A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What Came First ????



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 21st 04, 03:58 PM
G=EMC^2 Glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default What Came First ????

What came first in creating a planet? Was it the solid core,or the gas?
The solid core would have more mass density,and that means stronger
force of gravity to capture,and keep a gas from radiating out into
space. Or did the gas that had dust in it settle down in the middle
of the cloud and create a core to revolve around? Its almost like what
came first the chicken or the egg.(chicken being the gas)
Jupiter has so dense an atmosphere it begs this question "What has the
greater amount of particles its atmosphere or its core.?" Bert PS
Does its core revolve at the exact same rate as its atmosphere? If they
don't I could create a theory as to Jupiters strong global magnetic
field

Ads
  #2  
Old February 21st 04, 09:10 PM
onegod
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It really dont matter and unknown. Good example of similar process is in
rings on other planets. Things can explode and become ring and eventually
get back together and be moon.



"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
What came first in creating a planet? Was it the solid core,or the gas?
The solid core would have more mass density,and that means stronger
force of gravity to capture,and keep a gas from radiating out into
space. Or did the gas that had dust in it settle down in the middle
of the cloud and create a core to revolve around? Its almost like what
came first the chicken or the egg.(chicken being the gas)
Jupiter has so dense an atmosphere it begs this question "What has the
greater amount of particles its atmosphere or its core.?" Bert PS
Does its core revolve at the exact same rate as its atmosphere? If they
don't I could create a theory as to Jupiters strong global magnetic
field



  #3  
Old February 21st 04, 10:04 PM
Bill Oertell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I believe the prevailing theory is that the whole planet coalesced out of the
solar gas cloud, and as the planet's mass increased, compressional heating
started, which caused the constituent components to melt, with the heavier
elements settling towards the center of the planet. There was also heat created
from the impact of infalling material. Then a mars sized body came along and
added a lot more heat and a bunch more material.

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
What came first in creating a planet? Was it the solid core,or the gas?
The solid core would have more mass density,and that means stronger
force of gravity to capture,and keep a gas from radiating out into
space. Or did the gas that had dust in it settle down in the middle
of the cloud and create a core to revolve around? Its almost like what
came first the chicken or the egg.(chicken being the gas)
Jupiter has so dense an atmosphere it begs this question "What has the
greater amount of particles its atmosphere or its core.?" Bert PS
Does its core revolve at the exact same rate as its atmosphere? If they
don't I could create a theory as to Jupiters strong global magnetic
field



  #4  
Old February 22nd 04, 12:54 PM
RingPlane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

What came first is God, but to view it your way, I would say it was the gas.

Charles
Nashville, TN USA

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
What came first in creating a planet? Was it the solid core,or the gas?
The solid core would have more mass density,and that means stronger
force of gravity to capture,and keep a gas from radiating out into
space. Or did the gas that had dust in it settle down in the middle
of the cloud and create a core to revolve around? Its almost like what
came first the chicken or the egg.(chicken being the gas)
Jupiter has so dense an atmosphere it begs this question "What has the
greater amount of particles its atmosphere or its core.?" Bert PS
Does its core revolve at the exact same rate as its atmosphere? If they
don't I could create a theory as to Jupiters strong global magnetic
field



  #5  
Old February 22nd 04, 01:51 PM
Benoit Morrissette
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 10:58:08 -0500 (EST), (G=EMC^2
Glazier) wrote:

What came first in creating a planet? Was it the solid core,or the gas?
The solid core would have more mass density,and that means stronger
force of gravity to capture,and keep a gas from radiating out into
space. Or did the gas that had dust in it settle down in the middle
of the cloud and create a core to revolve around? Its almost like what
came first the chicken or the egg.(chicken being the gas)
Jupiter has so dense an atmosphere it begs this question "What has the
greater amount of particles its atmosphere or its core.?" Bert PS
Does its core revolve at the exact same rate as its atmosphere? If they
don't I could create a theory as to Jupiters strong global magnetic
field

Hello Bert!

You have many questions here, let's take them one at a time.

New models of the atmosphere of Jupiter are developped almost every week so keep
in mind that what i write here may be wrong tomorrow....

The solid core of Jupiter, if any, is believed to be quite small compared to
the size of the planet. It may be composed of crystalized carbon ( a big
diamond! ). It is surrounded by a thick layer of liquid "metallic hydrogen",
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_hydrogen perhaps a third of the size of
the planet. The rest is various gases.

The rotation period of atmospheres ( Jupiter, Earth, Venus, Sun etc... ) varies
with latitude: that is what produces the wind "bands" on Jupiter. It does
varies also with depth because mainly of friction. Only a solid core does
rotate as a whole. Of course, the strong magnetic field of Jupiter is believed
to originate in the metallic hydrogen ocean down under. I believe that there
must be strong various currents in that ocean, just like in Earth's oceans.


A Short History Of The Solar System:

It all began more than five billions years ago with the explosion of a
supernovae. After all, all the gold, oxygen etc... here on Earth must come
from somewhere! That supernovae produced a huge cloud of gases, waiting for
eons in space for something to happen...

Then it happened: maybe another supernovae sent a shockwave through the cloud
strong enough to stir it in motion. That produced some clumps of gases more
dense than the surrounding. Because of their gravity, theses clumps attracted
dust and gas particles around them, growing bigger and so, accelerating the
process. Some of them were bigger and were more efficient at "cleaning" their
neighbourhood than others!

After a few zillion years, we have a huge gas and dust cloud containing zillions
of small rocky particle from the size of a smoke particle to the size of a
potatoe. They were revolving around the center of gravity of the cloud but not
in a plane like today, they were coming and going from every directions! The
chance for collisions was very high and yes, they were colliding happily
together, the bigger ones gaining more and more weight faster and faster. That
was about 5 billions years ago.

One of those big rocks won the jackpot: it's gravitationnal greed made it attact
more than 90 % of all matter of the cloud. Because of friction and pressure,
heat was produced in it's core, climbing to a point to ignite hydrogen fusion!
The Sun began to glow and the solar wind pushed away the remaining light dust
particles and gases to the outer edge of he solar system. Meanwhile, the other
bodies of the solar system continues to grow, the inner planets taking the
heavier elements and the outer ones getting the hydrogen and helium that was
pushed away by the solar wind pressure.

At the same time, a kind of order was established in the solar system: all
thoses bodies that do not revolve in the same way as the big ones must
disappear! Well, they did'nt go away, they just crashed onto the big bodies
making big holes on the Moon, Mercury etc... In the long run, only "well
behaved" bodies were left in the system ( with the exeption of the Oort cloud).
That devastating period ended about 4 billions years ago.

Now the solar system is somewhat stable, just give some time to Earth to cool
down, do a few chemical tricks and here we are, speculating on our origins...


Good night!

Benoît Morrissette
  #6  
Old February 22nd 04, 09:23 PM
J. Scott Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
What came first in creating a planet?


Current solar nebula model starts with observed abundances of H and He gas to
dust and volitiles (like water, ammonia, methane). As you shrink such a cloud
under gravity, the dust, a site for the accumulation of volitiles as ices on the
surface, begins to accumulate into larger and larger pieces, using the ices as a
"glue". Static electricity may also play a role. This would, over time, build
up larger and larger solid bodies within the ever spinning cloud of gas, which
itself is spreading out because of the rotation.

The determiner of final outcome is the forming Sun, the heat from which can
drive away volitiles and H and He, leaving just the solid stuff to continue
accumulating in close to the Sun. At greater distances, the temperature in the
solar nebula would have allowed the condensation not only of the solid stuff but
the volitiles too. Here, planet building could lead to larger bodies because
there would then be more stuff to build with.

Eventually, the gravity of these larger bodies would draw in more material,
including the gases. Those bodies close to the Sun could not accumulate as much
as that farther away because it had been driven away by the Sun. Farther out,
this gas material could be included in the planet-building process.

A more complete explanation can be found in most elementary, college-level
astronomy textbooks.

  #7  
Old February 23rd 04, 12:58 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

RingPlane wrote:
What came first is God,


Please prove that assertion with empirical evidence.

--
____________________________
Pear pimples for hairy fishnuts?


  #8  
Old February 23rd 04, 10:21 AM
Whisper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Benoit Morrissette" wrote in message
...



Now the solar system is somewhat stable, just give some time to Earth to

cool
down, do a few chemical tricks and here we are, speculating on our

origins...


Good night!

Benoît Morrissette


Yes, those 'chemical tricks' are the really interesting thing......... ; )


  #9  
Old February 23rd 04, 03:24 PM
G=EMC^2 Glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scott Yes I have read many books on how stars are created,and with
today's technology we can penetrate these very opaque dust clouds I
read(not my thoughts so don't worry) an interesting discovery that
the protostar contracts and the matter accretes onto its equatorial
region. Scott this observation enables us to theorize(good thinking) our
young sun was also surrounded by a disk of gas and dust. This solar
nebula was hypothesized by two guys some two centuries ago. This shows
how good thinking can be ahead of technology. By the gas and dust
being flat it has more concentrated particles,and that has to be a great
physical advantage(sorry my thought) Well have some different
thoughts on planet formation,but will post them in "new theory news
group" That way I won't upset those that go by the book. Bert

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2021 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.