Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How did round planets form from the explosion of the Big Bang?
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 765 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 5 of 156 (541987)
01-07-2010 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aptera
01-06-2010 2:32 PM


I hardly know where to stat, Aptera, other than to say hello and welcome to EvC.
Are you aware that the universe was has been around for about three times as long as the planet we live on? That about 9,000,000,000 years passed between the Big Bang and the birth of our solar system?
Planets and large asteroids/moons are round because of gravity. Rock is only so strong - a chunk of it 500 miles in diameter or so has enough gravity of its own to slowly deform it into a more-or-less sphere. The moons of Mars are similar sort of rock as, say, the asteroid Juno. But the moons are small enough that they can't pull themselves into a symmetric shape. Juno, Mars, and Earth can, and have. Stars and planets like Jupiter, where we only can see a gas atmosphere, are roughly spherical for the same reason. Gas deforms a lot quicker than rock, but the reasoning is identical - gravity does it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aptera, posted 01-06-2010 2:32 PM Aptera has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 765 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(1)
Message 50 of 156 (543504)
01-18-2010 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dr Jack
01-18-2010 6:31 PM


Re: E=MC(Einstein, 1879-1955).
Some of the mass is converted into heat.
Nope. Molecules get ripped apart and rearranged, but no mass is destroyed in the process of potato to poop. The heat is from the reassortment of bonds. Only.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dr Jack, posted 01-18-2010 6:31 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by cavediver, posted 01-18-2010 7:27 PM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 75 by Dr Jack, posted 01-19-2010 5:07 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 765 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 51 of 156 (543505)
01-18-2010 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Sasuke
01-18-2010 6:48 PM


Re: E=MC(Einstein, 1879-1955).
Matter is never lost.
A million tons per second is "lost" in the middle of the Sun. Four protons outwiegh one helium nucleus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Sasuke, posted 01-18-2010 6:48 PM Sasuke has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Sasuke, posted 01-18-2010 6:54 PM Coragyps has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 765 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 61 of 156 (543520)
01-18-2010 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Sasuke
01-18-2010 6:54 PM


Re: E=MC(Einstein, 1879-1955).
I am sure this loss can be accounted for in other chemical reactions. What data do you have to support this claim?
Ummm.....the 4 X 10^26 watts the Sun puts out? And the fact that there aren't any chemical bonds between what passes for atoms in the center of a star?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Sasuke, posted 01-18-2010 6:54 PM Sasuke has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Sasuke, posted 01-18-2010 8:26 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024