Timeline for Can 3 planets rotate around each other like this?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 11:03 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Sep 16, 2016 at 16:54 | comment | added | ckersch | I don't think the Roche limit will come into play if PB2 and PB# are about the same size and density. My recollection from crunching the numbers in the Roche limit equation for identical bodies a while back was that the Roche limit for identical bodies is less than the radius of the bodies themselves. | |
| Sep 2, 2016 at 22:04 | comment | added | nitsua60 | I think this answer would be improved with some brief discussion of the stability of such a system, which also tends to be important to people trying to interact with/search for/live in them. | |
| Sep 2, 2016 at 20:58 | comment | added | Ghotir | @Rigop Just remember, you can have an infinite number of apples and not have a single orange. ;) | |
| Sep 2, 2016 at 14:14 | comment | added | Rigop | Good thing with our universe is it's probably infinite so everything that can work probably actually exist (that's 2 probably in the same sentence so I'm probably wrong) | |
| Sep 2, 2016 at 14:01 | comment | added | Devsman | Oh no now I'm going to spend all day making things orbit each other. | |
| S Sep 2, 2016 at 9:51 | history | suggested | ralight | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fix speed/location.
|
| Sep 2, 2016 at 9:34 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Sep 2, 2016 at 9:51 | |||||
| Sep 2, 2016 at 5:23 | vote | accept | user22613 | ||
| Sep 2, 2016 at 2:42 | comment | added | Downgoat | Self-advertising but I made yet another planetary simulator: vihan.org/p/SSS | |
| Sep 2, 2016 at 1:50 | comment | added | The Architect | Yeah I logged in just to +1 the pun. That's my jam. | |
| Sep 1, 2016 at 22:54 | comment | added | Joshua | If PB2 and PB3 are similar size this is disallowed; you end up with a horseshoe orbit instead. It's not that you can't place them, it's that they can't form like that. Unless of course you want young-earth models. | |
| Sep 1, 2016 at 22:24 | comment | added | PipperChip | @DevNull Yes. It was my lunchtime. I even considered naming them "creamy, crunchy, and natural" but I thought that was too much. | |
| Sep 1, 2016 at 22:17 | comment | added | Cloud | lol Be honest, did you use PB+J as a pun for a tasty snack? | |
| Sep 1, 2016 at 21:26 | comment | added | Biff MaGriff | Lol the PB+J system sounds pretty tasty. | |
| Sep 1, 2016 at 20:10 | history | edited | PipperChip | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
I missed an s. :/ Plus Cem Kalyoncu's comments
|
| Sep 1, 2016 at 20:08 | comment | added | Cem Kalyoncu | I loved that simulator, increasing speed of PB2 and PB3 to 105 and PB1 to 133 would make the system (almost) perfect. Previous ones are also stable but this new one will experience less tidal forces. | |
| Sep 1, 2016 at 20:04 | comment | added | PipperChip | @CemKalyoncu Very nice! | |
| Sep 1, 2016 at 20:00 | comment | added | Cem Kalyoncu | Unless PB1 = PB2 + PB3, system cannot be fully circular. If PB1 < PB2 + PB3, P1's orbit would be larger than the orbit of other two. In fact, if PB2+PB3 = PB1 * 2, it would be exactly twice the size of PB2 and PB3. | |
| Sep 1, 2016 at 19:56 | comment | added | Cem Kalyoncu | Much better one: PB1: 200, 150, 0, 0, 130; PB2: 100, -100, 0, 0, -80, PB3: 100, -50, 0, 0, 80 | |
| Sep 1, 2016 at 19:39 | comment | added | Cem Kalyoncu | I managed to get something similar to the one described in the question using second simulator. PB1 20 (mass) 0, 0 (location), 0, -1 speed. PB2 10 133, 0, -8, 43 PB 3: 10, 166, 0 -5, 79 | |
| Sep 1, 2016 at 19:33 | history | edited | Frostfyre | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Edited for spelling
|
| Sep 1, 2016 at 19:10 | history | answered | PipperChip | CC BY-SA 3.0 |