Why are planets fairly round?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Because you totally ignore logic, and replace it with approximations of event with pseudo cause.
Click to expand...

Time to read your own writing Pincho. I see no logic or understanding in any of the drivel you write. I was trying to be nice before and suggest that you learn something. It seems that you do not want to do that.

Your Newton example demonstrates a misunderstanding of how science works. Your name dropping with Bose-Eistein condensate, and dark matter are things of which you nothing. That is clear to everyone here. You don't know about the electron shells and yet toss out words like boson weak force, and photon. You are very foolish if you think that anyone is fooled by you.

So now it is time to put up or shut up.

Provide proof that the aether exists. Showing us really crappy code, or bad pictures of atoms and snowflakes does not demonstrate the existence of aether.

Here's a hint. Tell us what experiment demonstrates the existence of aether.
 
Dywyddyr said:
The gasses don't "push against their own substance" and centre of what mass?
(Fringe? Where and why?)
Click to expand...

Good point, and it isn't even what I said (When he said fringe, I initially thought he was talking about extending the engine bell).
 
stereologist said:
Time to read your own writing Pincho. I see no logic or understanding in any of the drivel you write. I was trying to be nice before and suggest that you learn something. It seems that you do not want to do that.

Your Newton example demonstrates a misunderstanding of how science works. Your name dropping with Bose-Eistein condensate, and dark matter are things of which you nothing. That is clear to everyone here. You don't know about the electron shells and yet toss out words like boson weak force, and photon. You are very foolish if you think that anyone is fooled by you.

So now it is time to put up or shut up.

Provide proof that the aether exists. Showing us really crappy code, or bad pictures of atoms and snowflakes does not demonstrate the existence of aether.

Here's a hint. Tell us what experiment demonstrates the existence of aether.
Click to expand...

You change the two slit experiment to the left / right experiment. You have 1 slit. On the left side of the slit you fire a line of photons which disturb the Aether on the left. Now you fire a single photon down the centre. No observers for any of this. You look at the paper, and the photon should turn to the right. Do this 100 times, and the photon should always go to the right. Do the same for the other side, and the photon should always go to the left.
 
Pincho Paxton said:
You change the two slit experiment to the left / right experiment. You have 1 slit. On the left side of the slit you fire a line of photons which disturb the Aether on the left. Now you fire a single photon down the centre. No observers for any of this. You look at the paper, and the photon should turn to the right. Do this 100 times, and the photon should always go to the right. Do the same for the other side, and the photon should always go to the left.
Click to expand...

How far to the right? And why haven't you conducted this experiment yet and published the results? It's pretty straight forward to.
Two razor blades.
Carbondisulfide
Carbon black
Specimen slide (the kind you use on a microscope).
And a LASER pointer.
 
PP that's NOT what was asked for.
You're assuming the aether before hand. What WAS asked for was "what experiment demonstrates the existence of aether." In other words what evidence (experimentally) is there NOW that demonstrates there's any foundation to your nonsense.
 
Pincho,
A wise man once said: "If you ever find yourself in a position where you think you're right and everybody else is wrong then, more likely than not, you're the one that's wrong." So you're a visual learner. Ok, I can relate. What you seem to be neglecting is that pictures are interpretive. That's the beauty and bane of all visual medium. What's preventing you from interpreting those pictures so that they fall in line with your preconceived notions of the existence of the aether? This is not how science is done and why nobody here can take you seriously. You can't just say that the vortex like spin of the hexagonal electron configuration within carbon creates a downward pull on the aether which gives rise to the attractive force of gravity. As nifty as this sounds, it doesn't mean anything. Take some time to start over and learn the basics. Leave your mental interjections out of it until you can do the math that everybody else uses. I wouldn't go to some foreign country and expect everyone there to understand my language. The same goes for science.
 
Dywyddyr said:
PP that's NOT what was asked for.
You're assuming the aether before hand. What WAS asked for was "what experiment demonstrates the existence of aether." In other words what evidence (experimentally) is there NOW that demonstrates there's any foundation to your nonsense.
Click to expand...

Well, the old two slit experiment where you have photons interfering with themselves which is the photons interfering with the Aether.

Magnetism where you spin the Aether into a vortex, and create a magnet.

Bose-Einstein where you reduce the holding force of the vortex until it can't support the atoms any longer.

Hot air rising, where you increase the vortex in the Aether to lift particles up into the air.

Photosynthesis where the vortex is captured beneath the leaves to lift plants higher, and support the lean weight of the gravity.

Tidal surges which when watched closely, and timed perfectly with the moon should indicate a strange time delay between the rising tide, and the moon passing overhead due to the pull actually being a push.
 
Every single one of those has a perfectly valid (i.e. working and usable) explanation which does not require aether.
What experimental evidence is there to support aether?

Edit: if you don't understand my point try this-
My new pet theory claims there are invisible elves that do all the real stuff and those dumb physicists are ignoring me.
My evidence is, of course, your list.
How are you going to differentiate between your aether (old outdated theory) and my elves (the new thing in genuine science)?
 
Acitnoids said:
Pincho,
A wise man once said: "If you ever find yourself in a position where you think you're right and everybody else is wrong then, more likely than not, you're the one that's wrong." So you're a visual learner. Ok, I can relate. What you seem to be neglecting is that pictures are interpretive. That's the beauty and bane of all visual medium. What's preventing you from interpreting those pictures so that they fall in line with your preconceived notions of the existence of the aether? This is not how science is done and why nobody here can take you seriously. You can't just say that the vortex like spin of the hexagonal electron configuration within carbon creates a downward pull on the aether which gives rise to the attractive force of gravity. As nifty as this sounds, it doesn't mean anything. Take some time to start over and learn the basics. Leave your mental interjections out of it until you can do the math that everybody else uses. I wouldn't go to some foreign country and expect everyone there to understand my language. The same goes for science.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was never my intention to tell anyone anything. My intention was to get a mathematician interested to do some calculations. Actually, my maths was pretty good when I did A levels. I was best in class, and that's my weak point. I didn't do anything apart from trigonometry though, because my maths was specific to engineering work. I would really like to learn the science type of maths. I have no idea what the symbols mean like when I looked up how to program a vortex all I could see were some triangles, and funny looking music symbols. So I might try to learn the maths.
 
To get anyone even close to being interested in doing the maths you have to show that there's actually something there worth doing.
 
I posit that there is a perfectly formed pink tea pot in orbit between Mars and Jupiter.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Every single one of those has a perfectly valid (i.e. working and usable) explanation which does not require aether.
What experimental evidence is there to support aether?

Edit: if you don't understand my point try this-
My new pet theory claims there are invisible elves that do all the real stuff and those dumb physicists are ignoring me.
My evidence is, of course, your list.
How are you going to differentiate between your aether (old outdated theory) and my elves (the new thing in genuine science)?
Click to expand...

You could draw around it with photons on a photosensitive paper. You would need a very tiny hole, and no observer. Try it with a magnet inside the box as well, you should get the vortex, but I don't know what material you would use to fire in the box. A photon might work, but I would need to look all that up on google.
 
Fool!
Every responsible scientist knows full well it's green.
And with a slightly deformed edge to the lid.
 
Pincho Paxton said:
You could draw around it with photons on a photosensitive paper. You would need a very tiny hole, and no observer. Try it with a magnet inside the box as well, you should get the vortex, but I don't know what material you would use to fire in the box.
Click to expand...

Are you going to conduct the experiment?

I notice you completely ignored that post.
 
Pincho Paxton said:
You could draw around it with photons on a photosensitive paper. You would need a very tiny hole, and no observer.
Click to expand...
Which would do what?
How do you catch one?
If it's invisible that means light either goes through it or round it.

Plus, of course, how do I convince someone on the current evidence, i.e. none, that it's worth spending the time to do an experiment when (according to current theory) it's actually the aether that does it?
 
Dywyddyr said:
Which would do what?
How do you catch one?
If it's invisible that means light either goes through it or round it.

Plus, of course, how do I convince someone on the current evidence, i.e. none, that it's worth spending the time to do an experiment when (according to current theory) it's actually the aether that does it?
Click to expand...

You don't catch one, they are compacted in every space in the Universe. So the photon will travel around it, and draw its shape naturally. Photons always travel through the membrane, they hit a force created by the electron.. hmm, you will need to do something about the electrons in the paper.
 
Trippy said:
No dammit!
It's pink and perfectly formed!
Every educated person knows that!
Click to expand...
It's common knowledge that pink-teapotists are outdated cranks, unable to keep up with cutting-edge physics. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top