>What would happen if an object was massive enough to exhibit gravity, but was not spherical or disc-like, akin to the natural heavenly shapes?
Say there was a huge cuboid, like a cosmic sheet of paper, massive cylinders and pyramids, or more complex shapes like post-modern "art" (Or a space highway?).
Also let's wave our wand and say these things are sturdy enough to not collapse in on themselves.
>What would the orbits of those things look like?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
arxiv.org
terrapub.co.jp
twitter.com
The same as any other object. The shape is irrelevant
why does it need to be huge? It would have a better chance of not collapsing if it was small.
their orbits would be exactly the same as those of a sphere with the same center of gravity.
They could be spinning like mad doe.
Not if the orbits are close to the surface
This video deals with an interesting shape in the very first minutes
No, the shape doesn't matter. Look at the equation for gravitational attraction.
I'm pretty sure sharp corners and edges would bend space quite interestingly for those having a fly-by. Or not. I don't know.
>brainlet
Fuck you
Look at the equations, solve them for a large slab, and note that the result very much depends on the fact that you have q slab instead of a sphere.
>distance from an object without any radial symmetry will be constant
Are you even fucking trying, failtard?
Borg cubes aren't nearly massive enough to be rounded by their own gravity, but yeah, there's a theroretical upper limit on mass before your spacecraft turns into a sphere of molten materials
Distance from center of mass, not from the object you fucking retard.
...
That's only true for spheres.
Imagine a very long, thin, dense cylinder. You could stand up and walk around on the ends of the cylinder, because there's a significant amount of mass directly below your feet. But if you were the same distance away for the COM but 90 degrees off the axis, you won't experience much gravitational attraction at all as all of the cylinders mass would be far away from you.
If it is too large it will collapse into a more spherical shape. That is why the largest volcano in the solar system isn't a gargantuan point and instead just a shield.
So, what you do is have them slightly below the collapse limit for their mass density-gravity.
They were talking about orbits, not surface gravity.
From a far enough distance, it really doesn't matter. Sure, if you fly a fucking spaceship near the surface shit will be weird, but OP asked about a fucking orbit, if you're far away enough that an orbit is stable it gets closer and closer to the same as a spherical object.
The two are strongly connected.
No. An orbit around object of some specific mass will be exactly the same no matter the shape of the object. Standing on that object is not an orbit at all.
Ask ur mom
Take a sphere and a given orbit of radius r. Now enlongate that sphere into ovoid, without changing its mass. Keep elongating it, until the length of the object is > 2r.
Problem with your orbit?
doesn't exist, doesn't matter.
Orbit my testicles and see what happens.
could there, on a planet sized cube shaped object made of some imaginary indestructible material (so it could keep its shape), be an atmosphere small enough that it couldn't form a regular atomphere around the cube but rather a small bubble on each side? there could be 6 different civilizations on each side, thinking they're the only civilization in a flat world
Am I really on sci? what the fucks with this thread?
here OP, for a cube.
arxiv.org
it shows how lakes would look, as well as orbits.
>From a far enough distance, it really doesn't matter.
well, yeah thats true. If you are far enough you can even orbit 2 object as if they are one.
That doesnt mean the orbit wouldnt be weird in a low orbit. Even the very small gravitiy deviations on earth make measureable changes to orbits
I guess so. The corners of the cube are basically huge mountains
>I don't want to be wrong: the post
> having no clue this is a legitimate pop sci video
to everyone else
please stop feeding the troll who pretends to not know what an orbit is.
While this is more about realistic shapes, I think this is a nice little paper related to this interesting question:
terrapub.co.jp
>Orbital evolution around irregular bodies
The orbit doesn't change, retard. You're being pedantic.
it's like seeing a glittering coin in a pile of moist pig shit.
fucking hate this board
So just to be sure.
You guys are saying, that an orbit around a very irregular "planet" would still be pretty much perfectly elliptical?
all mass exhibits gravity, dood.
>Im not wrong you are just pedantic
>retard
No it won't. Free falling bodies travel along spacetime geodesics. Sufficiently far from any body, these are conical sections. But that's just an approximation. In reality the gravitational field of a bumpy body has "bumps" too, therefore the geodesics are not those mathematically perfect conical sections. However since heavenly bodies are typically multiple magnitudes farther away from each other compared to their geometry, their orbits would be approximately elliptical.
ah ok.
So my pic would be a fair representation of an orbit around this body?
Nope. On your pic the orbiting body is too close compared to the bumpiness of the other body. Consider this: if you zoomed out enough, the body would look like a point, therefore the gravitational field would be approximately spherical at that distance and the orbit would be elliptical. However, if the distance is the same magnitude as the bumps on your body, then the gravitational field would be too irregular to be approximated spherically.
but I am specifically confused about close orbits. I know how this would play out, if you are far away.
>then the gravitational field would be too irregular to be approximated spherically.
yeah exactly. wouldnt this make a low orbit also very "bumby"?
How would we know when we have never observed/directly measured any such bodies/close orbits?
Isn't our current understanding of gravitation a formalized empirical statement based on the observation of only natural shapes?
How do we know how these bodies WOULD behave just with our math is my question. Wouldn't we need a QG theory for that?
it is one of many ways to illustrate that you can interfere with the orbit. just happens to be the most dramatic, but the point stands.
distance is EVERYTHING when it comes to this stuff. change the mass distribution, you change the distances to the infitesimal volume units.
You fuck tards think just because the total flux is constant, that a line integral is also going to be unchanged and that is preposterous on its face if you understand the slightest bit about geometry.
BUT IT DOES
volcano morphology is more of a result of the viscosity of the lava than anything else
10/10 ur my hero
Gravity is not real tho
The equations are derived with the asumption that the body considered is spherical.
It doesn't work the same way with any other different repartition of mass.
Also
>let's wave our wand and say these things are sturdy enough to not collapse in on themselves.
Can you read OP before -not- answering their question?
I think this retard here though the question was about the cube/egg shaped planet orbiting a star.
>tfw will never train in the corners of a square earth for maximum strength gains
(OP)
Watch the vsauce on a flat earth:
youtube.com
On a cuboid, heading for the edges would feel increasingly tiring, as you headed "uphill" away from the cuboid's center of gravity, which would be neutral and normal at the center of each square face.
Worse still would be approaching the corners.
This is kind of one of those "Godzilla Questions." Basically one can ask a question about the physique of Godzilla, but the question cannot be answered seriously as Godzillas body cannot exist. To put it really simply, you can't ask a question about an event that can't exist as if it existed. One can still geek out and fantasize about the event.
However, will try my best.
The best I can give you is that the gravitational affect would be more like a softened corner cut cube if the shape were say the aforementioned cube. The corners would have stronger gravitational pull than the center of an open face on the direct surface, but off of the surface would have the weakest point of gravity. Basically you'd feel like you're being pulled down on contact, but just by jumping you'd reach escape velocity (given that we're looking at an Earth-similar shape). As for at the center of a face surface, the gravity would be weaker directly on contact with the surface, but the initial gravity if disconnected or suspended above the surface would be much greater (as much as the gravity of the surface of the corners). Really weird to think about.
already posted.
do people actually read the thread they are posting in?