Jump to content

How Did Planets Form?


Recommended Posts

I am not positive about the way the Big Bang explosion created massive amounts of matter, i.e. rocks, that hurled through space and then a couple billion? years later turned into round planets that had perfect orbits around suns.Seems like a really hard thing to believe that the current make up of our 8 (or 9, I get confused by the perfection of science) planets in our solar system. Each having an influence on each other, with moons and other orbiting matters all balanced in a near perfect harmony, all the while avoiding the killer comits that killed the dinosaurs?We sure lucked out having a planet that had a moon that because of its size gives us tidal flows that keep the oceans healthy, while not being so big that it caused total destruction of the coast line every month. To say nothing of the size of the earth being just right to keep the atmosphere from hurling away from us due to centrifigul force, while not being so large that it pulls the lethal gases down to where we live.So how did the planets form?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am not positive about the way the Big Bang explosion created massive amounts of matter, i.e. rocks, that hurled through space and then a couple billion? years later turned into round planets that had perfect orbits around suns.
I'm not positive either. Physics is trying to answer that question, but right now our understanding is pretty limited.
We sure lucked out having a planet that had a moon that because of its size gives us tidal flows that keep the oceans healthy, while no being so big that it caused total destruction of the coast line every month.
Actually, the tidal flows don't keep the oceans healthy. Can you provide a source or reason that they do? Also, the gravitational force of the moon isn't solely determined by mass - distance also affects the force.
To say nothing of the size of the earth being just right to keep the atmosphere from hurling away from us due to centrifigul force, while not being so large that it pulls the lethal gases down to where we live.That takes some blind faith.
The Earth isn't "just right." It's true that if it were significantly smaller, its atmosphere would probably dissapate like Mars's. However, having a stronger gravitational force wouldn't bring down "lethal" gasses. It's the density of the gasses, not their mass or gravitational attraction, that determine where they end up.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not positive either. Physics is trying to answer that question, but right now our understanding is pretty limited.We can postulate the jump from non-life to the human brain, but we can't figure out how rocks got together?Actually, the tidal flows don't keep the oceans healthy. Can you provide a source or reason that they do? Also, the gravitational force of the moon isn't solely determined by mass - distance also affects the force.Tidal flow does very much matter to the health of the oceans.You're trying to say the distance of the moon from the earth being so relevant just adds to my wondering how this happened by chance.The Earth isn't "just right." It's true that if it were significantly smaller, its atmosphere would probably dissapate like Mars's. However, having a stronger gravitational force wouldn't bring down "lethal" gasses. It's the density of the gasses, not their mass or gravitational attraction, that determine where they end up.
That is so wrong that I am willing to let others try to argue this point better. You have failed miserably in any attempt at explaining my questions with the above sentance.1st: Define significantly? 1% 5% 10%?2nd: You defend my point right after arguing my point. You agree that size does matter with regards to gravity and the atmosphere. 3rd: The gas can be as dense as it wants to be, the mass is still the determining factor when it comes to the influence of gravity. A pound of lead is way denser than a pound of feathers, but they both weigh a pound. Mass = gravity, not density
Link to post
Share on other sites
That is so wrong that I am willing to let others try to argue this point better. You have failed miserably in any attempt at explaining my questions with the above sentance.1st: Define significantly? 1% 5% 10%?2nd: You defend my point right after arguing my point. You agree that size does matter with regards to gravity and the atmosphere. 3rd: The gas can be as dense as it wants to be, the mass is still the determining factor when it comes to the influence of gravity. A pound of lead is way denser than a pound of feathers, but they both weigh a pound. Mass = gravity, not density
1) Significantly: enough so that the atomosphere dissapated2) That's because your point was correct in that regard. Earth is large enough to sustain an atmosphere and life. But it isn't "just right."3) a) What lethal gasses are you talking about? C02, for example, is actually denser than most air and sinks. That's how people die from volcanic gasses.b ) Let me provide an example. We have gas A which we breathe. We have gas B which is lethal. Gas A has a density of 10g/L. Gas B has a density of 1g/L. Because of this, gas A is below gas B in our hypothetical atmosphere. Increasing the force of gravity doesn't change this. Gravity could be a billion times stronger, and the denser gas would still occupy the volume closest to the surface. Because of this, the force (not existence) of gravity is pointless. The "lethal" gasses, whatever they are, will float on top of the nonlethal gasses.
3rd: The gas can be as dense as it wants to be, the mass is still the determining factor when it comes to the influence of gravity. A pound of lead is way denser than a pound of feathers, but they both weigh a pound.
c) If you throw a pound of feathers and a pound of lead into the ocean, which will sink? Which will float? If gravity was 1,000 times stronger would your answers change? If gravity was 1,000 times weaker would your answers change?
Link to post
Share on other sites
b ) Let me provide an example. We have gas A which we breathe. We have gas B which is lethal. Gas A has a density of 10g/L. Gas B has a density of 1g/L. Because of this, gas A is below gas B in our hypothetical atmosphere. Increasing the force of gravity doesn't change this. Gravity could be a billion times stronger, and the denser gas would still occupy the volume closest to the surface. Because of this, the force (not existence) of gravity is pointless. The "lethal" gasses, whatever they are, will float on top of the nonlethal gasses.c) If you throw a pound of feathers and a pound of lead into the ocean, which will sink? Which will float? If gravity was 1,000 times stronger would your answers change? If gravity was 1,000 times weaker would your answers change?
If the iron is shaped in a boat shape, then it will float while the feathers sink as they become water soaked. You are adding other forces to our gravity formula.You may be right in regards to gasses, being that if the natural setting of the atmosphere is such that increased gravity might just compress the existing gasses, vs drawing down other gasses. I would have to do too much reding to argue any farther.So I will give you this point because I didn't think it all the way through.But gravity in space isn't 'diluted' by other laws such as bouyancy etc. so the formation of the planets would be treated to a truer form of obeying the laws of gravity which include only mass and distance.So back to the planets? How'd they form?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not positive about the way the Big Bang explosion created massive amounts of matter, i.e. rocks, that hurled through space and then a couple billion? years later turned into round planets that had perfect orbits around suns.
actually the big bang happened ~14 billion years ago and created massive amounts of free quarks and photons that condensed almost immediatly into gas (mostly hydrogen and helium). "rocks" couldn't have formed till much, much later because heavier elements can only form in supernova (when stars die). so it was more like big bang -> gas forming stars -> stars going supernova and forming heavier element dust -> heavier element dust later condensing into planets like earth ("rocks").our solar system is balanced because sun AND planets very likely condensed together roughly at the same time around 5 billion years ago from a spinning condensed disturbance in a giant cloud of gas/dust.
Link to post
Share on other sites
actually the big bang happened ~14 billion years ago and created massive amounts of free quarks and photons that condensed almost immediatly into gas (mostly hydrogen and helium). "rocks" couldn't have formed till much, much later because heavier elements can only form in supernova (when stars die). so it was more like big bang -> gas forming stars -> stars going supernova and forming heavier element dust -> heavier element dust later condensing into planets like earth ("rocks").our solar system is balanced because sun AND planets very likely condensed together roughly at the same time around 5 billion years ago from a spinning condensed disturbance in a giant cloud of gas/dust.
Which proves my point exactly
Link to post
Share on other sites
If the iron is shaped in a boat shape, then it will float while the feathers sink as they become water soaked. You are adding other forces to our gravity formula.
I almost added an extra sentence at the end of that to say don't try and weasel around science by making stupid things up. Looks like I underestimated you.
You may be right in regards to gasses, being that if the natural setting of the atmosphere is such that increased gravity might just compress the existing gasses, vs drawing down other gasses. I would have to do too much reding to argue any farther.
I am right. Consider a helium balloon. It has mass. Gravity should pull it toward the Earth. But because it's less dense than air, it floats up. Imagine that helium is a lethal gas. The lethal gas would float too, even though gravity is pulling it down. Gravity just happens to be pulling down on the helium/lethal gas less than it's pulling down on other air.
But gravity in space isn't 'diluted' by other laws such as bouyancy etc. so the formation of the planets would be treated to a truer form of obeying the laws of gravity which include only mass and distance.So back to the planets? How'd they form?
Here's an hour long NOVA video:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...rigin&hl=en
Which proves my point exactly
?????????????????????????????????????Are you joking?
Seems like a really hard thing to believe that the current make up of our 8 (or 9, I get confused by the perfection of science) planets in our solar system. Each having an influence on each other, with moons and other orbiting matters all balanced in a near perfect harmony, all the while avoiding the killer comits that killed the dinosaurs?
Actually, planets haven't avoided comets. Remember when that comet hit Jupiter? And where do you think all the craters on atmosphereless planets and moons come from?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems like a really hard thing to believe that the current make up of our 8 (or 9, I get confused by the perfection of science) planets in our solar system. Each having an influence on each other, with moons and other orbiting matters all balanced in a near perfect harmony, all the while avoiding the killer comits that killed the dinosaurs?We sure lucked out having a planet that had a moon that because of its size gives us tidal flows that keep the oceans healthy, while not being so big that it caused total destruction of the coast line every month. To say nothing of the size of the earth being just right to keep the atmosphere from hurling away from us due to centrifigul force, while not being so large that it pulls the lethal gases down to where we live.So how did the planets form?
it's not luck. given that we can only exist where conditions make it possible, we should EXPECT conditions to be right for us to exist on earth (weak anthropic argument). in other words given that we DO exist we shouldn't be surprised that we find ourselves in a place where conditions make our existence possible.we WOULD be extremely lucky if we knew for a fact that there was only one or a few earth-like planets in the universe. however given that some astronomers think they've already spotted a couple orbiting nearby stars it's probable there are billions (maybe trillions) of earth-like planets just in the visible universe.
Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been many attempts to develop theories for the origin of the Solar System. None of them can be described as totally satisfactory and it is possible that there will further developments which may better explain the known facts.We do believe, however, that we understand the overall mechanism which is that the Sun and the planets formed from the contraction of part of a gas/dust cloud under its own gravitational pull and that the small net rotation of the cloud was responsible for the formation of a disk around the central condensation.The central condensation eventually formed the Sun while small condensations in the disk formed the planets and their satellites. The energy from the young Sun blew away the remaining gas and dust leaving the solar system as we see it today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone interested in this sort of thing should read "Rare Earth" by Peter Ward. I think the conclusions are slightly pessimistic, but it is a good introductory book.Also, there are tons of places that talk about things like this.Why dont you come up with more specific objections to atheism ratherthan ask us to teach you a science lesson?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_of_the_solar_system

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get it.What was your point again?If you want an answer, see Crow's response, buy a book, take a class, talk to a professor, watch the discovery channel, go back to 3rd grade, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
it's not luck. given that we can only exist where conditions make it possible, we should EXPECT conditions to be right for us to exist on earth (weak anthropic argument). in other words given that we DO exist we shouldn't be surprised that we find ourselves in a place where conditions make our existence possible.we WOULD be extremely lucky if we knew for a fact that there was only one or a few earth-like planets in the universe. however given that some astronomers think they've already spotted a couple orbiting nearby stars it's probable there are billions (maybe trillions) of earth-like planets just in the visible universe.
This is such a simple and perfect answer.Nicely done.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not positive about the way the Big Bang explosion created massive amounts of matter, i.e. rocks, that hurled through space and then a couple billion? years later turned into round planets that had perfect orbits around suns.Seems like a really hard thing to believe that the current make up of our 8 (or 9, I get confused by the perfection of science) planets in our solar system. Each having an influence on each other, with moons and other orbiting matters all balanced in a near perfect harmony, all the while avoiding the killer comits that killed the dinosaurs?We sure lucked out having a planet that had a moon that because of its size gives us tidal flows that keep the oceans healthy, while not being so big that it caused total destruction of the coast line every month. To say nothing of the size of the earth being just right to keep the atmosphere from hurling away from us due to centrifigul force, while not being so large that it pulls the lethal gases down to where we live.So how did the planets form?
I would question things similarly if this was how things were supposed to have happened. However all it shows is your understanding of the science is wrong.If you really want to debate a point you need to get an understanding of the opposing view. Otherwise it's like saying 'I don't like what that politician stands for', without knowing any of their policies.This is of course not limited to the theist side of the debate. We get endless posts quoting Leviticus asking if we can kill our neighbours and of course we have the likes of theshank/hardkorbeatz filling our days with wisdom.If you want to refute a point of view, please show the courtesy of understanding it first.This of course should not apply to LMD because we do need a laugh every now and then.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not positive about the way the Big Bang explosion created massive amounts of matter, i.e. rocks, that hurled through space and then a couple billion? years later turned into round planets that had perfect orbits around suns.
Umm planets and their orbits are not round.
Link to post
Share on other sites

So Balloon Guy, your OP was obviously rhetorical because anybody can look in a real encyclopedia (NOT wikpedia). What was your point? That because we can't "prove" the exact process by which planets were formed and their current relationships, it must've been Jesus?Couldn't Allah have done it as easily as Jesus or Yaweh?

Link to post
Share on other sites
actually the big bang happened ~14 billion years ago and created massive amounts of free quarks and photons that condensed almost immediatly into gas (mostly hydrogen and helium). "rocks" couldn't have formed till much, much later because heavier elements can only form in supernova (when stars die). so it was more like big bang -> gas forming stars -> stars going supernova and forming heavier element dust -> heavier element dust later condensing into planets like earth ("rocks").our solar system is balanced because sun AND planets very likely condensed together roughly at the same time around 5 billion years ago from a spinning condensed disturbance in a giant cloud of gas/dust.
I realize I am requiring a simplified definition for many reasons, not the least of which is I'm not that learned in astronomy and it's terms. So if you will keep the discussion at the level you have started I will try to make my point. If you all want me to watch hour long videos and read college level astronomy books, then we aren't going to have much fun. And I'm here to have fun and argue, regardless of the lack of civility usaully seen by the evolutionist side. If you treat me like a fool, I will respond in kind with silly name calling that isn't relevant, but sometimes fun.So back to this point, gas made stars, stars imploded, and matter ( larger now than the dust from post BB ) began expelling from the central point correct?Why did rock a and rock b meet? given that they were attracted by gravity, they are still traveling at roughly the same direction, and have no adhesive properties other than gravity.Now if rock A and rock b meet, and then c,d,e,f etc. keep combining because as the collective rock gets bigger, there is more gravity, why did the rock/planet stop its original travel from away from the birth exploded star, to now settle into a 'perfect' orbit around another star?And for those that don't want to discuss this then I will argue with you that a burn card WILL affect your true outs and should be applied when making a call or fold decision.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever you think about something in nature like this to try to prove the existence of God, remember this statement: "The world is the way we observe it, because if it were any other way, we wouldnt be here to see it."I'm not sure who said that, maybe i did, but the point is pretty obvious. You can't use coincidences that allow for our existence to prove or disprove the existence of a "God".

Link to post
Share on other sites
So back to this point, gas made stars
Right
stars imploded
Kind of. More of an explosion known as a Supernova which is the result of an implosion. The details don't matter much. The point is that after a star blows up, it sends a lot of different kinds of matter into the universe. Some of this matter was created during the burning stages of a star and some of it was created during the explosion itself.I'm going to be very clear here. When I say, "created" I don't mean that the matter came out of nothingness. Rather, I mean that smaller parts of matter (hydrogen, helium, etc) fused together in the nuclear burning process to form larger, heavier matter (known as astronomers as "metals' [astronomers call everything that isn't hydrogen or helium a metal]).
matter ( larger now than the dust from post BB ) began expelling from the central point correct?
Rightish. To be fully clear, the big bang didn't create "dust." It created a quark soup that was filled with quarks, photons, leptons, etc. It was more like a super hot plasma that had to cool before anything resembling matter as we know it today could form together. The first matter that we would recognize today that formed was Hydrogen (because it's so simple). But you're right, the matter created after a supernova (or other star collapse) is "larger" (or better, heavier, of a higher atomic number, more complex, etc) then the original matter of the universe, or even of the original hydrogen that first created a star.
Why did rock a and rock b meet? given that they were attracted by gravity, they are still traveling at roughly the same direction, and have no adhesive properties other than gravity.
Okay, here's where it gets tricky. We have to be careful about what we're exactly talking about. We could be very esoteric and talk about why the universe isn't perfectly symmetric (or spherically symmetric or some shape). The issue is complicated, not very well understood, and probably involves quantum mechanics in some way (most likely it is the result of not well understood quantum mechanics that took place during the first fractions of a second after the birth of the universe).But I'm not sure that's what you're getting at, so let's stay on topic. A star explodes in a more or less spherically symmetric way and sends all kinds of matter out into the universe. But since the universe is already not symmetric, there is not only one star supernovaing, but rather many. The exploding matter from one star will hit the matter from another star or interact with already formed matter or do a number of things that we can not fully and analytically describe.
Now if rock A and rock b meet, and then c,d,e,f etc. keep combining because as the collective rock gets bigger, there is more gravity, why did the rock/planet stop its original travel from away from the birth exploded star, to now settle into a 'perfect' orbit around another star?
So we have a bunch of matter that shot out from a dying star and in someway interacted with other matter in the universe. On astronomical scales, the only force that effects particles is gravity. Now, gravity is a central force, meaning that it pulls things together along the radius of two separated particles (meaning that at any given time it pulls two particles exactly toward one another). But this doesn't mean that they actually go toward one another. If the particles have initial velocities that are not exactly aimed at one another, then they will feel a force pulling them together but their actual trajectories will be more complicated. Usually, they will end up in some sort of conical motion (as in parabola, hyperbola, ellipse, circle). These will not be perfect since there are many different particles each exerting gravitational attraction on one another, but after a long while a group of particles will tend to spin around their own center of mass in circular or elliptical motion. Those with hyperbolic paths will shoot out into space and leave the main group and those with parabolic paths will fall into the center of mass. So, there's a huge spinning pile of stuff, which consists mostly of hydrogen, a little helium, and a very little amount of "metals." It is this spinning pile of stuff which can form stars, and parts of it can form planets, or moons, or just big rocks, or dwarf planets or whatever.I'm being very general here and not super descriptive, but I think it's a decent start.
a burn card WILL affect your true outs and should be applied when making a call or fold decision.
Another topic for another day (or a previous day).
Link to post
Share on other sites
I dislike that answer (fish in pond theory). It's too easy. I think we may still find reasons for our universe being the way it is.
the point is the weak anthropic principal trumps any statistical arguments for life being so improbable as to require intelligent creation. yes there may be non-random reasons the universe is the way it is, but that's a different issue.
Link to post
Share on other sites
why did the rock/planet stop its original travel from away from the birth exploded star, to now settle into a 'perfect' orbit around another star?
that's not what happens in most cases (although it may have with pluto because its orbit is irregular compared to the plane of our solar system). in most cases it's apparent that planets and the stars they are orbiting condensed together from a single spinning disk of gas/dust. in other words the dust/gas that was to form the earth was ALREADY orbiting the stuff that became the sun before the earth solidified or the sun ignited.there is also a lot of evidence that supernova not only seed the hydrogen gas clouds stars form in with heavier elements, but their force is also responsible for creating the spinning disturbances in the gas/dust that forms new stars (and planets).
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...