<p>The gravitational is radial only. That means if you tried a different shape then you would have regions, like hills, where a change in the angle would experience a much less attraction towards the center. This region would, over time, be attracted to a different angle with a greater force of attraction. Or spherical. This results in a spherical-like shape.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-20T16:29:28.197Z
2018-05-20T16:29:28.197Z
Natsfan
<p>What kind of stability it provides to each and every celestial body that each one them are round in shape? </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-18T07:53:37.157Z
Notice that gravity doesn't make all *galaxies* round, e.g. spirals.
J. Chomel
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-18T12:01:25.013Z
@J.Chomel The OP did specify celestial *bodies* and galaxies are not single bodies. - the dynamics and forces are different as stars in galaxies would be more closely analogous to an extremely low density gas than a the fluid/solid/high density states celestial bodies have.
StephenG - Help Ukraine
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-18T12:21:43.510Z
@StephenG, thank you. My point is about the duplicate we decided: gravity *doesn't* make everything round.
J. Chomel
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-18T14:21:48.333Z
@J.Chomel the spirals are  an artifact of viewing, not a gravitational formation
Carl Witthoft
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-19T04:44:21.697Z
Huh?  I would certainly regard a spiral galaxy as a kind of "gravitational formation."  But yes, it's not a "body," per se.  To find exceptions, I'd look to the small bodies-- small asteroids are not at all around, consider Oumuamua (https://www.inverse.com/article/38626-nasa-interstellar-visitor-oumuamua).
Ken G
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-19T09:52:13.110Z
Just sayin' -- there's something wrong with closing a reasonably-asked question as a duplicate of a question where someone asks about making an antigravity machine. The question is about why somewhat small but not too small objects are round. Stars are somewhat small compared to much larger constructs in the universe that aren't roundish while a potato-shaped asteroid is too small to be roundish. This is the one question that nails this central issue. I'm voting to reopen; that older question should be closed as a duplicate of this.
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-19T15:15:39.050Z
@DavidHammen Agreed and reopened. I won't close that one as duplicate of this yet, though. We need to make sure this question gets good answers first.
called2voyage
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-19T16:29:29.147Z
@DavidHammen I'm baffled by the decision to reopen this and I'd note the duplicate has previously been happily used by this site to close at least one similar question as a duplicate.  The answers in the duplicates answer this OP's question and I'll be damned if I'm going to duplicate the same answers here.
StephenG - Help Ukraine
<star><planet><celestial-mechanics>
Why planets and stars are always round/oval in size?
Paran
# Why planets and stars are always round/oval in size?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-05-18)

What kind of stability it provides to each and every celestial body that each one them are round in shape?

**Tags:** star, planet, celestial-mechanics

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Notice that gravity doesn't make all *galaxies* round, e.g. spirals.  
> **username_2**: @J.username_1 The OP did specify celestial *bodies* and galaxies are not single bodies. - the dynamics and forces are different as stars in galaxies would be more closely analogous to an extremely low density gas than a the fluid/solid/high density states celestial bodies have.  
> **username_1**: @username_2, thank you. My point is about the duplicate we decided: gravity *doesn't* make everything round.  
> **username_3**: @J.username_1 the spirals are  an artifact of viewing, not a gravitational formation  
> **username_4**: Huh?  I would certainly regard a spiral galaxy as a kind of "gravitational formation."  But yes, it's not a "body," per se.  To find exceptions, I'd look to the small bodies-- small asteroids are not at all around, consider Oumuamua (https://www.inverse.com/article/38626-nasa-interstellar-visitor-oumuamua).  
> **username_5**: Just sayin' -- there's something wrong with closing a reasonably-asked question as a duplicate of a question where someone asks about making an antigravity machine. The question is about why somewhat small but not too small objects are round. Stars are somewhat small compared to much larger constructs in the universe that aren't roundish while a potato-shaped asteroid is too small to be roundish. This is the one question that nails this central issue. I'm voting to reopen; that older question should be closed as a duplicate of this.  
> **username_6**: @username_5 Agreed and reopened. I won't close that one as duplicate of this yet, though. We need to make sure this question gets good answers first.  
> **username_2**: @username_5 I'm baffled by the decision to reopen this and I'd note the duplicate has previously been happily used by this site to close at least one similar question as a duplicate.  The answers in the duplicates answer this OP's question and I'll be damned if I'm going to duplicate the same answers here.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_7 on 2018-05-20. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

The gravitational is radial only. That means if you tried a different shape then you would have regions, like hills, where a change in the angle would experience a much less attraction towards the center. This region would, over time, be attracted to a different angle with a greater force of attraction. Or spherical. This results in a spherical-like shape.


---

