Isostatic Adjustment is Why Planets are Round?

Conclusion:The state of mind of the observer plays a crucial role in the perception of time.Einstein

See here.

If we thought of the "Colour of Gravity" posted here, what values could you assign any materials that arise from the centre out? Gravity would have it's way with these materials for us to assign them to their unique ordering?

The Power of Myth With Bill Moyers, by Joseph Campbell , Introduction that Bill Moyers writes,

"Campbell was no pessimist. He believed there is a "point of wisdom beyond the conflicts of illusion and truth by which lives can be put back together again." Finding it is the "prime question of the time." In his final years he was striving for a new synthesis of science and spirit. "The shift from a geocentric to a heliocentric world view," he wrote after the astronauts touched the moon, "seemed to have removed man from the center-and the center seemed so important...

That we may say, the minerals on the moon have been assigned their valuation too? I would say it's the colour of gravity that we had assigned all of humanities thoughts and where is man/woman's centre?

Image: NASA/JPL-

Planets are round because their gravitational field acts as though it originates from the center of the body and pulls everything toward it. With its large body and internal heating from radioactive elements, a planet behaves like a fluid, and over long periods of time succumbs to the gravitational pull from its center of gravity. The only way to get all the mass as close to planet's center of gravity as possible is to form a sphere. The technical name for this process is "isostatic adjustment."

With much smaller bodies, such as the 20-kilometer asteroids we have seen in recent spacecraft images, the gravitational pull is too weak to overcome the asteroid's mechanical strength. As a result, these bodies do not form spheres. Rather they maintain irregular, fragmentary shapes.

By using Grace here, and the way we look at earth now, we get a better sense of what the actual shape of the earth is. WE had all thought it looked so round from space, that under a "time variable measure" we knew better. We knew that the variations in topographical locations would reveal something unique in relation to gravity. It took Grace to do that

Our work is about comparing the data we collect in the STAR detector with modern calculations, so that we can write down equations on paper that exactly describe how the quark-gluon plasma behaves," says Jerome Lauret from Brookhaven National Laboratory. "One of the most important assumptions we've made is that, for very intense collisions, the quark-gluon plasma behaves according to hydrodynamic calculations in which the matter is like a liquid that flows with no viscosity whatsoever."

See more here

The Moon Clementine-Color ratio image of Aristarchus Crater on the Moon-Clementine color ratio composite image of Aristarchus Crater on the Moon. This 42 km diameter crater is located on the corner of the Aristarchus plateau, at 24 N, 47 W. Ejecta from the plateau is visible as the blue material at the upper left (northwest), while material excavated from the Oceanus Procellarum area is the reddish color to the lower right (southeast). The colors in this image can be used to ascertain compositional properties of the materials making up the deep strata of these two regions. (Clementine, USGS slide 11)

It is not so far fetched for the mind to think of the planet in question, as to it's roundness, or, the moon in relation to how we see those impact craters on it's surface. "The moon" quite revealing in the mineralogical decor for us. So there are two things to consider here.

From the "boundary" of the planet "inward" and from the "centre" of the planet "outward."

Polar Flips

Sometimes it is necessary to see the deep impact a thought could have as we try to understand the implications of a "sphere dropped in a viscously liquid" that we might find another correlation in how we see the photon affected in the gravitational field. Can we grasped the feeling illicitated to say we have some what of a deep impact in remembering to think the strange world of fluids could entertain us?

Stokes' law

In 1851, George Gabriel Stokes derived an expression for the frictional force exerted on spherical objects with very small Reynolds numbers (e.g., very small particles) in a continuous viscous fluid by solving the small fluid-mass limit of the generally unsolvable Navier-Stokes equations:



where:

is the frictional force,
r is the Stokes radius of the particle,
η is the fluid viscosity, and
is the particle's speed.

If the particles are falling in the viscous fluid by their own weight, then a terminal velocity, also known as the settling velocity, is reached when this frictional force combined with the buoyant force exactly balance the gravitational force. The resulting settling velocity is given by:



where:

Vs is the particles' settling velocity (cm/sec) (vertically downwards if ρp > ρf, upwards if ρp < ρf),
r is the Stokes radius of the particle (cm),
g is the standard gravity (cm/sec2),
ρp is the density of the particles (g/cm3),
ρf is the density of the fluid (g/cm3), and
η is the fluid viscosity (dyne sec/cm2).

Why are Planets Round?

Q9:

Would these fluids act differently on the Moon and at (on) different gravities

I was loosing the train of thought within this post, and then the thought occurred me.

Why are planets round. This is a "general question" which leads to how we see the formation of the planets?

"isostatic adjustment"

Start there. We also know what a "sphere of water" looks like in space?

While the sphere was being thought of in regards to Stokes's Theorem, I was also thinking of the earth in relation to how we see gravity in regards to the earth already formed. The vicissitude, in which the earth exists within the cosmos. The moon.

The rotating superfluid gas of fermions is pierced with the vortices, which are like mini-tornadoes. Image / Andre Schirotzek, MIT

Bose-Einstein condensation of pairs of fermions that were bound together loosely as molecules was observed in November 2003 by independent teams at the University of Colorado at Boulder, the University of Innsbruck in Austria and at MIT. However, observing Bose-Einstein condensation is not the same as observing superfluidity. Further studies were done by these groups and at the Ecole Normale Superieure in Paris, Duke University and Rice University, but evidence for superfluidity was ambiguous or indirect.

The superfluid Fermi gas created at MIT can also serve as an easily controllable model system to study properties of much denser forms of fermionic matter such as solid superconductors, neutron stars or the quark-gluon plasma that existed in the early universe.

There is a special class of fluids that are called superfluids. Superfluids have the property that they can flow through narrow channels without viscosity. However, more fundamental than the absence of dissipation is the behavior of superfluids under rotation. In contrast to the example of a glass of water above, the rotation in superfluids is always inhomogeneous (figure). The fluid circulates around quantized vortex lines. The vortex lines are shown as yellow in the figure, and the circulating flow around them is indicated by arrows. There is no vorticity outside of the lines because the velocity near each line is larger than further away. (In mathematical terms curl v = 0, where v(r) is the velocity field.)

See here for more on Attributes of Superfluids

It is very possible that the information is inundating my thinking here yet without considering the context of the super fluid what requirements would fit the idea that earth is relevant when it comes to the molten core? Or how you see the magnetic field shifting in relation to the poles?

Thus, water is "thin", having a lower viscosity, while vegetable oil is "thick" having a higher viscosity. All real fluids (except superfluids) have some resistance to shear stress, but a fluid which has no resistance to shear stress is known as an ideal fluid or inviscid fluid (Symon 1971).

I am quickly posting this and will have more to add. I wanted to speak directly to the idea of the super fluid. How the "irrotational value of the perfect fluid as a whole," could have it's leakages to the surface of the earth, as small vortices created.

This computer simulation shows the Earth's interior as its magnetic field reverses, perhaps because of changes in the flow of molten iron in the core. Deep inside the Earth, the magnetic field arises as the fluid core oozes with hot currents of molten iron and this mechanical energy gets converted into electromagnetism. It is known as the geodynamo. In a car's generator, the same principle turns mechanical energy into electricity.

No one knows precisely why the field periodically reverses, but scientists say the responsibility probably lies with changes in the turbulent flows of molten iron, which they envision as similar to the churning gases that make up the clouds of Jupiter.

In theory, a reversal could have major effects because over the ages many aspects of nature and society have come to rely on the field's steadiness.

Quasar posted a comment there that immediately made me think what the topic could mean in relation to the post he was commenting on. I thought of the earth's core as the subject was related, and thought how nice it would be to have such a "cylindrical channel that goes from pole to pole?"

Well the viscosity of the fluid as it traverses this cylinder would give some nature to the charge as it passes through? I do not think it could be that simple, if we thought the iron molten as the viscosity had a direct relation to what we know of our magnetic field? We know the earth core is not so cylindrical, that we could the attribute of the superfluid in this case while looking at the iron molten lava

So is it the iron in particular that gives us our strength based on it's fluid's nature?

These changes in Earth’s magnetic fields from 1980 to 2000 may be harbingers of a shift in the magnetic poles

Relativistic Fluid Dynamics

The Navier-Stokes equations


A bubble is a minimal-energy surface

The Navier-Stokes equations, named after Claude-Louis Navier and George Gabriel Stokes, are a set of equations that describe the motion of fluid substances such as liquids and gases. These equations establish that changes in momentum in infinitesimal volumes of fluid are simply the product of changes in pressure and dissipative viscous forces (similar to friction) acting inside the fluid. These viscous forces originate in molecular interactions and dictate how viscous a fluid is. Thus, the Navier-Stokes equations are a dynamical statement of the balance of forces acting at any given region of the fluid.

In educating myself I learnt to trust my intuition when it comes to defining the basis of "new physics" that was to emerge. As well as, the new particle manifestation that would arise from "specific points" on interaction. What was suppose to be our starting point. This is really difficult for me to put into words, yet, if you knew that there was a "change over/cross over point" and how was this defined? It seemed to me, we had to have a place that would do this.

A more fundamental property than the disappearance of viscosity becomes visible if superfluid is placed in a rotating container. Instead of rotating uniformly with the container, the rotating state consists of quantized vortices. That is, when the container is rotated at speed below the first critical velocity (related to the quantum numbers for the element in question) the liquid remains perfectly stationary. Once the first critical velocity is reached, the superfluid will very quickly begin spinning at the critical speed. The speed is quantized - i.e. it can only spin at certain speeds.

"Nothing" is difficult to talk about, and "empty space" is not really empty. So to think "nothing" is a very hard one for me to grasp. If one thinks about what "sprang into being" I of course had to find this "place of traversing" from "one state of being" to another. What things help us to define the nature of that point?



Example of the viscosity of milk and water. Liquids with higher viscosities will not make such a splash.

Viscosity is a measure of the resistance of a fluid to deform under shear stress. It is commonly perceived as "thickness", or resistance to flow. Viscosity describes a fluid's internal resistance to flow and may be thought of as a measure of fluid friction. Thus, water is "thin", having a lower viscosity, while vegetable oil is "thick" having a higher viscosity. All real fluids (except superfluids) have some resistance to shear stress, but a fluid which has no resistance to shear stress is known as an ideal fluid or inviscid fluid (Symon 1971).

I used the question mark not to befuddle those that read here or sanction any post to some idea about what the title following with a question mark, is worth so many points on the "flowery scale."

On the other hand, gravity in the form of curved space would permeate the whole bulk of the higher dimensional spacetime …. Stephen Hawking¹

I shall have to define "flowery scale" sometime, but I would rather not give any credit to those who hold a position in science who have categorize people according to that same point system. Oh and please, do not consider the flowers less then what I hold as of high value in these "maturations" to be thought less then either.



While we had been witness to the collider experiments we were also quite aware that that such events had to be taking place with earth, from event sources released in space.

Relativistic Fluid Dynamics: Physics for Many Different Scales-Nils Andersson

In writing this review, we have tried to discuss the different building blocks that are needed if one wants to construct a relativistic theory for fluids. Although there are numerous alternatives, we opted to base our discussion of the fluid equations of motion on the variational approach pioneered by Taub [108] and in recent years developed considerably by Carter [17, 19, 21]. This is an appealing strategy because it leads to a natural formulation for multi-fluid problems. Having developed the variational framework, we discussed applications. Here we had to decide what to include and what to leave out. Our decisions were not based on any particular logic, we simply included topics that were either familiar to us, or interested us at the time. That may seem a little peculiar, but one should keep in mind that this is a “living” review. Our intention is to add further applications when the article is updated. On the formal side, we could consider how one accounts for elastic media and magnetic fields, as well as technical issues concerning relativistic vortices (and cosmic strings). On the application side, we may discuss many issues for astrophysical fluid flows (like supernova core collapse, jets, gamma-ray bursts, and cosmology).

In updating this review we will obviously also correct the mistakes that are sure to be found by helpful colleagues. We look forward to receiving any comments on this review. After all, fluids describe physics at many different scales and we clearly have a lot of physics to learn. The only thing that is certain is that we will enjoy the learning process!

Spacetime Curvatures

Flat space time? The thought there are strong gravitational forces at work and where are these located? Can there "be" amidst this strong curvature, the idea that a super fluid born, would have a place where a state of inertia could exist? I thought quickly of what happens when the blackhole collapses and what could come of it?

Of course this concept of inertia is strong in my mind but would need better clarifications as I am relaying it here in this circumstance.

But looking for these locations in Lagrangian views of the Sun Earth relation, it seemed viable to me that such a state could have gone from a very strong gravitational inclination( our suns, increase temperatures of the collapsing blackhole) to one that is "very free" and "not flat" but would allow information both ways(from before to now) to be traversed, as if in a jet or cylinder. So that the space around it would be expression not only the earlier constituents of the universe before this translation but manifest into the new physics with which would motive this universe, new particle manifestation, from what did not exist before.

¹The Universe in a Nutshell, by Stephen Hawking. Bantam Books, ISBN 0-553-80202-X-Chapter 7, Page 181