Why are planets fairly round?
- Thread starter Pincho Paxton
- Start date
- Status
This graphene sheet also has an odd vibration that nobody understands. That would be gravity, or light.
The concept of the shape that a bubble assumes in 3-d is a ______. The shape was discussed at length by Lord Kelvin. Is that enough of a clue to figure out its 3-d shape?
There are 7 crystal systems. These only apply to some solids. Some solids, gases, and liquids to not have any organization. So most of the universe has matter that is a gas, i.e. not hexagonal.
To state that
There are 7 crystal systems. These only apply to some solids. Some solids, gases, and liquids to not have any organization. So most of the universe has matter that is a gas, i.e. not hexagonal.
To state that
is wrong. You use snowflakes as an example of 6-fold symmetry. Metals generally form orthorhombic crystals. Salts generally form cubic crystals.
Metals, and salts do not float in the Aether, they have other pressures on them. I don't like the Aether being Hexagonal either, but I have to go by what I see. I have 100's of examples of Hexagon nature, and I can't explain it without the Aether taking on a Hexagonal form. But I can sort of explain the hexagonal form to about 50% of my satisfaction. Stuff compressed into the same space like the Bose-Einstein experiment which sort of happens, does not have to obey normal physics.
So you're claiming the entire universe is just like what you've seen? But you've seen so little. There are hundreds of examples of spherical objects in nature or cubic ones. Just because your Google Image Search brings up hexagons doesn't mean everything is like that.
You can't explain it, no. But then you haven't explained anything.
But 0% the satisfaction of anyone else.
Firstly, you certainly don't grasp Bose-Einstein condensates and secondly they do obey 'normal physics', it's just you're so ignorant of normal physics you don't realise it. Bosons occupying the same space-time point is a concept used in basic thermodynamics to obtain such things as the black body emission spectrum. Yet another thing known to physics students but unknown to you.
You are unemployed, aren't you?
You have no idea what shape a bubble takes on.
Sounds to me like all of this is an artifact of a poorly written program. You wrote a program. You saw a result. You claim this is what happens in nature. Sorry, that's not how it works.
I've figure it out. Firstly I forgot about vortex, Gyroscopes, and whirlpools. Then I remembered some of the discussion about electrons spinning in plenty of Hexagonal formations, and also some other formations. The somebody else posted that spin is a powerful force. Yes, spin can be a pulling force if it can spin a vortex. So now I am happy to have round Aether, but hexagonal forces from the spinning electrons, and a gyroscopic locking system. Maybe salt has some sort of corner electrons, I can't find any examples.
Then I struggled with this idea for awhile, because of trees. Trees also follow Hexagonal reasoning. Their branches twist after several levels, getting thinner, and look like outlines to Hexagons. Then I realised that Gyroscopes can balance at funny angles on your finger, and vortex have a height falloff. If I were to make a program of the Gyroscopic effects of electron Vortex in Aether I would most likely end up with the trunk falling to one side after awhile, and the other side of it continuing to vortex the other way. I think I get the tree. So I'm happy, but now it is time to look at vortex from lots of different electron spins, because you still have a 6 ring vortex in carbon, and that is why your gravity is sometimes Hexagonal. Plus I can still make snowflakes from this.
Then I struggled with this idea for awhile, because of trees. Trees also follow Hexagonal reasoning. Their branches twist after several levels, getting thinner, and look like outlines to Hexagons. Then I realised that Gyroscopes can balance at funny angles on your finger, and vortex have a height falloff. If I were to make a program of the Gyroscopic effects of electron Vortex in Aether I would most likely end up with the trunk falling to one side after awhile, and the other side of it continuing to vortex the other way. I think I get the tree. So I'm happy, but now it is time to look at vortex from lots of different electron spins, because you still have a 6 ring vortex in carbon, and that is why your gravity is sometimes Hexagonal. Plus I can still make snowflakes from this.
Last edited:
Then what you are saying is that these vortexes and whirlpools in your aether creates the attractive force of gravity between objects?
You do realise the reason why you might pose it looks like hexagons is because the apparatus used to take the video footage is outputting into a pixelated format. I'm pretty sure if you look at HD or better still the actual film version that the grain would proven that what you see isn't necessarily what you get.
Yes, in a Vortex. So apply it to electron orbits in Aether, and you get a pulling spin.
Yes, I am more interested in electron spins now. How they would create vortex at the end of each orbit. It is much better, as it includes the locking system, and Mass system as well, and magnetism. It still requires the Aether, and that troublesome Aether wind. that's the big problem now. I have to now have an Aether vortex wind.
By the way.. is it possible that the individual stuff on the video is spinning. It's just that it looks a little bit like it is. But of course I am thinking about spinning, so now I am seeing it spinning.
Last edited:
So what do you think of gravity being a sort of gyroscopic tornado in the Aether, and the reason that you get a lot of Hexagons is because of the 6 orbit electrons? Try thinking about my tree example....
A bit like this....
This is a nonsense thread.
1. electrons don't spin in hexagonal formations
2. spin can't pull
3. trees do not have hexagonal patterns
4. no vortices in carbon
5. gravity is not hexagonal
6. no aether
And for an amazingly bad guess, probably due to not looking at the image
7. The hexagonal pattern in the graphene sheet is not due to 6 electrons
The thinking presented in this thread is not nearly as clear headed as the logic seen in this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
1. electrons don't spin in hexagonal formations
2. spin can't pull
3. trees do not have hexagonal patterns
4. no vortices in carbon
5. gravity is not hexagonal
6. no aether
And for an amazingly bad guess, probably due to not looking at the image
7. The hexagonal pattern in the graphene sheet is not due to 6 electrons
The thinking presented in this thread is not nearly as clear headed as the logic seen in this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
Good picture of the atom in post 76. Too bad that's not the shape of the orbits in lithium.
(I'm being facetious when saying good)
(I'm being facetious when saying good)
Last edited:
Pure nonsense.
Satellites aren't round.
- Status