Planets...

[Imurg]

They aren't round, they're spherical

What about the sticky up bits........

 

[stefanovic]

I'll try and explain why planets appear to be round using Hugh Everett's Many World's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.
Not easy to imagine it to begin with but you can get used to it.
Suppose I am standing next to someone and we are both observing the full Moon. Earth and Moon are a double planet system.
We both observe it to be round, but what we see are virtually identical copies with no way of differentiating.
Our brains pick up information at the speed of light, then remodel it to what we perceive as reality.
What lies behind it is the wave function of electrons from the moon, or more probably the transition of muons (large electrons) into electrons.
This superposition of wave functions is what we are observing.
(What even shocked Einstein).

 

[Slab]

I'll try and explain why planets appear to be round using Hugh Everett's Many World's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.
Not easy to imagine it to begin with but you can get used to it.
Suppose I am standing next to someone and we are both observing the full Moon. Earth and Moon are a double planet system.
We both observe it to be round, but what we see are virtually identical copies with no way of differentiating.
Our brains pick up information at the speed of light, then remodel it to what we perceive as reality.
What lies behind it is the wave function of electrons from the moon, or more probably the transition of muons (large electrons) into electrons.
This superposition of wave functions is what we are observing.
(What even shocked Einstein).

"Virtually identical copies"... of what?

 

[stefanovic]

"Virtually identical copies"... of what?

There is not one Moon or one of anything.
Even a person in the street is just an average of the sum of copies in nearby parallel worlds.
As the Oxford scientist David Deutsch has pointed out the fabric of reality is very disturbing.
As the Italian scientist Carlo Rovelli has pointed out, reality is not what it seems.
Inertia can only be explained by the existence of parallel worlds.

 

[Imurg]

 

[Slab]

There is not one Moon or one of anything.
Even a person in the street is just an average of the sum of copies in nearby parallel worlds.
As the Oxford scientist David Deutsch has pointed out the fabric of reality is very disturbing.
As the Italian scientist Carlo Rovelli has pointed out, reality is not what it seems.
Inertia can only be explained by the existence of parallel worlds.

Supposing that's right... all the copies would be the same shape and in the case of the moon that shape would be round

 

[Bunkermagnet]

The randomness and chaos of life, the universe etc suggests that they could be all sorts of shapes, until you read and understand why they are round. Everything being round is too organised, were there not a reason why.

It's something I had never thought of before but I think it was a cracking question for those not versed in this area.

I'll reply to you for fear of upsetting attitude.
On the radio the other day, they said the James Webb Space Telescope had spotted 2 unknown free moving planets, not connected to any stars.
That had me thinking, why are planets always round. asteroids aren't, spacecraft don't need to be so why so for planets.
If gravitational pull is the answer, are we saying there is so much more free flowing debris in space to fill voids and the like because holes I dig in the garden don't refill themselves even if left for years, so why planets.
I appreciate such a simpleton like myself shouldn't dare to question such things, especially as I don't chew on the Oxford English dictionary but hey. That was all.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I'll reply to you for fear of upsetting attitude.
On the radio the other day, they said the James Webb Space Telescope had spotted 2 unknown free moving planets, not connected to any stars.
That had me thinking, why are planets always round. asteroids aren't, spacecraft don't need to be so why so for planets.
If gravitational pull is the answer, are we saying there is so much more free flowing debris in space to fill voids and the like because holes I dig in the garden don't refill themselves even if left for years, so why planets.
I appreciate such a simpleton like myself shouldn't dare to question such things, especially as I don't chew on the Oxford English dictionary but hey. That was all.

Maybe I've misunderstood your post but I liked the question, I've learnt something from it. The questions make sense to me as well

This isn't my field at all, I know nothing about physics, astro physics etc.

 

[Piece]

There is not one Moon or one of anything.
Even a person in the street is just an average of the sum of copies in nearby parallel worlds.
As the Oxford scientist David Deutsch has pointed out the fabric of reality is very disturbing.
As the Italian scientist Carlo Rovelli has pointed out, reality is not what it seems.
Inertia can only be explained by the existence of parallel worlds.

This is just all theory. What’s the proof to declare it fact?

 

[Tashyboy]

The Earth is actually an oblate spheroid.

Would that be due to the “Equatorial bulge”.

 

[Imurg]

Would that be due to the “Equatorial bulge”.

What goes on around your equator is best left alone Tash.....

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Thing is…with astrophysics we will continually discover stuff that we can’t explain given our current understanding of how it all hangs together…stuff that contradicts how we explain what we thought we understood…and at some point - maybe always - we come to realise that our explanation of so much of what we think we 100% understand might be completely wrong.

Most very recently I give you JuMBOs (Jupiter Mass Binary Objects)…they look like what we call planets - but they don’t adhere to the laws we have postulated to govern planetary bodies. JuMBOs might be different from planets, but quite possibly they are the same and it is our laws of planetary bodies that might be mistaken or indeed quite wrong.

My brain only understands the dimensions in which it sits and experiences, but that does not exclude the likelihood that there are other, indeed many possibly infinite, numbers of other dimensions that we cannot see, experience or comprehend - simply because they are indeed beyond our comprehension.

 

[Tashyboy]

What goes on around your equator is best left alone Tash.....

Oi Missis Tash is the centre of my world, leave her outta this.

 

[Robster59]

I'll reply to you for fear of upsetting attitude.
On the radio the other day, they said the James Webb Space Telescope had spotted 2 unknown free moving planets, not connected to any stars.
That had me thinking, why are planets always round. asteroids aren't, spacecraft don't need to be so why so for planets.
If gravitational pull is the answer, are we saying there is so much more free flowing debris in space to fill voids and the like because holes I dig in the garden don't refill themselves even if left for years, so why planets.
I appreciate such a simpleton like myself shouldn't dare to question such things, especially as I don't chew on the Oxford English dictionary but hey. That was all.

I'll try to answer as best as I can for those questions you've asked, but I'm no expert so I may be wrong.

• On the radio the other day, they said the James Webb Space Telescope had spotted 2 unknown free moving planets, not connected to any stars.
• They may have torn free from the gravitational pull of the start they were orbiting. Or the star may have shrunk to such a degree that it did not have the gravitational pull to hold those particular planets in place.
• That had me thinking, why are planets always round. asteroids aren't, spacecraft don't need to be so why so for planets.
• That question sort of answers itself. They aren't planets. Spacecraft are designed to leave the atmosphere and function in space. They are shaped by humans, not by gravity. Asteroids aren't round because they don't spin like planets and so do not create the gravity to make them the "round" shape of planets. Also, because they have no atmosphere they are more likely to be impacted by strikes from other space debris to give them there shape.
• If gravitational pull is the answer, are we saying there is so much more free flowing debris in space to fill voids and the like because holes I dig in the garden don't refill themselves even if left for years, so why planets.
• Because they are not close enough to stars or black holes to be pulled into them. However, if they drifted close enough to a star then they could get caught in the gravitational pull of the star, like has happened in the asteroid belt in our solar system.

There are much better educated people than me to explain this in more detail, but a program like Brian Cox's "Universe" is a good place to look.

 

[stefanovic]

On the radio the other day, they said the James Webb Space Telescope had spotted 2 unknown free moving planets, not connected to any stars.
That had me thinking, why are planets always round. asteroids aren't, spacecraft don't need to be so why so for planets.
If gravitational pull is the answer, are we saying there is so much more free flowing debris in space to fill voids and the like because holes I dig in the garden don't refill themselves even if left for years, so why planets.

Asteroids are likely to be broken up planets.
Actually there is no such thing as a round or spherical planet in any sense. That only exists in mathematics.
There are 2 big theories of physcics. Classical and quantum where the latter is more reliable.
Planets are believed to be the debris after the birth of a star. In time they will settle into their own orbits, but only after bombardments have occurred.
Gravitational pull does not exist. There is no attraction between a rocky planet like Earth and a distant helium factory like the Sun. Earth has simply found its own path through curved space.
The miracle of the Earth is that it has found a place within the "Goldilock's Zone". A place not too hot or cold.
Comets have their base outside the solar system in the Oort Belt, but they can be deflected inwards by a passing star.
Apart from Mercury all planets, asteroids and comets follow a flat elliptical orbit caused by all the objects interfering with curved space.

 

[stefanovic]

This is just all theory. What’s the proof to declare it fact?

You can't prove anything is fact, and nobody fully understands the quantum
Quntum physics only became a subject when anomalies were found in the classical theory.
A single photon should not be able to pass through 2 slits at once (Double Slit experiment).
Black box radiation should be uniform and not in packets.
Particles should not have faster than light interaction (Quantum Entanglement). Spooky!
It should be able to predict absolute position (Quantum Uncertainty) but you can't know both speed and position.
Quantum Cat Paradox suggests you will never know anything until you look.
Try looking at the moon then turn away. It collapses into chaos until you look back again.

 

[TimShady]

I'll try and explain why planets appear to be round using Hugh Everett's Many World's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.
Not easy to imagine it to begin with but you can get used to it.

You can't prove anything is fact, and nobody fully understands the quantum
Quntum physics only became a subject when anomalies were found in the classical theory.
A single photon should not be able to pass through 2 slits at once (Double Slit experiment).
Black box radiation should be uniform and not in packets.
Particles should not have faster than light interaction (Quantum Entanglement).
It should be able to predict absolute position (Quantum Uncertainty) but you can't know both speed and postion.
Quantum Cat Paradox suggests you will never know anything until you look.
Try looking at the moon then turn away. It collapses into chaos until you look back again.

You’ve read Schrödinger’s Kittens and think you’re a quantum physicist.

 

[stefanovic]

I do have a copy of that book, but John Gribbin is not a scientist. He's a journalist.
Jim Al Khalili is far more reliable and he corrects people like Gribbin.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

You’ve read Schrödinger’s Kittens and think you’re a quantum physicist.

I've watched all episodes of The Big Bang Theory. Does that validate my posts?

To be fair, mine are ones that Penny would write

 

[Robster59]

If all else fails, refer to this.