Why are planets fairly round?

[Trippy]

It's common knowledge that pink-teapotists are outdated cranks, unable to keep up with cutting-edge physics.

No. It's the deformists who are the cranks. You'll see, you'll all see. Once the James Webb Space telescope is launched, it will be able to image the teapot (or at least place an upper limit on its size), and you will see that it is pink, and perfect, and then your deformist theories will be rendered as dust.

 

[Trippy]

I was only asked about them. I don't have anything like that here.

You don't have razor blades?

 

[Pincho Paxton]

You don't have razor blades?

Not allowed!

No I don't have the other stuff. Anyway I'm an artist, and I want to stay an artist. My ideas are just like having a designer on hand to come up with ideas for a new project. That's all. I might take more interest if I learned the equations.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

"Liquids become spherical, because that is a natural state for a liquid to take." are pseudo logical

No, it's both logical and experimentally validated. If gravity treats alll directions the same (ie its isotropic) then a material which can 'flow' will, under its own gravity, form an isotropic shape. The only such shape is a sphere.

You could be talking about the Aether, you could be talking about membrane tension, but then you add "I am talking about Gravity." which is also a pseudo logic, as nobody knows what Gravity is, it could be Aether, it could be Vortex, it could be Bosons, it could be Photons. Then you talk about Waves, and you have a formula for them so they exist. You never actually know that you are constantly side-stepping logic.

The fact you don't know doesn't mean others don't. I happen to know about membranes, bosons, photons, gravitons, waves. I've spent 8 hours today working on them, but they are nothing to do with Aether. You keep saying "You might accidentally be using an aether" as if its unavoidable. It's like saying to someone "1+1=2 is wrong because you might accidentally be using 5".

And photons ARE boson dipshit.

You never stop to analyse a formula..

And how do you know what I do or don't do when doing algebra? Analysing formulas is my job. I get paid to do it. Having a deep understanding of and ability to analyse formulae are essential to my work.

Just because you don't like more educated people telling you you're wrong doesn't mean they are wrong.

"Does it really work?"

You do realise we've built and used rockets for more than half a century right? Of course it works.

I am very logical

No, you aren't. You wish you were, you desperately wish you were, but you aren't. You really can't accept there are things that you don't understand but which other people do. It's quite an immature point of view really.

I have to see if they are pushing on their own gasses

And you're not? Mainstream physics has vast amounts of experimental justification, which you don't even know about. You push your own guesses without logic or justification or evidence.

But no questions asked, and we get particle wave duality. So it's logical not to question it? That's not logical, that's just ignoring it.

Once again you project your flaws onto other people. It's not ignored in the physics community, it's something discussed in any first course in quantum mechanics. The wave and particle properties of a subatomic object are part and parcel of quantum field theory. It's entirely possible that the world of the subatomic is not like the everyday world we experience, that there are not macroscopic phenomena which closely mirror subatomic properties.

Anyway I'm an artist, and I want to stay an artist. My ideas are just like having a designer on hand to come up with ideas for a new project.

Cranks always act like you, they know nothing of physics and just think that having spent 30 minutes reading Wikipedia they have all the answers, as if all physicists need to do is just put in a bit of effort. Funny how none of those cranks ever amount to anything, just as you won't.

Not one of your claims or ideas has even remotely had the potential to be worth considering properly, since you pile so many utterly random claims on top of one another.

I might take more interest if I learned the equations.

No, you'll still be thick as horse shit. And besides, you're too stupid to grasp even basic calculus I'm sure. No doubt you'll come up with some deluded convoluted reason to tell yourself about why maths isn't really worth doing anyway so you don't have to learn it.

 

[Trippy]

Not allowed!

No I don't have the other stuff. Anyway I'm an artist, and I want to stay an artist. My ideas are just like having a designer on hand to come up with ideas for a new project. That's all. I might take more interest if I learned the equations.

Right, so you have an idea, you have an idea for an experiment that might prove it, that you could conduct in your home, but, you have no intention of trying to do so?

 

[Trippy]

So Alphanumeric.

Is the Teapot pink and perfect, or green and flawed? :3

The Prophet will save us.

(Sorry, I'll stop any time now, I promise).

 

[Pincho Paxton]

No, it's both logical and experimentally validated. If gravity treats alll directions the same (ie its isotropic) then a material which can 'flow' will, under its own gravity, form an isotropic shape. The only such shape is a sphere.

It's validated, and then you put IF.

So it's not validated. You also used the word Gravity again as a description, instead of saying something like...

If Gravity projected bosons behind a material in an orbiting return journey from every direction then the resulting material would be spherical.

But, no, you just take Gravity for granted. Mind you, you would then be adding a word like Gravitons, so just invent a new word to replace Gravity.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Right, so you have an idea, you have an idea for an experiment that might prove it, that you could conduct in your home, but, you have no intention of trying to do so?

So long as I know someday in the next 20 years that they have found the Aether I am happy. All I wanted to do was speed it up a bit. It possibly saves lives. I mean it theoretically works with biology.

 

[Trippy]

So long as I know someday in the next 20 years that they have found the Aether I am happy. All I wanted to do was speed it up a bit. It possibly saves lives. I mean it theoretically works with biology.

If you're that convinced it will work DO THE EXPERIMENT AND PROVE IT.

Look, even the method I suggested for making a double slit is flexible, it's not the only method available - I seem to recal the original double slit was a piece of fine card.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

If you're that convinced it will work DO THE EXPERIMENT AND PROVE IT.

Look, even the method I suggested for making a double slit is flexible, it's not the only method available - I seem to recal the original double slit was a piece of fine card.

It wouldn't make me feel any better to show myself what I already knew, so it would be a waste of time. I would look at the papers and think.. so what? I prefer to think of what else the Aether does besides that. Like it's nice to sit here, and know what Dark Matter is when nobody else does, and what nebula are. When I look at Nebula I can see if they are Aether bubbles exploding, Galaxies forming, or bubbles touching, or material shooting through the holes. It's neat.

 

[Trippy]

It wouldn't make me feel any better to show myself what I already knew, so it would be a waste of time. I would look at the papers and think.. so what? I prefer to think of what else the Aether does besides that. Like it's nice to sit here, and know what Dark Matter is when nobody else does, and what nebula are. When I look at Nebula I can see if they are Aether bubbles exploding, Galaxies forming, or bubbles touching, or material shooting through the holes. It's neat.

You're missing the point.

You have the opporunity to prove an earth shattering and life saving theory, but you can't be bothered to try?

 

[stereologist]

saying something like...

If Gravity projected bosons behind a material in an orbiting return journey from every direction then the resulting material would be spherical.

But, no, you just take Gravity for granted. Mind you, you would then be adding a word like Gravitons, so just invent a new word to replace Gravity.

This is some of the stupidest commentary yet.

I prefer to think of what else the Aether does besides that. Like it's nice to sit here, and know what Dark Matter is when nobody else does, and what nebula are. When I look at Nebula I can see if they are Aether bubbles exploding, Galaxies forming, or bubbles touching, or material shooting through the holes. It's neat.

Sorry this is even more stupid.

Again you see an aether which does not exist. You give explanations to things that make no sense. You spout nonsense. We know you spout nonsense and I think you are a troll.

I got better things to do. I'm spray painting a teapot yellow this evening.

 

[Trippy]

I got better things to do. I'm spray painting a teapot yellow this evening.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!![/vader]

 

[AlphaNumeric]

It's validated, and then you put IF.

So it's not validated. You also used the word Gravity again as a description, instead of saying something like...

So much for you being logical. I said "If" because I was explaining how spherical objects follow from a particular property of a force.

If a force is isotropic then when it acts sufficiently strongly on a material the material will deform to become a sphere. Isotropy implies spherical. Gravity is isotropic. Therefore gravity forms spheres when strong enough.

Clearly simple logic and basic reading skills are beyond you.

If Gravity projected bosons behind a material in an orbiting return journey from every direction then the resulting material would be spherical.

And if gravity were invislble pink elephants pushing things around and things could be spherical too.

See, coming up with a bullshit explaination is easy.

But, no, you just take Gravity for granted. Mind you, you would then be adding a word like Gravitons, so just invent a new word to replace Gravity.

No, gravity isn't taken 'for granted'. It's a major area of research in physics. And 'graviton' is to 'gravity' what 'photon' is to 'electromagnetism'. It isn't just another word for gravity, it's the name for the quantum of gravity.

Like it's nice to sit here, and know what Dark Matter is when nobody else does, and what nebula are.

 

[Dywyddyr]

It wouldn't make me feel any better to show myself what I already knew, so it would be a waste of time. I would look at the papers and think.. so what?

In other words you prefer to maintain your illusion (delusion) by NOT doing your own suggested experiment.
That way you won't have to do any work devising spurious "reasons" why the experiment didn't give the results you expected.

So long as I know someday in the next 20 years that they have found the Aether I am happy.

According to your OP in the "Theory of Everything" thread you''ve been "using" this theory for a while. What have you actually done with it?

I mean it theoretically works with biology.

So do invisible elves. but, like your aether "theory", they don't provide any better explanation than current theories.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

So much for you being logical. I said "If" because I was explaining how spherical objects follow from a particular property of a force.

If a force is isotropic then when it acts sufficiently strongly on a material the material will deform to become a sphere. Isotropy implies spherical. Gravity is isotropic. Therefore gravity forms spheres when strong enough.

Clearly simple logic and basic reading skills are beyond you.

And if gravity were invislble pink elephants pushing things around and things could be spherical too.

See, coming up with a bullshit explaination is easy.

No, gravity isn't taken 'for granted'. It's a major area of research in physics. And 'graviton' is to 'gravity' what 'photon' is to 'electromagnetism'. It isn't just another word for gravity, it's the name for the quantum of gravity.

OK you are pretty sure that you know how gravity works. Fine. But I have a different idea, and my idea works too. So we have two ideas, and I have read posts about other ideas, so there are more. Now we know that Dark Matter is a fix in the Gravitational law that disagrees somewhat with your idea. However it is part of my idea, so Dark Matter is just fine for me. My Aether can be compressed at different levels, and sizes, so I expect some variations in Gravity, and also in speed of Light, in Relativity, and in Photon wave distribution. What the Aether does is work with all of your anomalies. So if I want to pick the idea that works best that is logical. If I want to work on the idea that works best, and then figure out why it is working, and I say that the electrons are creating Vortex, then I am just amending more little problems. I am identifying the relationship with Gravity, and Magnetism. Being as magnetism is the stirring up of electrons in a wire spin, then I can expect a stronger vortex from that situation. We see stronger pull. Then I can say also that a 6 spin orbit of electrons might create the Hexagon alignment that I keep seeing. I am stepping through each situation following the same rules. What you are doing is stepping through each situation, and applying a new rule. Gravitons for Gravity, Dark Matter for stronger Gravity, EM for Snowflakes, Photons for Magnetism, Wave Particle duality for photon path disturbances, spooky matter for any odd behaviour, Bose-Einstein Condensate for the collapse of Atoms, Bosons for Mass. So you end up with 20 fixes, and I just say Aether. When you add the green fairy, you add the arms, legs, wings, feet, hands, eyes, ears, and mouth. I actually reduce the fairy down to a single item. The Aether. So who really is using a fairy?

 

[Dywyddyr]

OK you are pretty sure that you know how gravity works. Fine. But I have a different idea, and my idea works too.

Only in as much as all your "theory" does is unnecessarily "tweak" gravity.

Now we know that Dark Matter is a fix in the Gravitational law that disagrees somewhat with your idea.

No it doesn't.

My Aether can be compressed at different levels, and sizes

Except that you can't say why or how this happens.

What the Aether does is work with all of your anomalies.

Bullshit.
Name one thing that your "theory" actually does as opposed to a lot of hand-waving and vague description.

Being as magnetism is the stirring up of electrons in a wire spin

Um, no it's not. It's a mutual alignment.

I am stepping through each situation following the same rules.

Nope, you're inventing specious shit based on an almost complete lack of actual knowledge.

I just say Aether.

Which is to say, no explanation at all. You might as well say goddidit.

When you add the green fairy, you add the arms, legs, wings, feet, hands, eyes, ears, and mouth. I actually reduce the fairy down to a single item. The Aether. So who really is using a fairy?

So fairies don't have arms, wings, etc?

 

[Acitnoids]

Pincho,
Here's some food for thought. Look into how fire behaves onboard a spacecraft. The flame of a candle will burn as a perfect sphere unlike the teardrop shape (flattened) found on Earth. Why do you think the flame changes shape? The candle consumes the same amount of energy in both enviroments yet there is one major difference, gravity. Heat rises and on Earth "up" is the opposite direction as the pull of gravity. In a micro gravitational enviroment every direction can be considered "up" and so the heat will rise evenly in all directions. This is a good analogy for gas planets and stars. Can you see how the moon took on the same teardrop shape as a candles' flame on Earth even though the two phenomena have different root causes?

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Pincho,
Here's some food for thought. Look into how fire behaves onboard a spacecraft. The flame of a candle will burn as a perfect sphere unlike the teardrop shape (flattened) found on Earth. Why do you think the flame changes shape? The candle consumes the same amount of energy in both enviroments yet there is one major difference, gravity. Heat rises and on Earth "up" is the opposite direction as the pull of gravity. In a micro gravitational enviroment every direction can be considered "up" and so the heat will rise evenly in all directions. This is a good analogy for gas planets and stars. Can you see how the moon took on the same teardrop shape as a candles' flame on Earth even though the two phenomena have different root causes?

Thanks! I didn't know that the moon was oval.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Thanks! I didn't know that the moon was oval.

The correct term is "oblate spheroid".
An oval is a 2D shape.