Shape of smaller objects

  • 16 Replies
  • 3939 Views
*

The1

  • 50
Shape of smaller objects
« on: April 11, 2012, 05:10:32 AM »
Why are only bigger objects in space round, but like asteroids aren't?

In the RE model objects larger than about 1,000 km in size have enough gravity to pull themselves into a sphere.

#hi
FES: "Most of modern science is false. We base this on Our scientific studies"

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Shape of smaller objects
« Reply #1 on: April 11, 2012, 10:17:17 AM »
Why are only bigger objects in space round, but like asteroids aren't?

In the RE model objects larger than about 1,000 km in size have enough gravity to pull themselves into a sphere.

#hi

What makes you think large objects in space are a sphere? They all appear to be flat.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6758
Re: Shape of smaller objects
« Reply #2 on: April 11, 2012, 11:46:24 AM »
Why are only bigger objects in space round, but like asteroids aren't?

In the RE model objects larger than about 1,000 km in size have enough gravity to pull themselves into a sphere.

#hi

They were likely formed in a liquid state and when they cooled, they stayed spherical.

Re: Shape of smaller objects
« Reply #3 on: April 11, 2012, 04:16:00 PM »
pongo: exact RET on how the Earth was formed and why it's round.

Re: Shape of smaller objects
« Reply #4 on: April 11, 2012, 05:14:00 PM »
Why are only bigger objects in space round, but like asteroids aren't?

In the RE model objects larger than about 1,000 km in size have enough gravity to pull themselves into a sphere.

#hi

What makes you think large objects in space are a sphere? They all appear to be flat.


so the sun, and the moon are flat???

*

The1

  • 50
Re: Shape of smaller objects
« Reply #5 on: April 12, 2012, 06:00:14 AM »
Why are only bigger objects in space round, but like asteroids aren't?

In the RE model objects larger than about 1,000 km in size have enough gravity to pull themselves into a sphere.

#hi

They were likely formed in a liquid state and when they cooled, they stayed spherical.

Why couldn't this happen to smaller objects.
So why bigger objects appear as almost perfect spheres, but smaller can be quite close to a potato?

FES: "Most of modern science is false. We base this on Our scientific studies"

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Shape of smaller objects
« Reply #6 on: April 13, 2012, 10:54:11 PM »
Gravity.

Re: Shape of smaller objects
« Reply #7 on: April 13, 2012, 11:11:39 PM »
Gravity.
More precisely, the potential energy change for a small, solid, irregularly shaped object to reshape is not enough to overcome static friction--so it stays looking like a potato.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6758
Re: Shape of smaller objects
« Reply #8 on: April 14, 2012, 09:41:36 AM »
Why are only bigger objects in space round, but like asteroids aren't?

In the RE model objects larger than about 1,000 km in size have enough gravity to pull themselves into a sphere.

#hi

They were likely formed in a liquid state and when they cooled, they stayed spherical.

Why couldn't this happen to smaller objects.
So why bigger objects appear as almost perfect spheres, but smaller can be quite close to a potato?

I see no reason why they can't form that way. However, after buzzing around above the flat Earth, there are likely to be collisions which leave them potato-shaped. Larger objects have plenty of craters to indicate collisions, but are larger and retain their spherical look better.

@open-minded: Most RE'ers here say that the Earth's gravity pulled it into a sphere. Not that it was once liquid and formed a sphere because a sphere has the least surface area. It's mind boggling that so many RE'ers come here laughing about no unified FE theory when RE science has just as many incongruities. Just goes to show how apt the mind is at skewing an opinion when favoritism is added.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Shape of smaller objects
« Reply #9 on: April 14, 2012, 09:44:14 AM »
It really is noteworthy how often REers will just invent justifications for believing their theories.  It goes to show how strong the indoctrination really is.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Shape of smaller objects
« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2012, 09:58:58 AM »
Why are only bigger objects in space round, but like asteroids aren't?

In the RE model objects larger than about 1,000 km in size have enough gravity to pull themselves into a sphere.

#hi

They were likely formed in a liquid state and when they cooled, they stayed spherical.

Why couldn't this happen to smaller objects.
So why bigger objects appear as almost perfect spheres, but smaller can be quite close to a potato?

I see no reason why they can't form that way. However, after buzzing around above the flat Earth, there are likely to be collisions which leave them potato-shaped. Larger objects have plenty of craters to indicate collisions, but are larger and retain their spherical look better.

@open-minded: Most RE'ers here say that the Earth's gravity pulled it into a sphere. Not that it was once liquid and formed a sphere because a sphere has the least surface area. It's mind boggling that so many RE'ers come here laughing about no unified FE theory when RE science has just as many incongruities. Just goes to show how apt the mind is at skewing an opinion when favoritism is added.
1) You misrepresent what REers believe.
2) There's plenty of evidence that you're wrong.
3) Please tell us how you counted each theory's incongruities, or were you just making things up again?
4) Google is your friend. Try it next time before you post your ignorance.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Graff

  • 538
  • ROBOSCORPIONS ATTACK!
Re: Shape of smaller objects
« Reply #11 on: April 14, 2012, 10:00:05 AM »
It really is noteworthy how often REers will just invent justifications for believing their theories.  It goes to show how strong the indoctrination really is.
Oh, the irony...
God bless the Enclave.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6758
Re: Shape of smaller objects
« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2012, 10:03:20 AM »
@ClockTower: So you're saying that the Earth's gravity pulled it into a sphere?

Re: Shape of smaller objects
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2012, 10:04:34 AM »
@ClockTower: So you're saying that the Earth's gravity pulled it into a sphere?
Nope.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6758
Re: Shape of smaller objects
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2012, 10:06:56 AM »
@ClockTower: So you're saying that the Earth's gravity pulled it into a sphere?
Nope.

Then apparently I've misunderstood your reasoning. If you have the time, I would be delighted to hear your explanation once more.

Re: Shape of smaller objects
« Reply #15 on: April 14, 2012, 10:09:37 AM »
@ClockTower: So you're saying that the Earth's gravity pulled it into a sphere?
Nope.

Then apparently I've misunderstood your reasoning. If you have the time, I would be delighted to hear your explanation once more.
I refer you to Google again. Please read what REers are saying for yourself.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6758
Re: Shape of smaller objects
« Reply #16 on: April 14, 2012, 10:15:09 AM »
@ClockTower: So you're saying that the Earth's gravity pulled it into a sphere?
Nope.

Then apparently I've misunderstood your reasoning. If you have the time, I would be delighted to hear your explanation once more.
I refer you to Google again. Please read what REers are saying for yourself.

It looks to me like they are saying that Earth's gravity pulled it into a sphere.