/sci/ - Science & Math

I don't know man, FUCK, GOD FUCKING DAMNIT

>>9514234
Are you serio mang?

>>9514234
Because science or some shit man I'm just here for the memes
I'd also say gravitational attraction

>>9514250
Kys

>There's a black hole inside the sun the size of a peanut which has just the right density to keep everything together nice and tight with its gravitational pull.

>>9514234
The sun throws out gases all the time, they're called CMEs. Most of it is held together by gravity but magnetic fluctuations throw off ejecta

>The sun is made up of gases, yes, and we know gases in a vacuum will expand in every direction until equilibrium is reached. However the gases that make up the sun are a special kind. We in the science community call them "dark gases". Essentially, these gases are made up of your usual atom, quark etc, but they also consist of matter that we cannot measure. The very fact we can't measure it means we know it's definitely there.

>>9514234
>what is gravity

>what is solar wind

Only a complete dullard could think fucking gravity could attract and and force gases to conform into spheroid shapes in none other than a vacuum.

>>9514234


>>9514278
>>9514318
>>9514322
What is rotation, precession and revolution?

>>9514327
When it's that dense yeah

>>9514250
>Name
>>9514278
>>9514289
>>9514318
>>9514327
>9514327
>Gravity
>Using meme science that isn't even real
Gravity doesn't exist, it's just the inadvertent reaction to clumping large amounts of mass together, that sun isn't clumped because of gravity, it's clumped because the curvature of spacetime that gas makes coalesces into a larger curve, forcing that gass to settle in a lower energy state in spacetime
>inb4 the curvature and gravity are the same thing
no they're not fuck you

>>9514347
>More string theory bs

>>9514329
>>9514338

Provide scientific proof for your claims.

>the curvature of spacetime that gas makes coalesces into a larger curve, forcing that gass to settle in a lower energy state in spacetime

Everything would be spherical if that was true.

>>9514362
Newtons equation for universal gravitational force

>>9514362
everything tried to be spherical, the only issue is the energy of bonds in smaller objects allows it to maintain it's shape, if you increase it's size, eventually it will collapse into a sphere. same for rotation, the rotational energy will force the planet to take on a more irregular shape, but under all circumstances, if you remove the energy in the bonds, or the rotational energy, it will form back into a sphere.
>inb4 hurrr what are the laws of thermodynamics

>>9514347

>Gravity doesn't exist, it's just the inadvertent reaction to clumping large amounts of mass together, that sun isn't clumped because of gravity,
True
>it's clumped because the curvature of spacetime that gas makes coalesces into a larger curve, forcing that gass to settle in a lower energy state in spacetime
>inb4 the curvature and gravity are the same thing

"spacetime" itself is a meme term for describing a "medium" that we lie in. but it's not a material medium, just something with a lot of "effects".

"space" is not "nothing" not a complete vacuum. It is full of EM, hydrogen atoms and various other stuff, it is a different pressure mediation in otherwords.

"time" is a describer of effect. It is not a force nor modality nor anything in itself, of itself, by itself. It is simply a measurement we use to describe effects.

Effects are not causes, the only cause is motion (by rotation). When you stir water or pull the plug out of the sink, or flush the toilet, what happens?

>>9514234
Mostly plasma

>>9514362
Scientific proof?

You want scientific proof that the earth, every planet and the sun spin, rotate, precess and orbit the milky way? okay here's a start:

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/in-depth/

>>9514364
>>9514367

I said scientific, not mathematical or theoretical.

>>9514390
how is it theoretical? there are orbital bodies in our solar system that are spheres, they're generally large, and have a lot of mass. Smaller body's generally form rocky, uneven non spherical bodies, we know theres a difference because rocky bodies are universally small, and large bodies are universally round, and because rocky bodies have a larger pull due to larger mass, there's simple math that exists to prove this, and it generally falls in line with the size and gravitational pull of planets
why don't you see the correlation anon?

>>9514390
>scientific is different than mathematical

>>9514409
Large bodies are still "rocky" but it's just that their scale is so large that they appear smooth and spherical, plus their mass is larger and their spherical pull is larger so it helps to condense them more

>>9514390
smash 10-20 pounds of neodymium magnets with a hammer until it is nothing but shrapnel and shards. Clump them together and the magically form a spherical shape.

>no it's a toroid

Yes.
Well then take that clump and mount it on a drill and spin it till the centrifugal force makes it form a sphere. Then it will start to fly apart because it no longer has the CAPACITY TO STORE ROTATIONAL ENERGY.
This is why bubbles form spheres and become unstable and may pop when distorted. The sphere is natures most efficient way of storing the most energy but at heart it is really a toroid that is "full". This is why you see spherical shapes in nature.
And there is really no more proof to be shown, everything is purely observational so go observe some spheres.

>>9514419
I've got some neodymium magnets at home that are broken, gonna smash em up when I get back and try it out

>>9514417
they're rocky because the pull of gravity isn't strong enough to break localized phenomena, mounts can form because of this, the energy stored in molecular bonds are still stronger than the pull of gravity, but the superstructure itself is too large to form complex shapes, earth can never be anything but a sphere, because it's too large, but it's not so large that phenomena and structures can't form on it's surface

>>9514429
I see what you're getting at, grand scheme vs localized right?
For say an asteroid, grand scale = local scale
But for earth local scale can't equal the grand

>>9514442
exactly, it's all about potential energy, and if the gravitational pull it able to overcome the energy stored in bonds, there's this sweet spot where planets can exist, and allow for things to exist on the surface, but any less, and the planet won't form, and any more and the higher pull could make it impossible for certain things to form. if the pull of gravity from mass is high enough, it can overcome the bonds in atoms even, that's why some stars collapse into neutron stars, the pull of gravity is stronger than the bonds between atoms, or even atomic nuclei.
shits weird as hell

>>9514389

Very funny.

>>9514409

Can you show me proof that these celestial objects are spheres, without resorting to NASA imagery? And what proof do you have that gases can conform to a spherical shape in a vacuum?

>>9514411

Mathematics = language, language alone is not scientific proof. The scientific method, is scientific proof.

>>9514419

Spheres are the most likely shape to form when all "forces" acting upon that object is equal. In the case of bubbles, it is the air's equal pressure all around that provides a bubble's shape, but somehow people have replaced the "external force" known as the air, or the atmosphere, with fucking gravity.

>>9514467
this is Jupiter taken on a Nikon p900

>>9514475

And you can conclude 100% that it's a sphere from that?

Have you taken a picture of a bright twinkling star yet? Did it look spherical?

>>9514467

> but somehow people have replaced the "external force" known as the air, or the atmosphere, with fucking gravity.

Oh believe me I know. I hate telling people that don't understand what a pressure mediation or a fraction is.

>32 posts in and nobody has mentioned hydrostatic equilibrium
>>9514493
some stars are spatially resolvable with modern optics, look up Betelgeuse

>>9514419
I'd just like to take this time to say that I miss SpaceElevator threads

>>9514516
Pseudo-science has got to go.

>>9514523
>some stars are spatially resolvable with modern optics, look up Betelgeuse

Oh cool where can I buy one? Wait, only branches of government are allowed them? That makes total scientific sense...

>>9514594
>only government is allowed to have them
no, most of those telescopes are owned by universities, some by governments, the only people who build them are the people who can afford them, no government is gonna come in and confiscate you're 5000-10000mm telescope if you buy/build one

>>9514619

Which university has resolved Betelgeuse to show it as a sphere?

>>9514639
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atacama_Large_Millimeter_Array
looks like a national effort between universities, public organizations, and foundations separate from NASA that are interested in astrophysics, and astronomy

>>9514669
>European Souther Observatory

16-nation intergovernmental research organization for ground-based astronomy

>The National Institutes of Natural Sciences

Japanese government funded research organisation

>National Science Foundation

United States government agency

>>9514516

>>9514594
See? Like this fag who thinks 0 exist.
>Pseudo-science
How can it be pseudo when the means to explain what causes gravity are non existent? It's the pot calling the kettle black. Also it's not just the pressure, it's incoherent magnetism from the materials in earths crust that have gone through several periods of pole shifts and churnings from the core. The only thing that makes it coherent is the rotation/revolutions around the sun. You're a fool to believe that gravity is different than magnetism/electromagnetism.

>>9514234
It does. But there is a fuckton of it, and the gravity is strong enough that, as a percentage of the total, not much gets away.

>>9514327
Much weaker gravity keeps gases in place around Earth, why would you not expect greater gravity to keep gases in lace at the sun?

Is the part you don't understand actually how they got there in the first place?

>>9514523
Is this correct? Last I was paying attention, there were no stars that could be resolved as more than a point. But time has passed, and optics have, I am sure, gotten better.

>>9514669
Hate to say it, but also that's not an advance in optics resolving a star, that's a radio telescope. Not the same thing, though if it can resolve Betelgeuse that's still pretty cool.

>>9514981

Because gases are not solids. Do you know what happens to a gas in a vacuum?

>>9514278
>>9514293

Are you guys here really arguing with a flat earther/government bullshit conspiracist? Fucking really?!

>>9516307

Back to pleddit kid the adults are talking here.

>>9516317
>adults

>>9516370

>believes the sun is a ball of helium and hydrogen

>>9516374
>believes that I'm gonna fall for his bait and start arguing already settled scientific results with him

>>9514594
I'm sure with sufficient money you could have the same telescopes as major universities and research institutions.

>>9516294
They have mass, though. So you get lots in one place, you get lots of gravity.

The Earth's atmosphere is also open to a vacuum, but it is still here, with a lot lower gravity holding it than is the case with the sun because the sun is a lot more massive.

>>9516379
>already settled scientific results

That's not how science works kid, should never be a closed book

>>9516392

Someone must have done that by now, right?

>>9516405

Yeah, lots of separate "gravity", gases don't bond with each other in the same way a solid does, and this is true to the extreme in a vacuum. Gravity requires a central mass to pull things towards, gases don't have a central mass, they are always trying to equalise themselves with the surrounding environment.

>>9516562
I could explain it to you again but I can't understand it for you, you'll have to work on that yourself.

Hopefully you are just trolling, it's better to be a clever troll than genuinely stupid.

>>9516408
It's never a closed book, but some parts have been written in pen, and if you want to re-write them you're going to have to do better than say "I don't understand." You are going to have to come up with, and find evidence for, your zany new ideas.

>>9517389
>I could explain it to you again

No you couldn't.

>>9517391
Basically, gravity = all the air around us

The movements of celestial "bodies" are electromagnetic.

>>9518518
>>I could explain it to you again
>No you couldn't.


Yes I could:

>They have mass, though. So you get lots in one place, you get lots of gravity.

>The Earth's atmosphere is also open to a vacuum, but it is still here, with a lot lower gravity holding it than is the case with the sun because the sun is a lot more massive.

>>9514234
BRAP

>>9518573

No brainlet. The center of mass would be where it is the most dense, where gravity is at its strongest.

If we take a gas, it will have uniform density everywhere, so how can it be formed into a spherical gas planet without a central mass that is denser than the surrounding mass?

>>9518605
>The center of mass would be where it is the most dense, where gravity is at its strongest.
That's wrong retard. Gravity is strongest at the surface of the object. At the center of a spherical mass you will not feel any gravity at all.

>>9518605
Would you like me to explain it to you AGAIN? I'd guess that you still would not understand it. But that's your problem, not mine.

>>9514493
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWYaRz82TXA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywpHc0kLL8U

>>9514234
>Why sun's gases don't spread?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91IU8cFJ7o

>this is what /sci/ has become

Hm yes... very difficult question.... if there was some attractive force between masses in the universe.....really makes you think....