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

Momentum is a measure of mass and velocity of an object. The velocity of an object is subject to the four fundamental forces of nature electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction and gravity not just gravity (though very early in the BB these forces fused together before anything like matter existed). Ultimately matter is a byproduct of these forces not independent of them.The BB is the initial phenomena, of the dimensions of spacetime we exist in, that we know about. We do not know for sure that there were not similar phenomenas like the BB that have or will yet occur.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

DA,matter is inanimate without force. If something is moving through space it is initially due to the BB which was a force. Don't confuse matter falling via gravity as initial force.

---

"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen."Sasuke!

Matter doesn't exist without these forces. It is these forces themselves that create the matter (quarks, electrons, etc) around us. The BB wasn't a force it was a phenomena of spactime. The BB originated our four fundamental forces that are evident in nature today. When did I ever said that 'matter falling via gravity' (whatever that means) is an initial force?!? I think you are confused as what I am saying. Please elaborate.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

quote:

---

Matter doesn't exist without these forces. It is these forces themselves that create the matter (quarks, electrons, etc) around us.

---

Correct.

quote:

---

The BB wasn't a force it was a phenomena of spactime. The BB originated our four fundamental forces that are evident in nature today.

---

Correct. There was a force behind the BB and that's what Im refering to.

quote:

---

When did I ever said that 'matter falling via gravity' (whatever that means) is an initial force?!? I think you are confused as what I am saying. Please elaborate.

---

I am saying that, the force behind momentum is the energy.FYI:We are off topic.. Lets discuss it here.
EvC Forum: Where did the matter and energy come from?Edited by Sasuke, : editEdited by Sasuke, : editEdited by Sasuke, : EvC Forum: Where did the matter and energy come from?Edited by Sasuke, : Edited by Sasuke, : quotes

---

"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen."Sasuke!

I'm sorry Sasuke, but it sounds like you're just starting to make stuff up...A lot of your assertions can be easily refuted with a simple understanding of physics. No, radioactive matter will release energy in the form of radioactive decay without stimulation. No, due to Brownian Motion, independent of stimulation. Not necessarily. Uhh, no. Just look at the wiki page on energy.Also, a taught spring has a lot of potential energy without any relative momentum. Matter always has momentum, it never doesn't have momentum.Again, I think you're just making stuff up. You're in a position that you have to come to erroneous imaginations to maintain, you should just learn a bit and change your position.

CS, Matter is forming or breaking down here. This does not show that matter has a capacity to do work. This shows that energy will form bonds to eventually become matter. These are atomic particles. You know protons, neutrons and electrons floating around attempting to form bonds or form matter. This is not matter yet.Particle physics - Wikipedia I disagree. Both of these examples, in a case where you are still not correct, is refering to potential energy WRT to matter. Potential energy is not energy... ITS POTENTIAL(unactive).. This is like a car that is being manufactured by FORD. Its a potential car but it is not a car YET. Correct. While matter has momentum the force behind its momentum is the energy not the matter its self.-Hey lets take the rest of our discussion to this thread. EvC Forum: Where did the matter and energy come from?.Edited by Sasuke, : err Edited by Sasuke, : editEdited by Sasuke, : edit Edited by Sasuke, : Edited by Sasuke, : edit -EvC Forum: Where did the matter and energy come from?

---

"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen."Sasuke!

"Energy" doesn't form bonds, and its not a thing or stuff. And if you stood next to some radioactive matter, it would do all kinds of work to your body. I don't know what you mean by "breaking down", but 'transforming' would be a better phrase.I don't really see anything correct in the above quote. No, they are molecules and that's matter. An explanation would've been nice. Swing... and a miss. You're just exposing your misunderstanding of energy and potential energy. Just look it up.Potential energy - Wikipedia Energy is not a force You need to learn more about that too:Force - WikipediaReally man, you're way wrong on a lot of this stuff and need to do some brushing up before you're going to be making any sense.

All matter posesses the capacity to do work. Matter/antimatter interaction should be the only example you need.Pay less attention to your chemistry textbooks, and more attention to cavediver, and actual theoretical physicist and physics professor.Matter, energy, even the dimensions of space and time are the result of varied quantum fields.Matter is different from energy in our macroscale comprehension primarily because matter takes up space, while energy does not. Both have the property identified as "mass."Most of the mass (nearly all of it, in fact) of matter is binding energy - the energy that holds together the quarks that make up the protons and neutrons, that holds the neutrons and protons in the atomic nucleus together, the chemical bonds that hold atoms together in molecules, etc. Binding energy is potential energy in much the same way a rock held up high has potential energy.Most of human society runs off of chemical energy - we break chemical bonds in order to utilize the binding energy that is then released, much like dropping a rock that was previously held. This is what we're doing when we digest food, when we burn oil/gasoline/coal, etc.We also use nuclear energy - through fission we break some of the binding energy of the fissile material, in effect using the potential binding energy of the atomic nuclei to perform work. This slightly reduces the mass of the fissile material, as that mass came from the binding energy that has now been repurposed. This happens naturally in radioactive decay, as unstable atoms decay into lower-energy, more stable states. Protons, neutrons, and electrons are matter. They simply are not atoms. They obey the Exclusion principle, and thus take up space (ie, two neutrons cannot occupy the same space). Cavediver would say they have 1/2 spin, as opposed to integer spin. They are Bosons. Common usage of a term is inaccurate when applied to the scientific usage of the same term. Potential energy is still energy. A rock held above your head has a greater energy content than a rock at your feet.Remember the conservation of mass and energy? you can convert both, but create or destroy neither. When you pick up a rock and lift it over your head, you are using energy. Some of it becomes heat, but some is used as mechanical energy to lift the rock. That energy does not disappear - it is "contained" by the rock. When you release the rock, the energy is "released" as mechanical motion, which eventually becomes heat after it hits the ground."Binding energy" is similar to a rock held up high. It's potential energy - and that means it is energy, it has mass, and it can be used to perform work under the correct conditions (which means only that you need to be able to lower the energy state and increase entropy; you can use a waterfall for power generation by using the energy of the water as it falls from a higher energy state into a lower, but you cannot use a lake for the same purpose in the same way regardless of how much potential energy the water may have).Quite literally Sasuke, if binding energy were not energy, if the "breakdown of matter"in radioactive decay were not a form of work, then nuclear power would not work. Yet it does. All of this, however, is our perception of what's going on at the macroscale. At the level of quantum physics, things are far less intuitive. Both matter and energy are excitations in quantum fields. At that point, it becomes difficult (impossible?) to describe what's going on in laymans terms. I won't even pretend to understand more than the barest concepts at this level, and I'll leave explaining it up to cavediver and Son Goku.

Rahvin,I perhaps am a little confused. However, so is CS. CS READ^. BTW excellent post. 5. . Thanks for the help. This actually clears my confusion up.One question though.

quote:

---

Common usage of a term is inaccurate when applied to the scientific usage of the same term. Potential energy is still energy. A rock held above your head has a greater energy content than a rock at your feet.

---

How does the rock held above my head have greater energy content than the rock at my feet since they are both falling through spacetime equally?- go here to respondEvC Forum: Where did the matter and energy come from?Edited by Sasuke, : questionEdited by Sasuke, : Edited by Sasuke, : edit Edited by Sasuke, : edit

---

"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen."Sasuke!

It has more energy because it can do more work. Stop holding it and it can crush your foot unlike the one that is sitting next to your foot. And they are not "both falling through spacetime equally" even though I don't know what you're referring to by that

CS,The rocks are both falling toward earth. The larger mass. therefor same potential energy for both. Move to this thread to continue our discussion: EvC Forum: Where did the matter and energy come from?Edited by Sasuke, : edit

---

"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen."Sasuke!

No. They're both stationary to the Earth. Neither one is falling.One is being held above the ground and one is on the ground.The one being held has more potential energy. No, assume they're the same mass.The one above your head can be used to do work, say drop it to drive a nail, but the one laying on the ground can't do that.

EvC Forum: Where did the matter and energy come from?

---

"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen."Sasuke!

Incorrect. If your concept were accurate, it would be impossible to use a waterfal to perform work, as both the water at the higher and lower elevations are "falling towards the Earth."The ability to perform work is all about differences in energy states. Work is performed when a higher energy state is moved to a lower energy state; when entropy is increased.When you drop a rock, it moves from a (literally) higher energy state to a lower energy state. Entropy increases, and work is performed.When an electron moves to a lower energy state within an atop, it typically releases a photon.Radioactive decay is the process by which unstable elements achieve a lower, more stable energy state.A battery stores chemical energy, and its energy state is lowered as that chemical energy is lowered to perform work with electronic devices.It's all the same thing, in different forms.The fact that the amount of energy involved in a falling rock is inconsequential compared to the motion of the Earth around the Sun, or the Sun's orbit around our galactic center, or our galaxy's movement in our galactic cluster, etc is irrelevant - the energy state is still different between a rock on the ground and a rock held a meter above the ground.

Rahvin,EvC Forum: Where did the matter and energy come from?I will respond there...