Why are planets fairly round?

Thanks!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You might want to look this up Pincho. The other possible spheroidal shape is the prolate spheroid. Back in the Cartesian vs Newtonian battles measurement of the shape of the earth verified the Newtonian theory and demonstrating the failure of the Cartesian theory.

You want to know this since this is just one of many experiments validating the system in use today.

The aether is another rejected theory - long rejected theory.

PS Damn teapot was no wher to be found, but I've still got the yellow paint. The map I bought came from the same guy that sold me magic beans. I'm becoming suspicious.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ha ha!
You forgot that at this time of year it's occulted by the accompanying cream scones!
What a maroon!

 

I hate it when that happens.

Thankfully it wasn't the nonexistent aether that ruined my evil plans.

 

How gullible are you?
Just because it says "ether" on the label...
It could be tea in there for all you know.

 

I've been thinking about this candle a bit more. The flame is spherical, but isn't the candle wax, or the table, or a man holding the candle a higher pull of gravity than the inner workings of the flame itself? Shouldn't the flame be pulled downwards? I mean that the flame still seems to be using pressure from the Aether. Take for example a submarine. The pressure is all around it, and yet fish and things aren't pressed against the submarine, because they too have equal pressure all around them. The flame seems to have equal pressure all around it, but is not pulled towards the wax, or man because they have no pull, just equal pressure. So the flame seems to me to be acting more like a bubble, than a force from it's own gravitational pull.

 

Do the calculation. Go ahead and calculate the force. It's easy.

 

Pincho,
You ask if the flame should be "pulled downward" do to the mass of the candle wax or person holding it. What brings you to that conclusion when, on the surface of the Earth, the flame actually rises? Outside of a strong gravitational field there is no such thing as "up" or "down". As for the submarine analogy, I have no idea what kind of connection a micro gravitational enviroment has with the dynamic pressures exerted on objects of varying depth. The submariners do not feel the same pressure as the fish outside the vessel (Inside feels negative pressure while outside feels positive pressure. In a spaceship it's just the opposite) yet they don't float about the cabin or get pressed against its walls. If they drop an object it will still fall toward the center of the Earth. I don't understand your analogy. You go on to say that "The flame seems to have equal pressure all around it ...". If we replace the image of the flame with that of a gas planet or star then we would word this like this. "The star seems to have a lack of pressure all around it do to the vacuum of space. The gas is then pulled toward the higher pressure found at the stars core (center of mass)." The shape of a flame has nothing to do with its own weak gravitational pull but has everything to do with the gravitational field it is contained in and the temperature difference surrounding the flame. Heat rises and outside of a strong gravitational field every direction can be correctly labeled as "up".

 

Yeah, but what for example if Gravity was say half of the G equation, and the Aether was also half of the G equation? Then the maths would still work anyway.

 

I am not thinking of space as a vacuum however. I am thinking of space as spherical water pressure. But a very weak spherical pressure created by a spherical wave. I find it hard to be able to tell if the pressure is half of the force of G. G could have a hidden entity.. the Aether. Hot air rising could be the Aether force weakening due to heat waves naturalising the G waves. The moon being oblate spheroid is maybe the biggest reason to rethink the Aether, as it doesn't seem to work so well with pressure waves, but the candle does.

 

Since you haven't got a clue about much let me spell it out.

Plug in some numbers and learn that the gravitational attraction is close to 0. That being the case it shows that your ramblings on predictions are so utterly wrong.

 

So you enlist an inappropriate model and get baloney results. No surprises there.

 

For example: Read this link. It works fine with Aether, but with Gravity it creates problems....

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planet_formation_040720.html

 

Please explain why you there is a problem with gravity?

 

I think that there are lots of problems with Gravity, but just using the link above..

Using Gravity to create a Gas cloud with no core requires a motion that cannot maintain a stable exterior shape. the gas has to be constantly inhaled, and then exhaled, and in fact the planet doesn't even need to hold an orbit. It can just be pulled apart by any form of orbit to become an object with a trail behind it. However, with 50% G, and 50% Aether you now have an inward force, and a balanced external force similar to that of a bubble. Now you can use both forces to maintain the shape, and to stop the orbit from ripping the gas into a sweeping trail.

 

Where does it say in the article "the gas has to be constantly inhaled, and then exhaled,"?

Where in the article does it say, "It can just be pulled apart by any form of orbit to become an object with a trail behind it."?