Size and shape of a celestial body, definition of a planet
Konrad Probsthain

TL;DR
This paper proposes a physics-based criterion for defining planets based on size and shape, linking celestial body shape to hydrostatic equilibrium and internal forces, challenging current arbitrary definitions.
Contribution
It introduces a new approach correlating size and shape of celestial bodies in hydrostatic equilibrium, removing arbitrary size criteria from planet definitions.
Findings
Only gas giants and Haumea can achieve fluid-like shapes in solid state.
Most nearly round bodies in the solar system formed before solidification.
Current planet definition criteria are inconsistent with physical principles.
Abstract
Experience shows that celestial bodies have a nearly round shape only from a certain size. At IAU resolution B5, item b, that shape serves as an indicator for a distinct mechanism of its forming, caused by a minimum of mass. Rigid body forces should have been overcome by self gravity and a hydrostatic equilibrium shape should have been achieved. A new approach to correlate the size and shape of a solid in hydrostatic equilibrium by balancing self gravity and rigid body forces leads to a real, not to an arbitrary lower limit of size. No arbitrary criterion is required as it is often the case. Above this limit the shape of a solid body is restricted by a maximum of its surface area, and this maximum vanishes only at infinite size. Therefore the shape like that of a related fluid in hydrostatic equilibrium can only be reached in the solid state, if its surface area is larger than this…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAstro and Planetary Science · Planetary Science and Exploration · Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
