Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Old Professer
Like the difference between a hailstone and a raindrop?

No, accretion from interstellar dust and planetoids versus condensation from incandescent gases.
93 posted on 01/13/2003 9:45:25 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies ]


To: aruanan
Here's the problem I have:

We've got all of this material blasted outward in a single burst accelerated into a void wherein there is no matter or mass to impede the free travel of the effluvia; the temperature is unimaginably high and the "space" in which it finds itself is what? - absolute zero?

Now, the gaseous matter must cool and then condense to form the dust of which you speak; but, in order for it to accrete, would it not need a locus of matter about which to gather?

If, at the very moment of "explosion" the greater masses were accelerated at a slower rate than the rest would there then be lines (arcs?) of separation among them?

Currently, the greatest masses are composed of the lightest element - hydrogen fusing to energy, called suns, right?

How did all the hydrogen come together to form suns and did it then, having bodies of great mass "recall" the rest of the now condensed matter about it to form planets and smaller solid non-incandescent bodies?

Or, in the "Big Bang," did all the heavy mass suddenly get thrown clear of the hydrogen leaving it to dart here and there and come to "rest" violently fusing as it slowed?

Or, is this just above my puny mind?

100 posted on 01/14/2003 12:05:00 PM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson