Whatever you say, I am close. All I need to do is tie up the ends. Can't find out much about Lithium that I can understand.
Why are planets fairly round?
- Thread starter Pincho Paxton
- Start date
- Status
Whatever you say, I am close. All I need to do is tie up the ends. Can't find out much about Lithium that I can understand.
people dont know they are held in place with piano wire. have you ever seen a round asteroid?
I'd suggest scrapping your whole theory and rebuilding from the ground up, as their current top-down approach isn't going to get you anywhere.
No.
Completely false.
The shape of something in orbit is irrelevant.
A round object on the ground will only "want" to roll if it's not on level ground (not in equilibrium).
Yeah probably. I wish I could see a table of all atom formations, and electrons, and their orbits. I don't understand those periodic tables. I'm a visual sort of savant, I can't work without images. I can visualise electrons spinning sort of random best guess situations. They don't have real location.
it just sounds like a law of nature to me. can it be proved ?
is there a time frame that satellites stay in position ?
Can what be proved?
Satellites in orbit remain in orbit.
Most asteroids are not round, they're in orbit and have been for millennia, if not longer.
Actually, John99, no satellites cannot stay in position. They always move. If not in orbit, then they fall towards the planet, or they may escape the planet.
how wide is the orbit usually?
I see, and a man-made non-round shape is fundamentally different from a natural non-round shape how?
It doesn't matter.
Non-round shapes can have stable orbits whether man made or not.
Yeah asteroids are locked, and hot stuff is malleable. I think the upwards build up is vortex, gyroscopic. I think that the electrons then harmonise into a circular motion with one another. But you still need the Aether to create most of the vortex pull.
Assuming you mean "at what altitude" then it depends on the velocity (for it to be stable).
The further out from the primary the slower it needs to move to remain in orbit.
so your saying that any object moves once it breaks orbit and of course cannot get back into an orbit?
do you have any examples?
Here's some info for you to digest Pincho.
Soap bubbles form 14-gons, that's right 14 faces when in an aggregate. The reason was worked out by Lord Kelvin. He looked into the properties of the 14-gon (tetrakaidecahedron) and learned what caused the bubbles to assume this shape.
The carbons in the sheet had trigonal structure. Each carbon was connected to 3 other carbons. The hexagons you perceived were due to the 3-way carbon joins. Carbon does other fascinating things as well.
What you need to do is to take a class in something like biology which is often observational and not mathematical to learn something about what you are observing instead of trying to put square pegs in round holes.
I think you can do it. When you do you'll learn why aether cannot exist, why planets are balls, why trees are shaped as they are, and many other interesting facts.
Soap bubbles form 14-gons, that's right 14 faces when in an aggregate. The reason was worked out by Lord Kelvin. He looked into the properties of the 14-gon (tetrakaidecahedron) and learned what caused the bubbles to assume this shape.
The carbons in the sheet had trigonal structure. Each carbon was connected to 3 other carbons. The hexagons you perceived were due to the 3-way carbon joins. Carbon does other fascinating things as well.
What you need to do is to take a class in something like biology which is often observational and not mathematical to learn something about what you are observing instead of trying to put square pegs in round holes.
I think you can do it. When you do you'll learn why aether cannot exist, why planets are balls, why trees are shaped as they are, and many other interesting facts.
How do you get that from my statement?
It depends what forces are acting on it: man-made satellites can certainly change orbits (or leave a given one and then return to it).
Er, man-made satellites, asteroids.
Which parts of the previous exchange have you missed?
It all depends on what you want to do. Spy satellites, weather satellites, ocean and land study satellites are low orbit. The Int'l Space Station is around 120 miles up. Geostationary satellites are over 20000 miles up. These appear to be stationary in the sky. They make for good communications satellites.
An interesting orbit is the one for Hubble. It grazes the upper atmosphere and that makes it position difficult to predict, and the earth blocks a good part of the view from Hubble. On the other hand it is close enough to earth to get occasional repair visits.
And John99, there are interesting asteroid pairs that rotate about each other and neither is even close to being ball shaped.
Thanks! But Aether has to exist. Just for the simple fact of local reference. No local reference, no A to B in a Vacuum. I know that the Aether wind couldn't be found, I think there has to be a reason for it. I don't think that there was an Aether membrane theory in the original test. Just a constant flow. My Aether has a membrane, and photons use the membrane, and Atoms, and electrons use the nucleus. By testing planet spin with a photon you are looking for nucleus events with a membrane event. That might not work. I think that to find a nucleus event you need to test with another nucleus event like a gas, or maybe a Bose-Einstein condensate. I say that the Aether definitely exists. You need it for all sorts of things.
- Status