifies it from planet status. And it's probably too small to be in hydrostatic equilibrium (not enough self-gravity to force it to a roundish shape).
- schindlabua 8y ago
  Out of interest: I looked up "Hydrostatic equilibrium" and it says "[thing is in equilibrium] when the flow velocity at each point is constant over time". How exactly does that statement relate to what you said?
  - scardine 8y ago
    From the wikipedia article about Ceres[1]: > A proposal before the International Astronomical Union for the definition of a planet would have defined a planet as "a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid-body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet"[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_(dwarf_planet) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_(dwarf_planet) [2] https://www.webcitation.org/62D6DNhLH?url=http://www.iau.org/iau0601.424.0.html https://www.webcitation.org/62D6DNhLH?url=http://www.iau.org...
  - grigjd3 8y ago
    Most objects in space have some amount of spin to them. That is particles throughout a body, each with a velocity that may be changing, but the change in velocity with position is smooth, or the object would be ripping itself apart. This means the object has flow. A noticeably misshapen object will not have relatively constant speed and angular direction as a function of latitude and radius. However, objects that gravity rounds out do have this feature (to within an approximation, there is still weather). Thus the term hydrostatic equilibrium. The reason we don't just say "circular" is that this does not include oblate objects, which result from higher spin.
    - schindlabua 8y ago
      It took some additional help from IRC but I think I got it now. Thanks for your answer! In general, while total angular momentum is conserved, rigid bodies tend to rotate in an unstable fashion, because rigid-body forces apply different amounts of torque to different parts of the object. Which I kind of knew about but I didn't connect the dots. Hence no constant speed and angular direction, and no hydrostatic equilibrium. That was the missing link for me!
      - pas 8y ago
        Now I think I don't understand it! :o) So, flow velocity is simply the fluid mechanical velocity vector field/mapping. And it has to be constant, otherwise the object would not be in equilibrium, but it'd be still flowing (as in it would have parts that are going somewhere). Now I think this definition you have found is not directly applicable to rotating celestial bodies, as the point velocity is a vector, and it constantly changes due to the rotation. So probably a higher order derivative is zero, and that's the condition that we should use. Or of course we can transform to a non rotating frame. But what the parent poster said confuses me: "a velocity that may be changing, but the change in velocity with position is smooth, or the object would be ripping itself apart. This means the object has flow." You can have smooth and constant rotation but with many axes (tumbling), so I don't really see how this gets us to roundisness. As I understand the concept, the point is that "the object doesn't have parts that want to fall toward its center of gravity, but can't because rigid forces", because it's big enough that gravity creates enough pressure and heat that everything becomes plastic over thousands of years, and thus flows. (But this doesn't make much sense, because cold enough rock is pretty stable - as far as I know - so the material will only allow gravity to overcome it if it undergoes enough crystal structure faults [due to radioactive decay or exogenous damage, such as micrometeorites] - so the flow rate is constant, zero, even if there are stresses and forces that would increase the flow.)
        grigjd3 8y ago
        You have a few misconceptions and you are waaaaay overthinking this. The primary measure for this equilibrium is the time derivative of the mass-density-velocity, or momentum-density if you like. Now imagine a cube spinning on a primary axis. Since a cube is not constant radius, there are times where matter exists at a given point and other times where the matter does not exist at that point. Clearly, the time derivative of the momentum-density is not zero. This is not the case for a sphere as any point that has mass under the spinning sphere will have mass at all later points in time. The reason we don't just say sphere, though, is this kind of equilibrium accounts for oblate objects as well, and many planets are oblate.
jwfxpr 8y ago
Quoted above[0], "Inclination of 11.669 degrees" (from the preprint) would indicate it has greater inclination than the 8 planets, but less than some other small distant bodies[1]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18120244 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18120244 [1] Ref. this table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_inclination#Observations_and_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_inclination#Observatio...

by wycy 8y ago

pas 8y ago

Probably the simple fact that it does not clear its orbit disqualifies it from planet status. And it's probably too small to be in hydrostatic equilibrium (not enough self-gravity to force it to a roundish shape).

schindlabua 8y ago
Out of interest: I looked up "Hydrostatic equilibrium" and it says "[thing is in equilibrium] when the flow velocity at each point is constant over time". How exactly does that statement relate to what you said?
- scardine 8y ago
  From the wikipedia article about Ceres[1]: > A proposal before the International Astronomical Union for the definition of a planet would have defined a planet as "a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid-body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet"[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_(dwarf_planet) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_(dwarf_planet) [2] https://www.webcitation.org/62D6DNhLH?url=http://www.iau.org/iau0601.424.0.html https://www.webcitation.org/62D6DNhLH?url=http://www.iau.org...
- grigjd3 8y ago
  Most objects in space have some amount of spin to them. That is particles throughout a body, each with a velocity that may be changing, but the change in velocity with position is smooth, or the object would be ripping itself apart. This means the object has flow. A noticeably misshapen object will not have relatively constant speed and angular direction as a function of latitude and radius. However, objects that gravity rounds out do have this feature (to within an approximation, there is still weather). Thus the term hydrostatic equilibrium. The reason we don't just say "circular" is that this does not include oblate objects, which result from higher spin.
  - schindlabua 8y ago
    It took some additional help from IRC but I think I got it now. Thanks for your answer! In general, while total angular momentum is conserved, rigid bodies tend to rotate in an unstable fashion, because rigid-body forces apply different amounts of torque to different parts of the object. Which I kind of knew about but I didn't connect the dots. Hence no constant speed and angular direction, and no hydrostatic equilibrium. That was the missing link for me!
    - pas 8y ago
      Now I think I don't understand it! :o) So, flow velocity is simply the fluid mechanical velocity vector field/mapping. And it has to be constant, otherwise the object would not be in equilibrium, but it'd be still flowing (as in it would have parts that are going somewhere). Now I think this definition you have found is not directly applicable to rotating celestial bodies, as the point velocity is a vector, and it constantly changes due to the rotation. So probably a higher order derivative is zero, and that's the condition that we should use. Or of course we can transform to a non rotating frame. But what the parent poster said confuses me: "a velocity that may be changing, but the change in velocity with position is smooth, or the object would be ripping itself apart. This means the object has flow." You can have smooth and constant rotation but with many axes (tumbling), so I don't really see how this gets us to roundisness. As I understand the concept, the point is that "the object doesn't have parts that want to fall toward its center of gravity, but can't because rigid forces", because it's big enough that gravity creates enough pressure and heat that everything becomes plastic over thousands of years, and thus flows. (But this doesn't make much sense, because cold enough rock is pretty stable - as far as I know - so the material will only allow gravity to overcome it if it undergoes enough crystal structure faults [due to radioactive decay or exogenous damage, such as micrometeorites] - so the flow rate is constant, zero, even if there are stresses and forces that would increase the flow.)
      - grigjd3 8y ago
        You have a few misconceptions and you are waaaaay overthinking this. The primary measure for this equilibrium is the time derivative of the mass-density-velocity, or momentum-density if you like. Now imagine a cube spinning on a primary axis. Since a cube is not constant radius, there are times where matter exists at a given point and other times where the matter does not exist at that point. Clearly, the time derivative of the momentum-density is not zero. This is not the case for a sphere as any point that has mass under the spinning sphere will have mass at all later points in time. The reason we don't just say sphere, though, is this kind of equilibrium accounts for oblate objects as well, and many planets are oblate.

jwfxpr 8y ago

Quoted above[0], "Inclination of 11.669 degrees" (from the preprint) would indicate it has greater inclination than the 8 planets, but less than some other small distant bodies[1]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18120244 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18120244 [1] Ref. this table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_inclination#Observations_and_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_inclination#Observatio...