How did round planets form from the explosion of the Big Bang?

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?

Corogyps,I will quote some previous course materials that were updated in 2009. Intro Chem 3rd edition, N.J.Trio, 2009). "As we have seen, our planet, our air, and even our bodies are composed of matter. Physical and chemical changes do not destroy matter, nor do they create new matter. Recall from CH.1 that Antoine Lavoisier by studying combustion, established the law of conservation of mass which states:

​

Matter is neither created nor destroyed in a chemical reaction.

​

During physical and chemical changes, the total amount of matter remains constant. how does this happen? when we burn butane in a lighter, the butane slowly disappears. Where does it go? It combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide and water that go into the surrounding air. The mass of the carbon dioxide and water that form, however, must exactly equal the mass of butane and oxygen that combined.

​

Example: 58g of butane will react with 208g of oxygen to form 176g of carbon dioxide and 90g of water.

​

58g butane + 208g oxygen = 176g if carbon dioxide + 90g water
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
266g

​

The sum of the masses of the butane and oxygen, 266g, is equal to the sum of the masses of the carbon dioxide and water, which is also 266g. Matter is conserved."
So if it involves chemical reactions. Matter is always conserved. I don't care how much radiation the sun radiates. I am sure this "loss" can be accounted for.Thanks
SasukeEdited by Sasuke, : "

You are equating mass with matter: This is an error. As cavediver has explained, mass is the measure of the energy binding the matter, not the matter itself. You compound that problem by presenting an equation for a reaction to only 2 significant figures while ignoring the release and/or absorption of energy. Please rerun the experiment to 12 significant figures and an accounting of the energy transfers and get back to us.

---

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

lyx2no,Mass is the measurement of the amount of matter. The bonds are simply an assumption. Matter contains energy that is dormant and this dormant energy can be released through other processes hence that is why I said stimulus is required. In anycase, matter is dormant/stored energy. I still have yet to see any textbooks or references for any of your claims or arguments.Edited by Sasuke, : edit

Completely and totally incorrect.Mass is not a measurement of matter. Matter is that which has mass and takes up space; energy has mass but does not take up space. Most of your mass, in fact, is binding energy. Your concept of mass, matter, and energy is that of a basic high school student - in other words, woefully inaccurate.Read more of what cavediver has been saying, and begin with the fact that what you've been taught so far is the most basic and generalized explanation, and it strikes very far from the mark when dealing with accurate descriptions of modern physics.

Rahvin,you said the following,Matter is that which has mass and takes up space-so matter takes up spaceenergy has mass but does not take up space-energy does not take up spaceMost of your mass, in fact, is binding energy.-now all of a sudden energy does take up spaceSo far all of your arguments have been to insult me on top of providing no references for any of your arguments.Let me move past this silly little horse game to a simple question?What is the difference between MATTER containing chemicals/atoms that clearly have POTENTIAL(dormant) energy if stimulatedANDMatter is energy binded......?????????????I really think the only difference in our opinions is simply a communication barrier. You choose a different set of words than I do......Edited by Sasuke, : spell errEdited by Sasuke, : edit

Then explain why the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics
has a whole chapter on "Bond Dissociation Energies."For example the bond between hydrogen & oxygen is 429.91KiloJoule/mole (page 9-57). That, to me, doesn't seem like an assumption.Edited by bluescat48, : sp

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

It's not really clear what matter is. We don't know what energy is and what an elementary point-particle really is. There is no "picture" behind these concepts, nothing that a human being can imagine and definitely no agreement between physicists about what matter is. An exitation of a field is a way of saying - something that looks and behaves like a particle will appear at x,y,z and time T under certain circumstances(which are hotly disputed and debated all the time). This is not a picture of matter, it is a picture of us being restrained to speaking only of what we can say about nature, not of what or how nature really is. When discussing what energy and matter really are, we are talking more about philosophy than physics. Those who vehemently claim to know what matter and energy are, don't know what they are talking about. This is the cold truth of modern physics, summarized in a few sentences.

bluescat48,I thank you for your reference I will look it up.Edited by Sasuke, : editEdited by Sasuke, : edit

MatterWave,Well I took a few chemistry classes and to sum up what I learned. Matter is made of chemicals. These chemicals can be found on the periodic table. Atoms bind to make different things. Molecules for one but then other things as well. Large amounts of these chemicals bind together to form matter. This matter can be broken down back into individual chemicals or whatever. The idea of energy comes into play when your looking for a capacity to do work. This energy or capacity to do work can be taken from a energy storage bank. This bank is essentially matter. Even though matter its self has no capacity to do work, the chemicals contained in matter can be stripped through stimulation such as catching gasoline on fire in order to do the work. There is more but that is to sum it up.... So that is why I say that matter is stored energy because the chemicals contained in matter is essentially dormant energy. If something is contained in something that makes it part of the whole and as such that means matter is essentially stoed energy. Maybe my jargon does not fit in with the modern day jargon of some of these high end departments in universities but the point still stands.. Sure matter is a field but its a field made of chemicals that if stimulated the correct way yields massive amounts of energy. This to me means matter is a storage bank of dormant energy.Edited by Sasuke, : edit

Saying matter is energy isn't bringing new insights into the nature of matter, as one doesn't know what energy is, beyond - "energy is the capacity to do work"(there are some properties of matter that are hard to explain as arising from raw "energy"). Substituting one unknown with another is not a good definition of matter. The best way to treat multi-particle systems(matter) so far has been as fields in QFT, though it isn't saying much what matter really is.. And fields are most definitely not made of "chemicals". Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.

MatterWave,Then how/why do you associate e=mc^2 with energy and matter? I've always thought it ment literally energy = mass x speed of light^2.The speed of light^2 variable does not make much sense to me though. Edited by Sasuke, : spell errEdited by Sasuke, : clarityEdited by Sasuke, : clarityEdited by Sasuke, : edit

Incorrect. Our current understanding has a unified picture of matter, forces, gravity, space-time, and energy. So you may well be justified in claiming that "it's not really clear what reality is", but to single out matter is just ill-informed. Ditto. It sounds as if you think our current understanding is at the level of layman explanations... At the level of this discussion, there is almost complete agreement - between physicists who actually understand this particularly narrow field. Who cares what physicists outside this field think? No, we are talking about mathematical physics. No, this is layman bullshit once again trying to sound authoratative.

You don't. You associate energy and mass. Mass measures how much energy there is in a particular volume of space. The mass of a proton is made up of the rest-mass of the quarks (tiny) plus the mass of the binding energy between the quarks (huge in comparison).

Yes, it is. That changes the mass. Burn something, capture all the gasses, keep all the ash and weigh it. It will have lost mass. The mass it has lost will exactly match the energy of the heat as per Einstein's equality.