Talk:2750: Flatten the Planets

I have to wonder, would you slide down to the sun, or be flung outwards? SDSpivey (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The discs are centered on the orbit of the parent planet, and presumably rotating at the same frequency as the parent planet's orbit. That means the inner edge of each disc is going slower than you'd need to orbit the Sun at that distance, and the outer edge faster. If you moved inward from the original planet's orbit, the Sun's gravity would pull you in, but when you crossed the boundary to the next disc, you'd get flung back outward.162.158.62.61 19:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

No Each planet fills out the space within their orbit into the next planet. Easy to see as the outer edge of Neptune's orbit is the same as with the planet flattened. There is a distance from Mercury to the Sun indicated. Maybe because it would melt if it got any closer? --Kynde (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

First, they're rings not discs, but I'm skeptical of the math. And it looks to me like the ring's edges are halfway between the orbits, with Neptune extended outwards the same distance as halfway to Uranus's orbit. 172.69.22.4 20:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Planet	Volume (109 km3)	Orbital radius (109 km)	halfway to prior	halfway to next	Annulus area (109 km2)	Thickness (cm)
Mercury	61	58	29 (to 0)	83	19,000	321
Venus	928	1083	83	129	30,637	3,029
Earth	108	150	129	189	59,942	1,802
Mars	163	228	189	504	685,794	24
Jupiter	1,4310,00	779	504	1,107	3,051,847	46,890
Saturn	827,130	1,434	1,107	2,154	10,726,236	7,711
Uranus	68,340	2,873	2,154	3,684	28,061,145	244
Neptune	62,540	4,495	3,684	5,304 (symmetry)	45,743,348	137

The volumes in this table are at 2 different scales. Only the Mercury to Mars volumes are at 10¹⁰ km³. Jupiter to Neptune are at 10¹² km³ Sandor (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed; I had the scale wrong for the radii too. 172.71.158.231 21:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Someone please double-check this, I think Randall is off by a factor of 1000. 172.71.154.229 21:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I did my own spreadsheet, and my figures agree with Randall's (roughly). I think your thinkness figures are mostly out by 1000, and a few of your volume figures also have the wrong scale (Mercury is smaller than Mars, and the giants are too big by a factor of 10). Sandor (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

61 * 10^9 km^3 is 6.1 × 10^25 cm^3, 19000 * 10^9 km^2 is 1.9 × 10^23 cm^2, and (6.1 × 10^25 cm^3) / (1.9 × 10^23 cm^2) is 3.2 meters. I'm afraid I'm correct. 172.69.22.145 22:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

According to List_of_Solar_System_objects_by_size#Objects_with_radius_over_400_km yes I had Mars wrong (corrected) but the others are roughly correct. I stand by my claim that Randall is in error. 172.71.154.86 22:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This makes about as much sense as other Flat Earth theories. 172.70.200.137 20:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

But this would actually be a flat Earth. Albeit with a rather larger surface area ;-) --Kynde (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)