What defines a planets shape and thickness when there's no gravity?

In the round earth theory, planets are spherical because gravity causes them to get this form.
Sand, water and other particles are being hold in this shape because of the gravity of the planet, right?
So what defines the shape and thickness of a flat planet? It must be god then? Or did it magically go from the big bang to a perfectly flat and round planet?

Explain this to me please

In the round earth theory, planets are spherical because gravity causes them to get this form.
Sand, water and other particles are being hold in this shape because of the gravity of the planet, right?
So what defines the shape and thickness of a flat planet? It must be god then? Or did it magically go from the big bang to a perfectly flat and round planet?

Explain this to me please

In round earth theory, galaxies are predominantly discs because gravity causes them to get this form. So what defines the shape and thickness of a round Planet (Planus, planum=flat)? It must be God then? Or did it magically go from the big bang to being perfectly oblate spheroid?

Quote from: Re-re on May 08, 2008, 06:12:32 AM

In the round earth theory, planets are spherical because gravity causes them to get this form.
Sand, water and other particles are being hold in this shape because of the gravity of the planet, right?
So what defines the shape and thickness of a flat planet? It must be god then? Or did it magically go from the big bang to a perfectly flat and round planet?

Explain this to me please

In round earth theory, galaxies are predominantly discs because gravity causes them to get this form. So what defines the shap and thickness of a round Plane[/u]t (Planus, planum=flat)? It must be God then? Or did it magically go from the big bang to a perfectly oblate spheroid?

What?
I don't exactly understand what you're trying to say, but the main difference is that planets get their round form because of gravity.
In your theory there's no gravity, only upwards movement. So no planets can be created out of said particles unless somebody puts them together (somebody = god or whatever). In the round earth theory gravity will 'put' these particles 'together' to shape planets.

What?
I don't exactly understand what you're trying to say, but the main difference is that planets get their form because of gravity.
In your theory there's no gravity, only upwards movement. So no planets can be created out of said particles unless somebody puts them together. In the round earth theory gravity will 'put' these particles 'together' to shape planets.

Why are galaxies almost always discs? This is clearly impossible using your logic.

Quote from: Re-re on May 08, 2008, 06:31:17 AM

What?
I don't exactly understand what you're trying to say, but the main difference is that planets get their form because of gravity.
In your theory there's no gravity, only upwards movement. So no planets can be created out of said particles unless somebody puts them together. In the round earth theory gravity will 'put' these particles 'together' to shape planets.

Why are galaxies almost always discs? This is clearly impossible using your logic.

Why? Because it's theorized that there's a black hole in the center of every galaxy, causing a drain like effect.
I shouldn't have to explain this to you, google it.
I was talking about the creation of planets, galaxies are a whole different thing.

Why? Because it's theorized that there's a black hole in the center of every galaxy, causing a drain like effect.

Woah, there! How does that prevent the systems in the galaxy from spiralling on more than one plane?
Sounds like you're just believing whatever you've been told to believe, to me.

Sand, water and other particles are being hold in this shape because of the gravity of the planet, right?

AND

I was talking about the creation of planets, galaxies are a whole different thing.

Stars, planets, gases and other particles are being hold[sic] in this shape because of the gravity of the galaxy, right?

Quote from: Re-re on May 08, 2008, 06:46:11 AM

Sand, water and other particles are being hold in this shape because of the gravity of the planet, right?

AND

I was talking about the creation of planets, galaxies are a whole different thing.

Stars, planets, gases and other particles are being hold[sic] in this shape because of the gravity of the galaxy, right?

Yeah you're right about that, but I still was talking about the actual shape of a planet and how it's created.
Sorry, english isn't my primary language, if I could rephrase it in my primary language it would have made a lot more sense

It shows that not all heavenly bodies are globes. I'm not sure why you would think they are or have to be.

It shows that not all heavenly bodies are globes. I'm not sure why you would think they are or have to be.

I never stated such a thing.

In the round earth theory, planets are spherical because gravity causes them to get this form.
Sand, water and other particles are being hold in this shape because of the gravity of the planet, right?
So what defines the shape and thickness of a flat planet? It must be god then? Or did it magically go from the big bang to a perfectly flat and round planet?

Explain this to me please

I would think that the constant, even pressure from the UA would eventually flatten the form of the early earth.  Sort of like when you put a scoop of cookie dough on a baking sheet and then bake it.  The the round scoop of dough will melt and flatten then solidify in it's new, flattened form.  Or something like that.

Mmmm.... Cookie dough.  Must be getting near snack time.

Quote from: Re-re on May 08, 2008, 06:12:32 AM

In the round earth theory, planets are spherical because gravity causes them to get this form.
Sand, water and other particles are being hold in this shape because of the gravity of the planet, right?
So what defines the shape and thickness of a flat planet? It must be god then? Or did it magically go from the big bang to a perfectly flat and round planet?

Explain this to me please

I would think that the constant, even pressure from the UA would eventually flatten the form of the early earth.  Sort of like when you put a scoop of cookie dough on a baking sheet and then bake it.  The the round scoop of dough will melt and flatten then solidify in it's new, flattened form.  Or something like that.

Mmmm.... Cookie dough.  Must be getting near snack time.

Wait so there was gravity before the universe magically started to go upwards?

Quote from: Ski on May 08, 2008, 07:01:02 AM

Quote from: Re-re on May 08, 2008, 06:46:11 AM

Sand, water and other particles are being hold in this shape because of the gravity of the planet, right?

AND

I was talking about the creation of planets, galaxies are a whole different thing.

Stars, planets, gases and other particles are being hold[sic] in this shape because of the gravity of the galaxy, right?

Yeah you're right about that, but I still was talking about the actual shape of a planet and how it's created.
Sorry, english isn't my primary language, if I could rephrase it in my primary language it would have made a lot more sense

Rephrase it in your primary language please.

Quote from: markjo on May 08, 2008, 08:23:10 AM

Quote from: Re-re on May 08, 2008, 06:12:32 AM

In the round earth theory, planets are spherical because gravity causes them to get this form.
Sand, water and other particles are being hold in this shape because of the gravity of the planet, right?
So what defines the shape and thickness of a flat planet? It must be god then? Or did it magically go from the big bang to a perfectly flat and round planet?

Explain this to me please

I would think that the constant, even pressure from the UA would eventually flatten the form of the early earth.  Sort of like when you put a scoop of cookie dough on a baking sheet and then bake it.  The the round scoop of dough will melt and flatten then solidify in it's new, flattened form.  Or something like that.

Mmmm.... Cookie dough.  Must be getting near snack time.

Wait so there was gravity before the universe magically started to go upwards?

No.  Just a really big chunk (some say infinitely big) of something or other that got blown out of the big bang and eventually settled into its final, flat earth shape due to the persistent force applied by the UA.

Quote from: Re-re on May 08, 2008, 07:48:09 AM

Quote from: Ski on May 08, 2008, 07:01:02 AM

Quote from: Re-re on May 08, 2008, 06:46:11 AM

Sand, water and other particles are being hold in this shape because of the gravity of the planet, right?

AND

I was talking about the creation of planets, galaxies are a whole different thing.

Stars, planets, gases and other particles are being hold[sic] in this shape because of the gravity of the galaxy, right?

Yeah you're right about that, but I still was talking about the actual shape of a planet and how it's created.
Sorry, english isn't my primary language, if I could rephrase it in my primary language it would have made a lot more sense

Rephrase it in your primary language please.

oh you can speak Dutch?

Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin on May 08, 2008, 08:39:18 AM

Quote from: Re-re on May 08, 2008, 07:48:09 AM

Quote from: Ski on May 08, 2008, 07:01:02 AM

Quote from: Re-re on May 08, 2008, 06:46:11 AM

Sand, water and other particles are being hold in this shape because of the gravity of the planet, right?

AND

I was talking about the creation of planets, galaxies are a whole different thing.

Stars, planets, gases and other particles are being hold[sic] in this shape because of the gravity of the galaxy, right?

Yeah you're right about that, but I still was talking about the actual shape of a planet and how it's created.
Sorry, english isn't my primary language, if I could rephrase it in my primary language it would have made a lot more sense

Rephrase it in your primary language please.

oh you can speak Dutch?

Yes. Go ahead.

I really don't want to make a big effort for trolls like you, but I'll start writing my sophisticated Dutch article in a sec!

I really don't want to make a big effort for trolls like you, but I'll start writing my dutch article in a while!

One would think it would be more effort to write the article you've already started in English, but I digress. Please continue (without the insults, if you please).

Trolls like me?! I am insulted.

Trolls like me?! I am insulted.

It's alright, Prof; we like you

Well, we tolerate her at anyrate 

Thats the best I can hope for

I'm not the one that called you a troll!!

You think it really 

I'll write you a limerick later...

Right it NOW




(I'm taking a leaf out of Eric's book)

I'm taking a leaf out of Eric's book)

Best be careful, or the limerick might resemble his....

It better not or I won't be your friend anymore 

Just for Mrs. penguin, I have written a dutch article about my theories.

Wat is het?

Teelbalkanker ontstaat als cellen in één teelbal of in beide kwaadaardig worden. Hoewel teelbalkanker slechts één à twee procent uitmaakt van alle kankergevallen, is het wel de meest voorkomende vorm van kanker bij mannen onder de 35 jaar. Teelbalkanker treft ongeveer 4 op de 100.000 mannen. Het is niet geheel duidelijk waardoor teelbalkanker wordt veroorzaakt. Mannen bij wie de teelballen niet of te laat zijn ingedaald - dus niet vóór de geboorte - lopen een verhoogd risico.

Kanker van de teelbal ontstaat meestal in de cellen die het zaad produceren. Deze cellen heten kiemcellen. Een tumor van de teelbal heet daarom ook wel een kiemceltumor. Daarnaast zijn er enkele zeldzame soorten teelbalkanker die ontstaan uit andere teelbalcellen. Deze tumoren worden hier niet beschreven.
Bij kiemceltumoren zijn er verschillende typen:

    * een seminoom
    * een niet-seminoom
    * een combinatietumor van een seminoom en een niet-seminoom

Hoe merkt u het?
Een klein, hard, pijnloos knobbeltje ongeveer zo groot als een erwt in één van de testikels, kan wijzen op teelbalkanker. Ook kan een teelbal zwaarder of harder aanvoelen dan normaal. De testikel voelt in de meeste gevallen ‘ongemakkelijk’ aan en er kan een doffe pijn in de onderbuik of de liesstreek optreden. Door regelmatig zelfonderzoek kan een carcinoom (kankergezwel) in een vroeg stadium opgespoord worden. Als het knobbeltje niet wordt behandeld, groeit het langzaam. Vanuit de teelbal kunnen de daar aanwezige kankercellen zich naar andere delen van het lichaam uitzaaien.
Hallo heeft U ook zo'n last van vaginale negers?

Just for Mrs. penguin, I have written a dutch article about my theories.

Wat is het?

Teelbalkanker ontstaat als cellen in één teelbal of in beide kwaadaardig worden. Hoewel teelbalkanker slechts één à twee procent uitmaakt van alle kankergevallen, is het wel de meest voorkomende vorm van kanker bij mannen onder de 35 jaar. Teelbalkanker treft ongeveer 4 op de 100.000 mannen. Het is niet geheel duidelijk waardoor teelbalkanker wordt veroorzaakt. Mannen bij wie de teelballen niet of te laat zijn ingedaald - dus niet vóór de geboorte - lopen een verhoogd risico.

Kanker van de teelbal ontstaat meestal in de cellen die het zaad produceren. Deze cellen heten kiemcellen. Een tumor van de teelbal heet daarom ook wel een kiemceltumor. Daarnaast zijn er enkele zeldzame soorten teelbalkanker die ontstaan uit andere teelbalcellen. Deze tumoren worden hier niet beschreven.
Bij kiemceltumoren zijn er verschillende typen:

    * een seminoom
    * een niet-seminoom
    * een combinatietumor van een seminoom en een niet-seminoom

Hoe merkt u het?
Een klein, hard, pijnloos knobbeltje ongeveer zo groot als een erwt in één van de testikels, kan wijzen op teelbalkanker. Ook kan een teelbal zwaarder of harder aanvoelen dan normaal. De testikel voelt in de meeste gevallen ‘ongemakkelijk’ aan en er kan een doffe pijn in de onderbuik of de liesstreek optreden. Door regelmatig zelfonderzoek kan een carcinoom (kankergezwel) in een vroeg stadium opgespoord worden. Als het knobbeltje niet wordt behandeld, groeit het langzaam. Vanuit de teelbal kunnen de daar aanwezige kankercellen zich naar andere delen van het lichaam uitzaaien.
Hallo heeft U ook zo'n last van vaginale negers?

Thanks you