Why are planets fairly round?

[Pincho Paxton]

Maybe a silly question, but planets are pretty much round, yet gravity is often depicted as a spiral, and Galaxies are mostly spiral. Also Saturn shows some sort of spiral build up in its rings. But by imagining this spiral build up I do not end up with a spherical shape. I end up with a saucer shape in my mind. What accounts for gravity building upwards from the spiral?

Of course, I would put it down to a pressure wave created by the Aether, but I want to know what the current theory is on that.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

yet gravity is often depicted as a spiral,

No, objects with angular momentum are depicted as bring disk-like. Gravity is a radial force, it has spherical symmetry and so objects with sufficient mass and low angular momentum collapse into spherical objects. Stars and planets are spherical in nature with their rotation making only slight bulges in their shape.

High school students know this stuiff. So much for your great understanding, you can't even grasp this!

 

[Pincho Paxton]

No, objects with angular momentum are depicted as bring disk-like. Gravity is a radial force, it has spherical symmetry and so objects with sufficient mass and low angular momentum collapse into spherical objects. Stars and planets are spherical in nature with their rotation making only slight bulges in their shape.

High school students know this stuiff. So much for your great understanding, you can't even grasp this!

No, you did it again, you threw in Gravity as a fix it. You didn't say why Gravity is a radial force from a disc like object. Planets have to start off disc like even in your explanation. How does the Gravity force start working radially from the disc? Imagine a ball of string rolling up the string, it has to rotate in every direction, when does the planet start to roll up the matter. I don't know maybe I am looking at Saturn, and trying to figure out why it doesn't have a fog instead of rings. Maybe I am looking at Galaxies, and not seeing any of them becoming spherical. Aether accounts for it, but I have a problem with X force becoming Y force using your method.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Maybe a silly question, but planets are pretty much round, yet gravity is often depicted as a spiral, and Galaxies are mostly spiral.

Where is gravity shown as a spiral?

 

[BobG]

Maybe I am looking at Galaxies, and not seeing any of them becoming spherical. Aether accounts for it, but I have a problem with X force becoming Y force using your method.

You are not looking hard enough

 

[Pincho Paxton]

You are not looking hard enough

But the way that they are surrounded still fits my Aether model. And here it is...

This shows why I think that planets are round. I have the Aether as bubbles leading into bubbles, and Gravity as a force of compression within each bubble. the picture is very rough, but is just here to show my thinking.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

Or it shows a Super Massive Black Hole in the Center of the Spiral Galaxies?

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Or it shows a Super Massive Black Hole in the Center of the Spiral Galaxies?

Sure, I just call a black hole a hole into the next bubble. what I want to convey is that this model produces round planets. Holes produce Vortex, and touching bubbles create nebula patterns.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You didn't say why Gravity is a radial force from a disc like object. Planets have to start off disc like even in your explanation. How does the Gravity force start working radially from the disc?

As objects collapse they heat up and when you heat loads of rock it becomes malleable, it deforms under its own weight. Planets are by definition sufficiently large objects that their gravitational forces were enough, when they formed, to deform themselves into a spherical object. Asteroids weren't massive enough and they come in all kinds of shapes.

A sphere is the most energetically stable configuration for numerous detailed reasons you're too stupid to grasp but it requires a sufficient amount of gravity for a solid object to collapse into a sphere. Stars and planets manage it. A galaxy is disk-like because they aren't solid objects, they are highly spread out.

Imagine a ball of string rolling up the string, it has to rotate in every direction, when does the planet start to roll up the matter. I don't know maybe I am looking at Saturn, and trying to figure out why it doesn't have a fog instead of rings.

That isn't how to view it. In star and planet formation the 'string' would melt into a blob of matter. The blob is spherical.

but I have a problem with X force becoming Y force using your method.

Because you're an ignorant idiot.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

As objects collapse they heat up and when you heat loads of rock it becomes malleable, it deforms under its own weight. Planets are by definition sufficiently large objects that their gravitational forces were enough, when they formed, to deform themselves into a spherical object. Asteroids weren't massive enough and they come in all kinds of shapes.

A sphere is the most energetically stable configuration for numerous detailed reasons you're too stupid to grasp but it requires a sufficient amount of gravity for a solid object to collapse into a sphere. Stars and planets manage it. A galaxy is disk-like because they aren't solid objects, they are highly spread out.

That isn't how to view it. In star and planet formation the 'string' would melt into a blob of matter. The blob is spherical.

Because you're an ignorant idiot.

Not sure if that works either. what sort of collapse? What sort of mass? It still starts of as a huge disc right? Or does it melt right away as mere particles of dust? The moon is solid right, but still round. I heard it got knocked of the Earth. Did it melt? Is it still molten at the centre? If not then why does mass stop melting after awhile from the same forces that started it melting? I'm trying to figure out if you have accidentally included the Aether in your explanation, by saying that liquid objects turn spherical, because that would be the equal pressure of the Aether. Maybe you did, maybe you didn't... hard to tell.

 

[spidergoat]

Gravity attracts matter from the center of mass, that naturally favors spheres.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Not sure if that works either

It does, supercomputer simulations demonstrate that our current models of gravity can account for the spherical shape of stars and planets.

what sort of collapse? What sort of mass?

Gravitational and anything.

It still starts of as a huge disc right? Or does it melt right away as mere particles of dust?

No, galaxies form by the collapse of roughly spherical clouds of matter. Their disk structure forms because of conservation of angular momentum and the matter bumping into itself. A single disk of material generally doesn't have much material bumping into one another. If you have two disks of material rotating about the same central region but in different planes then their constituents will collide with one another, altering the same. This settles down into a stable disk configuration. Angular momentum and collisions, its all explained by them.

The moon is solid right, but still round. I heard it got knocked of the Earth. Did it melt? Is it still molten at the centre?

The Moon is believed to ave been formed by a Mars sized object hitting a proto-Earth. The huge energies involve liquified the pretty much the entire planet and threw off a molten chunk. Gravitational forces would then be sufficient to cause the molten material to being spherical fast enough that it happened before it cooled enough to become rigid. That's pretty much the definition of a planet, one which is sufficiently massive that it could become spherical before it cooled to solid.

If not then why does mass stop melting after awhile from the same forces that started it melting?

The mass melted because the collision of 2 objects with massess of about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms at 50km/s results in so much energy output that it'll melt rock easily. Think a billion nuclear weapons going off at once and you're getting there.

I'm trying to figure out if you have accidentally included the Aether in your explanation, by saying that liquid objects turn spherical, because that would be the equal pressure of the Aether

Just because superheated molten rock flows like a liquid doesn't mean aether has anything to do with it. Nothing I said involves aether. Two objects collide, which releases energy. This energy melts the objects. The objects' gravity causes them to become spherical before they cool. They then cool to form solid spheres.

Maybe you did, maybe you didn't... hard to tell.

It's not hard to tell at all, I didn't. Mentioning a liquid doesn't mean we're talking about aether. Aether is a fluid but not all fluids are aether. Even someone as irrationally stupid as you should manage to grasp that logic.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

And round planets are better for marbles then odd shaped ones are.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

It does, supercomputer simulations demonstrate that our current models of gravity can account for the spherical shape of stars and planets.

Gravitational and anything.

No, galaxies form by the collapse of roughly spherical clouds of matter. Their disk structure forms because of conservation of angular momentum and the matter bumping into itself. A single disk of material generally doesn't have much material bumping into one another. If you have two disks of material rotating about the same central region but in different planes then their constituents will collide with one another, altering the same. This settles down into a stable disk configuration. Angular momentum and collisions, its all explained by them.

The Moon is believed to ave been formed by a Mars sized object hitting a proto-Earth. The huge energies involve liquified the pretty much the entire planet and threw off a molten chunk. Gravitational forces would then be sufficient to cause the molten material to being spherical fast enough that it happened before it cooled enough to become rigid. That's pretty much the definition of a planet, one which is sufficiently massive that it could become spherical before it cooled to solid.

The mass melted because the collision of 2 objects with massess of about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms at 50km/s results in so much energy output that it'll melt rock easily. Think a billion nuclear weapons going off at once and you're getting there.

Just because superheated molten rock flows like a liquid doesn't mean aether has anything to do with it. Nothing I said involves aether. Two objects collide, which releases energy. This energy melts the objects. The objects' gravity causes them to become spherical before they cool. They then cool to form solid spheres.

It's not hard to tell at all, I didn't. Mentioning a liquid doesn't mean we're talking about aether. Aether is a fluid but not all fluids are aether. Even someone as irrationally stupid as you should manage to grasp that logic.

It does, supercomputer simulations demonstrate that our current models of gravity can account for the spherical shape of stars and planets.

Well they would include gravity using the current gravity formula which is actually an unknown guess of what the formula means, so sure it would work, but are they using that formula on a disc, or a sphere? That's the question. If they automatically create a sphere to begin with then it works fine. If they try to start with a disc, and then model a gravity disk instead of a spherical one they then have to account for the slide of the superheated materials when Earth is larger than the moon, because the moon isn't large enough to heat itself up.

The objects' gravity causes them to become spherical before they cool. They then cool to form solid spheres.

I guess you can keep saying that gravity is spherical, and get away with it. I suppose I have to wait until gravities pulling force is discovered from the atom. It certainly isn't the electron as that does not have a spherical path. So it's the nucleus, or the Atom itself. But I much prefer the equal pressure model, because it is a known force in the sea, whereas I don't really know of a visible pulling force in nature, and I do like nature to be a fractal of itself.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Well they would include gravity using the current gravity formula which is actually an unknown guess of what the formula means.

You've got it back to front: the "formula" is a mathematical explanation of gravity.

It certainly isn't the electron as that does not have a spherical path. So it's the nucleus, or the Atom itself.

But I much prefer the equal pressure model, because it is a known force in the sea

No it isn't.

whereas I don't really know of a visible pulling force in nature.

Er, gravity.
Magnetism...

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Well they would include gravity using the current gravity formula which is actually an unknown guess of what the formula means, so sure it would work.

The fact you don't understand it doesn't mean its an 'unknown guess'. Why do you constantly keep assuming everyone is as clueless as you?

I guess you can keep saying that gravity is spherical, and get away with it.

The gravitational force between two objects depends on their diistance apart. It is energetically favourable for a self gravitating liquid to form a sphere than any other shape. It is when all the forces balance. If you stretched the Sun into an oblong, a sausage shape, it'd contract down along its length, moving back to a spherical shape. This is because the gravitational attraction pulls in the ends until the upward force due to pressure equals the downward force, which occurs when the star is spherical. Nature always tends to the less energetic state and a sphere of mass has less potential energy in it then the same mass in any other configuration. If you knew any classical mechanics you'd know this.

Water droplets when it rain start as spheres because the surface tension makes the stablest shape a sphere. They only become droplet shaped when they fall from the sky and air resistance alters their shape. Children know this, so why don't you?

I suppose I have to wait until gravities pulling force is discovered from the atom. It certainly isn't the electron as that does not have a spherical path..

The $$s^{n}$$ electron orbital is a sphere.

So it's the nucleus, or the Atom itself..

See, yet again you turn out to be wrong because you're ignorant of the basic properties of the things you make claims about. Why don't you realise how stupid your claims are? Do you have a learning disability or something?

But I much prefer the equal pressure model, because it is a known force in the sea, whereas I don't really know of a visible pulling force in nature.

But then you don't know much about anything.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

The fact you don't understand it doesn't mean its an 'unknown guess'. Why do you constantly keep assuming everyone is as clueless as you?

The gravitational force between two objects depends on their diistance apart. It is energetically favourable for a self gravitating liquid to form a sphere than any other shape. It is when all the forces balance. If you stretched the Sun into an oblong, a sausage shape, it'd contract down along its length, moving back to a spherical shape. This is because the gravitational attraction pulls in the ends until the upward force due to pressure equals the downward force, which occurs when the star is spherical. Nature always tends to the less energetic state and a sphere of mass has less potential energy in it then the same mass in any other configuration. If you knew any classical mechanics you'd know this.

Water droplets when it rain start as spheres because the surface tension makes the stablest shape a sphere. They only become droplet shaped when they fall from the sky and air resistance alters their shape. Children know this, so why don't you?

The $$s^{n}$$ electron orbital is a sphere.

See, yet again you turn out to be wrong because you're ignorant of the basic properties of the things you make claims about. Why don't you realise how stupid your claims are? Do you have a learning disability or something?

But then you don't know much about anything.

You keep including surrounding forces in your explanations. All of them could be the even distribution of the Aether. You seem unable to take away the Aether from your thinking, it has become automatic for you to use the Aether in everything that you say. Water droplets become spherical because of the Aether surrounding them, but you just let it fly that they become spherical (no reason included apart from a pull from gravity which you have no explanation for). You will always have no response, because nobody knows what gravity is. I will always say the even distribution of the Aether, and that is what you call an explanation. Not just the word Gravity which isn't a real explanation, it's just a word.

 

[Dywyddyr]

There is no aether.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

You've got it back to front: the "formula" is a mathematical explanation of gravity.





No it isn't.


Er, gravity.
Magnetism...

Anemone Polyps have even distribution from outside, and within, and gravity, and magnetism are not visible so don't count as visible pulling forces.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

There is no aether.

Because you can't see it? But you can see Gravity, and magnetism. You have an amazing set of eyes.