Why does the Earth spin?
Discussion
MiseryStreak said:
Gene Vincent said:
Pretty much, after inflation there cosmos was very thinly sprinkled with minute particles almost all with that sort of distances between them.
So, what started them moving?
What process caused such isolated particles to start moving at all, something must have been 'present' to get them whizzing across vast distances so as to eventually attract and eventually collide with one another.
What caused this to happen?
Irregularities in the quantum 'jitters'? So the matter was not evenly distributed and entirely homogenised, resulting in some particles being closer to some neighbours than others and therefore having a tendency to move towards those and eventually coalesce? The gravity would be extremely small but non-zero.So, what started them moving?
What process caused such isolated particles to start moving at all, something must have been 'present' to get them whizzing across vast distances so as to eventually attract and eventually collide with one another.
What caused this to happen?
There was some clumping, but my analogy on size is a 'clumpy' bit!
What energy made them move?
Tiny particles hugely isolated from one another, gravity too weak for them to be attracted to one another... what energy could make them move?
Gene Vincent said:
No.
There was some clumping, but my analogy on size is a 'clumpy' bit!
What energy made them move?
Tiny particles hugely isolated from one another, gravity too weak for them to be attracted to one another... what energy could make them move?
Are you setting us up for Dark Energy again Gene?There was some clumping, but my analogy on size is a 'clumpy' bit!
What energy made them move?
Tiny particles hugely isolated from one another, gravity too weak for them to be attracted to one another... what energy could make them move?
TheHeretic said:
Why would gravity be too weak to make them move? Surely time would factor in then?
How much gravity does a marble have? The distance means that gravity plays no part.These particles need an energy to move, no energy no movement.
The accretion process started at about t=400,000 years, the Cosmos was mostly dark for a further million years, black, no light.
What possible source of energy started the Accretion process to start to begin?
Gene Vincent said:
How much gravity does a marble have? The distance means that gravity plays no part.
I, and I think others, have it stuck in our heads that as long as gravity is non zero it will still produce an acceleration.Are you saying that didn't happen, or just that the effect was far too small to account for the time it took to get accretion going?
Gene Vincent said:
Nope.
This is a quite different energy and millions of times stronger than Gravity or Dark Energy.
It is still present and seen by us every day.
I was hoping you had the answer and were just leading us along. My last guess then is the weak force.This is a quite different energy and millions of times stronger than Gravity or Dark Energy.
It is still present and seen by us every day.
Inflaton - moving everything (sic) apart - No.
Electromagnetic - Universe still dark, no photons - No.
Gravitational - Too weak at stated distances - No.
Strong - Gets stronger with distance but not present between unassociated particles - No.
Dark Energy - Too weak - No.
Weak - By deduction, only one left - But no idea how...
TheHeretic said:
Asterix said:
If there was zero friction, even the smallest amount of gravity would take effect. Even if the movement was infinitesimal to start with.
At a pure guess like punt!
Pretty much what I was thinking. At a pure guess like punt!
Asterix said:
Ok - so I'm assuming the attraction would increase as the objects get closer and the speed would increase exponentially until they collide with a rather large explosion and the residue would become a planet or moon and then stays spinning at whatever rate is determined by that event (unless there is a secondary gravitational force exerted by another object somewhere).
Pretty much what I was thinking. SpeedyDave said:
Gene Vincent said:
How much gravity does a marble have? The distance means that gravity plays no part.
I, and I think others, have it stuck in our heads that as long as gravity is non zero it will still produce an acceleration.Are you saying that didn't happen, or just that the effect was far too small to account for the time it took to get accretion going?
But the 'gravity well' of its own existence locks it into place, think of that rubber sheet analogy, each particle and to attract a smaller gravity well to larger it has to make a deeper impression in the sheet, but after the inflationary period everything was immensely spread out and pretty much the same size, so gravity can't start the process at all.
TheHeretic said:
Asterix said:
Ok - so I'm assuming the attraction would increase as the objects get closer and the speed would increase exponentially until they collide with a rather large explosion and the residue would become a planet or moon and then stays spinning at whatever rate is determined by that event (unless there is a secondary gravitational force exerted by another object somewhere).
Pretty much what I was thinking. 
Some good guesses, but I'll tell you now.
It was heat loss... the objects were at t+400,000years about 10 degs above Ab. Zero and were trying now to cool further, all previous cooling had been used to form these tiny objects and now a new process was in place.
Total heat loss (evap) = radiative loss (huge) minus radiation gain (zero, no stars) - conduction (zero) - convection (zero).
It was simply the evaporation of mass due to heat radiation that started the entire process that eventually led to Stars, galaxies and whatnot.
So now you know what caused the --------> and the opposing <---------
It was heat loss... the objects were at t+400,000years about 10 degs above Ab. Zero and were trying now to cool further, all previous cooling had been used to form these tiny objects and now a new process was in place.
Total heat loss (evap) = radiative loss (huge) minus radiation gain (zero, no stars) - conduction (zero) - convection (zero).
It was simply the evaporation of mass due to heat radiation that started the entire process that eventually led to Stars, galaxies and whatnot.
So now you know what caused the --------> and the opposing <---------
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff