₦airaland Forum

flamingREED:
So, water ceased to be formed.

Says who? Show me a supernova, and I'll show you baby water.

Please, where can water be found outside the earth?

At what galaxy?
At what dying star?

You needn't look far. Water is practically on every comet gallivanting around our solar system. We know this because water has a unique absorption spectrum when certain wavelengths of light pass through it. With the help of a pretty nifty device known as a spectrometer, we can make out the exact absorption profile of all the materials being transported by a comet. From this, we can tell if it has water or not. The evidence from experiments show definitively, that water exists on/in those comets. Water is also on mars and many other planets (some are even completely made of ice).

flamingREED:
It's not like you're more of a scientist than Christians.

Exactly what I've been saying for a long time. Someone gets me, finally!

Simply tell us,

How did man come into existence?

My answer is staring you right in the face..I mean, you literally quoted it!

blueAgent:
Clown. how can matter be created from nothing?

Where did I write nothing? According to BlueAgent's law of physics, high energy photon is nothing! OK oo!

Matter and energy are different things which must come from something .They cannot just appear.

Erm...actually, they are not different! Matter is a form of energy. Which is why E(nergy)=m(ass of matter) X c². Pay attention is school

Energy itself cannot exist without it been established.

Straw man

their is no gravity on the moon can your Scientist establish or create gravity there? NO

So there is no gravity on the moon? Then what causes tides on earth?

blueAgent:
Did the Scientists create the Electron [size=14pt]or energy required [/size]?

Wayyo wayyo Agent! So now you acknowledge that it is energy, not matter that can neither be destroyed nor created. Welcome to 21st century science.

Anyway, if you must know, yes! Electron-Positron pairs have been created in labs, from high energy photons.

Bottom line, matter can both be created (Pair production) and destroyed (matter-antimatter annihilation). But energy and momentum must always be conserved. Hurrah for science!!!

blueAgent:
Am not here to claim been Superior or more intelligent but to point out lies that the whole world is been mislead to believe.
Nuclear fission and Fussion still require an intial element which will split or fuse to form a new element. something most come from pre-existing something.

, Okay o so can you describe the lie that happens when an electron recombines with a positron?

Antiparticle:
following... but I think you guys are now stuck in a rathole sha... @DoctorAlien, let me know when you want to go back to the ice cores conversation after which we'll leave science alone

Please, please! Go ahead. This went on a little longer than I had intended. I'm eager to learn about the ice cores, myself. When I have time, I'll maybe open a new thread in the science/education section to discus the "meter-size barrier", having invested a portion of my time learning more about it.

Side rant: (If only Seun added new subsections for the fundamental sciences like Physics, Chemistry and Biology, we'll be able to have more technical discussions on some of these topics, and maybe draw in people who are only science oriented to discus recent advances in these disciplines)

blueAgent:
You see you know nothing about Science which you claim. the law of matter has nothing to do with Albert Enistens law. rather it shows us that nothing new can be created entirely but only from existing materials.
Oxygen can only be made from Air, Water, Iron from iron ores. scientists have been unable to make anything new from something not existing. quit been a clown.

Ever heard of nuclear fusion/fission? But what does a clown like me know, eh? Hydrogen bombs don't exist, they are just a figment of man's wildest imaginings.

Weather you accept it or not Atheist use Science as their yardstick to prove if their is God or not.

Who am I to question your Atheismology credentials? After all, I'm just a miserable AgentOfAllah, whereas you are the Agent of all agents, sir Blue!

You are too Naive to understand the world around U .and that includes even your Atheism.

I quiver, then tremble and then prostrate in worship to your Agentliness Blueness sir! Save me from this pestilential naivete that plagues my understanding of the world and even my atheism!

blueAgent:
You just murdered Science. what happened to Law of Science that states matter can neither be created or destoryed?

Awww...You're so cute! Your exposure to science is fossilised in the 19th century! Here: Let me update you with what's happened since the time you've been frozen.
1) You may have heard of some guy called Albert Einstein. Yes? No?? Anyway, he discovered in the early 20th century that there is an equivalency between matter and energy. In pop culture, this equivalency is expressed as E=mc². This equivalency means matter can in fact be created and destroyed. What cannot be created or destroyed however, is Energy.
2) So we modified that statement accordingly, as "Energy matter can neither be created nor destroyed; but (and this is the crucial bit) it can be transformed from one form to another" This is known as the law of conservation of energy. Matter, my friend, is just energy with a rest mass!

so your stars and water,Hydrogen all just appeared from no where?

They didn't happen from "nowhere", they happened due to a chain of physical processes, starting from gravity to nuclear fusion, all the way to supernova nucleosynthesis and exo/endo-thermic reactions. Name them.

Athiests use Science to prove that the Universe came into existence without a God.

Not quite! I'm certain there are many atheists who don't give a ratsass about science.

Atheism cannot exist without using Science to advocate their illusion.

You're wrong...atheists use weed and hallucinogens to "advocate {and amplify} their illusions", not science. Sadly, science mostly plays the party pooper by bringing them back to reality.

winner01:
I'm not joking on this. This is a very serious question.

And ill mention the atheists once more to see this.


Seun , Plaetton , ilovetheline, JackBizzle, Kay17, AgentOfAllah, Ayomikun37 , hahn , sonOfLucifer , frank317 muskeeto , Decker , PastorAIO , ValentineMary , Pyrrho , braithwaite , dragonEmperor , theoneJabulani , lepasharon , cloudgoddess , ifenes , HopefulLandlord , brigance , stephenmorris , thehomer , dalaman , Ranchhoddas , CAPSLOCKED , lilbrown007 , Elohim1, RaphieMontella , Weah96 , SirWere , sonofluc1fer , Stephendamsoho , EyeHateGod , FearGodAndLive , LenyCool, Kevoh , Deicide , 4kings , aaronson

Im sorry, you can answer that question if you can.

Define what you understand by "a paradise"?

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

I never said gases cannot solidify. Protostars were not solids, anyway.

I never said gases cannot be liquified. Of course, protostars were not liquids.

How could hydrogen and helium in space not disperse, but instead came together to form clumps?

a) Localised clumps due to quantum fluctuations
b) Areas mentioned in (a) cooled down to certain critical temperature
c) Collapsed under group gravity in accordance with Jeans calculations (If you read on Jeans mass, treated specifically for gas clouds, and you understand the mathematics, it should clear your doubt about the clumpability of gases).
d) Stars are born.

Lets move on please, this topic is beyond laboured, as am I. I don't think any serious physicist doubts that gases can collapse due to group gravity.

winner01:
This is golden!!!

But lets face it, If they didnt pitch theists against science and freedom and other possitivities, there would be nothing for them to hold on to.

Permit me to re-mention my friends, so they can see your golden quote

Seun , Plaetton , ilovetheline, JackBizzle, Kay17, AgentOfAllah, Ayomikun37 , hahn , sonOfLucifer , frank317 muskeeto , Decker , PastorAIO , ValentineMary , Pyrrho , braithwaite , dragonEmperor , theoneJabulani , lepasharon , cloudgoddess , ifenes , HopefulLandlord , brigance , stephenmorris , thehomer , dalaman , Ranchhoddas , CAPSLOCKED , lilbrown007 , Elohim1, RaphieMontella , Weah96 , SirWere , sonofluc1fer , Stephendamsoho , EyeHateGod , FearGodAndLive , LenyCool, Kevoh , Deicide , 4kings , aaronson,

Actually, you theists are very well capable of pitching yourself against science without atheists input. Take for example, your mass denials of evolution and big bang theory.

DoctorAlien:
We are talking clumpy gases! Dry ice is solid CO2!

Population III stars were gaseous, and comprised mainly hydrogen and helium(with traces of lithium and beryllium, supposedly!)

That was before any CO2 existed. How did hydrogen or helium clump together to form stars?

I am not sure you know the meaning of clump. I gave the specific example of dry ice because you erroneously claimed I've never seen clumped gas. Anyway, that example still suffices as a valid answer for Hydrogen and Helium, unless you wish to argue that hydrogen and helium have their separate laws of physics. I keep repeating that the right temperature/pressure can cause gases to clump, but you just keep pretending I haven't addressed this non-issue. Check youtube videos of liquid Nitrogen clumping under extremely low pressure. Gases are only gases because they are hot enough (i.e. they have high kinetic energies) to exert repelling pressure. If you cool them down, or reduce their pressure, they start behaving exactly as solids/liquids. Have you read on Jeans Mass? I don't think I want to waste my time on this topic anymore. Feel free to believe gasses cannot clump!

DoctorAlien:
Excerpt from the article.

That is not watertight submission. This article is still speculating about carbon production. It doesn't account for all the heavy elements we have in the universe today, does it?

The heaviest element that can be formed in stellar-nucleosynthesis is iron (Fe). If you wish to know why, refer to the graph of Binding energy vs atomic number graph I shared before. If you don't know how to interpret it, ask and I will explain. Other heavier elements must have been formed in supernovae.

The graph below shows the abundance of certain elements in the universe. You will readily observe that after Fe, things just took a downward trend. This is because of the difficulty in synthesising endothermic elements. The heavy elements are NOT abundant at all!
You will also notice your so-called Helium gap in this graph, where there is a severe dip in the abundance of Li, Be and B; and then a sudden jump with C. The science is empirical!

https://www.astronoo.com/images/elements/elements-abundance.jpg

DoctorAlien:
It wouldn't be bad to admit that you haven't seen gases clump together, you know.

I hope this is just you trying to be funny. Any way, I give you two words: Dry Ice!

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

Clarification: If you will look at any standard table of the elements, you will find that the atomic weight of hydrogen is 1.008. (Deuterum is a form of hydrogen with a weight of 2.016.) Next comes helium (4.003), followed by lithium (6.939), beryllium (9.012), boron (10.811), etc. Gaps in atomic weight exist at mass 5 and 8.

But cannot hydrogen explosions cross those gaps? No. Nuclear fission (a nuclear bomb or reactor) splits (unevenly halves) uranium into barium and technetium. Nuclear fusion (a hydrogen bomb) combines (doubles) hydrogen into deuterum (helium 2), which then doubles into helium 4—and stops there. So a hydrogen explosion (even in a star) does not go across the mass 5 gap.

How then could you say minerals were formed in a star?

I've already addressed this in my previous response. You don't need a stable element with mass of 8, all you need is a fast enough reaction between He⁴ and the unstable Be⁸ with a mass of 8 to form C¹². The existence of such a resonant state has been demonstrated in a lab before; read about Hoyle's Resonance in my last but one post. Either you prove that such a transition is not possible (and the weight of evidence is against you) or you stop repeating the same argument.

DoctorAlien:
What is Van Der Waals bond?

It's a type of chemical bond: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/chemical/waal.html#c1

If you meant Van Der Waals force

This is the force that allows the bond to occur.

I am pleased, then, to inform you that Van Der Waals force exists between molecules of the same substance. Thus, it cannot exist between hydrogen and helium.

My remark about Van Der Waals bond was a specific response to your question about whether gases have ever been observed to clump together. I didn't mention hydrogen or helium.

Also, gas pushes apart; it does not clump together.

Yes they tend to, but under the right temperature/pressure, they can experience gravitational collapse. I play with liquid Helium and Nitrogen almost on a daily basis in my lab.
I told you before! Look up Jean's mass

Fun fact: All gas in outer space has a density so rarified that it is far less than the emptiest atmospheric vacuum pressure bottle in any laboratory in the world!

Yes, I used this argument to debunk your claim that space is...what was the term you used?..."Very very clumpy". How can space be "very very clumpy" and at the same time, have have a vacuum pressure far less than any thing in a lab? I'm not sure you've ever seen a vacuum chamber in a lab before. I work with cryogenics, so I play with one almost everyday, and there is no way you can describe it as clumpy, let alone space! It's funny how you like to eat your cake and have it. Any way, let me put this statement in perspective for you, since you're struggling to grapple with the idea.

Yes, space is on average, uniform, however, there are very few regions that are extremely dense in gaseous content called interstellar medium (as in the real image below). These regions can have densities as high as 10⁶ molecules/cm³. It is in such regions where gasses can easily experience gravitational collapse as predicted by Jean's equations.
[img]http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/616716main_hubble-eaglenebula-226.jpg[/img]
Pillars of creation Interstellar clouds taken by hubble space telescope

With these in mind, can you give me examples of gases that clump together?

What do you think interstellar medium is?

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

You have again shown that you don't even have a good knowledge of stellar evolution. Have you heard of the "helium mass 4 gap"?

There is no way heavy elements could have formed, going by the stellar evolution.

Read more.

I have included a graph of the binding energies of the first few elements below. I assume the "Helium mass 4 gap" you refer to is the dip after He⁴ where we have endothermic Li, Be, and B before finally, C and N continue the exothermic trend. This is only a gap if nuclearsynthesis necessitates the forming of Li⁷ and Be⁹. It turns out that this is not necessary. There is an extremely unstable isotope of Beryllium, Be⁸, which can form when 2 highly thermalised alpha particles (He⁴) collide. The reaction of this Be⁸ with He⁴ has about the same resonant energy as an excited state of the very stable C¹². This allows for great probability of C¹² forming from the interaction, which in turn, can produce an abundance of C-12 as we find.

So He⁴ + He⁴ -> Be⁸ + He⁴ -> C¹²

Look up Hoyle's Resonance and the Triple-alpha process

https://www.askamathematician.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Binding_energy.jpg
Average binding energy per nucleon of elements

DoctorAlien:
For stars to have formed after the Big Bang, gases would need to clump together.

Yes this happens by gravitational collapse. There is a critical mass/temperature when a cloud of glass will collapse due to the group gravity. Read about Jeans mass

Have gases ever been observed to clump together?

What do you think happens to gasses under the influence of Van Der Waals bond?

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

You said that the product of a supernova is

The first-generation(population III) stars were made up of only hydrogen and helium, supposedly. How then did "compounds and molecules and minerals" form in the stars? What minerals formed in the stars?

Young stars burn their fuel through nuclear fusion. This is done by fusing the nuclei of two hydrogen atoms to form helium. The mass of helium is a little less than the sum of masses of two H atoms
M_He < M_H + M_H
So by law of conservation of energy, the lost mass must be account for. The energy equivalent of that mass is given by the famous relativity equation, E=mc². That is the energy that is given off by new He nuclei. Even after this, nuclear fusion continues to happen. Berilium (Be) has a slightly lower mass than the sum of two He atom
M_Be < M_He + M_He
So again, the nuclei of two He atoms are fused to give Be. Through out the life time of the star, it continues to burn and manufacture new elements by fusion, and this continues until iron (Fe). After Fe, the nuclear fusion cannot produce energy anymore because the mass of of the sum of two Iron neclei becomes less than the mass of say Tellurium (Te).
M_Te > M_Fe + M_Fe
Consequently, energy is not given off anymore, but required to created the next set of element. It is at this stage that the star starts to collapse on itself (due to gravitational pressure), and if it is massive enough (i.e >1.4X the mass of Mr Sol A.K.A. the Chandrasekhar limit), this collapse will lead to a final violent and spectacular eruption of energy (as in a supernova). It is from this wondrous amount of energy that the previously manufactured elements hidden in the guts of the dying star are further synthesised into other massive elements, compounds, molecules and minerals; wherefrom we derive planets, their many hidden treasures and organic matter.

blueAgent:
Same excuse. i said give me the origin of water and he is asking me to go and think.

Is that the answer to the question? simple origin of water. You Atheists claim to known much science , yet cannot give me answers.

Water originates from dead stars. Most stars, during their life time, manufacture the elements on the periodic table, from Hydrogen (H) to Iron (Fe), so it is fair to say old stars have the basic ingredients required to manufacture water (H₂O). Certain stars however, when they die, they do so in a spectacular burst of energy large enough to offset the energetic requirements for the spontaneous formation of many of the compounds and molecules we consider naturally occurring today. Water is one of those molecules. Hydrogen, Helium and Oxygen are three of the most abundant elements in the universe, by mass. That makes water - which happens to be one of the lowest energy configurations of Hydrogen and Oxygen - automatically abundant in the universe too.

As a side note, atheists don't claim to "know much science". Atheists claim to lack belief in a deity. The lack of belief in a deity doesn't qualify one as a scientist. You actually have to study science to know science...and as you can imagine, this endeavour is independent of one's personal beliefs (or lack thereof).

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

I think you need to see this article about WMAP.

Okay, I promise I'll read it with an objective mind, and get back to you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So I've read the parts of the article that I understand, and I can immediately observe that there is a flaw in their claim about the CMB. They suggest it is from the earth's oceans. The earth's oceans?? That's nonsense! The satellites used in mapping CMB are not on earth, and do not face earth, so unless there is a massive microwave mirror positioned in such a way that it reflects signals from the earth's oceans back to WMAP and COBE, it doesn't make sense that they should be detecting signals from earth's ocean. The closest analogy I can make is that of receiving Astra 2x (Sky UK) channels from Eutelsat 36 (DSTv) transmitters, never mind that their signals come from different directions. I have not completely studied all of the claims because, frankly, I don't understand many of their more sophisticated arguments, but if they can be wrong on such a fundamental level, then I plead Occam's razor, and refuse to waste my time trying to understand the others.

Also, Pierre's many attempts at redefining Physics as we know it have been roundly discredited. Check:

1) http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille
2) http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/19/us/ripples-in-ohio-from-ad-on-the-big-bang.html?_r=0
3) https://www.quora.com/Does-the-recent-claimed-proof-by-Pierre-Marie-Robitaille-of-the-invalidity-of-Kirchhoffs-law-of-thermal-radiation-have-any-implications-for-physics

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

How did you know that stars existed 200 million years after the Big Bang?

I've told you! Results from WMAP.

What about the fully formed planets scientists saw when they peered over 13.2 billion years into the past?

Looked this up, and the oldest known planet is estimated at ~13 billion years old. So what's your point?

When inelastic collisions occur, the objects involved don't stay joined forever.

Is this DoctorAlien's law of inelastic collision? They do, unless another force acts on them.

It is rather funny that what you hold as truth on the origin of the Universe is mere speculation/hypothesis.

What is speculation?

I must laugh at your "football and the earth" example . Football does not stick inseparably to the earth. That is not an example of two spinning bodies joining together.

Nothing sticks inseparably to another (except maybe quarks). With the right amount of energy, you can separate just about anything.

Are you trying to modify your words? Has "outer layers" suddenly turned into "vector"?

Yes, I modified my words to better accurately describe what I intended to convey.

I'm happy you said this is your imagination. You can hold on to your imagination. But it's not the truth, anyway.

I'm glad I am able to make you happy.

shadeyinka:
I think you assume that reality is a function of physical evidence. And So, if there is no physical evidence, a reality is flawed!

I think we can easily be tricked by our minds, so we ought to be careful what we call reality.

DoctorAlien:
I have been playing all along with your "rocks came together to form the earth" idea, maybe to see if you can realize how ridiculous it is. Actually, that assertion is as wrong as it can be. Have you ever heard of the "meter size barrier"?

I disagree that rocks coming together to form earth is a ridiculous idea. And nope, never heard of the "meter-size barrier", but it looks interesting. Thanks for bringing it to me attention!

Maybe you need to read more, eager scientist.

Maybe I do!

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

Most stars are between 1 - 10 billion years old, scientists say. They also say some stars may be close to 13.8 billion years old. But I want you to note the phrase "may be." That's about how certain it is. May be.

I think the operative word here is "most". "Most" does not preclude the possibility that some stars are older than 10 billion years. If images from WMAP show stars as old as 13 billion years, it is not clear to me why you, I or any scientist should dispute that. I am not sure which scientists you talk to, but I will most certainly pick the results of a properly executed experiment over your word or that of any scientist. As such, I am convinced that there are stars that existed as early as 200 million years after the big bang. So unless you believe there is something scientifically wrong with very early stars, I don't see a reason for us to harp on this point.

If gravitational force is not magnetic, why did the first two rocks which came together in the process of earth formation not bounce of each other?

1) How do you know how many rocks were involved in the initial collision? 2) Not all collisions are elastic! 3) Even collisions between magnets can be elastic.

When a Supernova occurs, what is the nature of the resulting debris?

Everything from single elements to compounds, molecules and minerals.

Also, have two spinning bodies ever been observed to join together?

A football and the earth?

Supposedly, two or more rocks came together and joined themselves. How can their outer layers exert pressure on their centre?

All forces have vectors. Gravity happens to have its vector pointing towards the centre of mass of a body. When two or more objects come together, their centre of gravity adjusts in accordance with the new distribution of mass, and the pressure from the force of gravity will be most intense at this new mass centre. Happens when you dive deep into the sea too.

How did space debris make the earth liquid?

Conversion of kinetic energy to thermal energy (friction), I would imagine.

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

Moreover, if the above description is your view of how the earth was formed, then you must be the only one who holds such a view.

Which means it is not the truth. I wonder why you preach it with much fervor and ardor.

The only view that was solely mine in the description is the supposition that earth's pressure melted its core. This view is wrong, and I have since corrected it. However, there are many brilliant documentaries on the origins of the earth on YouTube. I encourage you to watch them.

Here's one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhBc8iHGODo

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

No fully formed star or planet like we have now should exist less than 0.6 billion years after the Big Bang.

Why?

Is gravitational force magnetic?

No, gravitational force is an attractive force, but it is not magnetic. Magnetic force is something else. It comes from the electronic properties of matter.

According to you, two rocks joined together in space due to gravity. Then another rock joined them. Another joined them. And then we have the earth. How did those jointed rocks manage to start rotating on their axis?

The short answer is: Law of conservation of momentum! The longer answer is that the seed rock(s) most probably was/were already spinning on an axis before accretion. When an explosion (like supernova) happens, some of the debris will acquire angular momentum, whose direction and angular velocity will be dependent on the vector and magnitude of the force from such an explosion. In case you are unaware, there is almost zero friction in space, meaning a spinning rock will not stop spinning until another stronger force acts on it.

Can you give an example of an object whose core heats up due to immense pressure if it becomes massive? Did anything compress the earth(conglomeration of gravity-joined rocks)? What was that?

Actually, I need to correct my initial statement. Pressure does not cause the core to melt, it makes it harder to melt! But yes, the earth's core is compressed by the pressure exerted by its outer layer. So earth was liquid due mostly to the impact from space debris, not from the pressure at its core. This video does justice to the explanation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZYGfJsj1q4

shadeyinka:
LOL!

This extraterrestrial being is not a physical being and He can not be measured.

So you have no evidence.

Everything physical is a cheap imitation of the things which exist in His rhelm.

And you know this, how?

One gets to know Him only by experience and not by scientific examination. He actually made us with independent volition so that through our choices He selects those who love and respect Him.

Funny how your 'non-physical' being has a gender. Anyway, I believe most scientific experiments are based on phenomenological observations, so I don't know how you can separate science from experience

If you are looking for a Physical Evidence, you will never know Him. Knowing Him is an Experience that is REAL but subjective at the physical level.

Very well then! I can think of other real but subjective experiences, like the catastrophic brain failures we euphemistically refer to as optical illusions. At any rate, when I need an imaginary friend to give me physically subjective, but real experience, I know just what to smoke!

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

You have again carefully avoided the question I asked. Why did the cameras capture fully formed stars and planets like we have now, when they supposedly peered over 13.2 billion years into the past? They shouldn't see stars and planets like we have now since they saw close to the Big Bang. Why is that?

Oh, I see what you're trying to imply! That stars and planets shouldn't have existed by 500,000,000 years after the big bang? Actually, I doubt they've found planets that old (planets can only form from the spilled guts of a dead star). However, I am not sure why you think stars shouldn't exist by then, but they most definitely did, at least, according to images from WMAP. We see from those results that stars formed from as early as 200,000,000 years after the big bang. So, if there is a very old star within the viewing field of an optical telescope, there is no reason why it shouldn't be observable.

If the earth was formed the way you said, then two heavy things should be able to stick together if you brought them close enough, because of gravitational force. Yes?

The gravitational force acting on two masses is given by:

F = G M₁m₂/r², where the gravitational constant, 'G', has a value: 6.674×10⁻¹¹ N⋅m²/kg².

It is clear that the gravitational force of attraction scales with mass of the bodies involved. Now, if you were to carry this experiment out in space, there will be an ever so tiny force (check out the value of G) that will act on them until they eventually stick together (this assumes that G-force is greater than the rate of expansion of the fabric of space itself). On the other hand, if you carry this experiment out on earth, you cannot discount the effect of earth's mass. The reason we all stick to earth is because earth is so massive that it exacts a strong gravitational force on us. Likewise, if you leave two heavy things (which are considerably lighter than earth) lying around, the force of gravity being exerted on them by earth will be much stronger (due to earth's mass) than the force of gravity they experience between each other. As such, they are unlikely to stick together, and more likely to stick to earth!

Again, if arbitrary rocks continued to be pulled together by gravitational force to form the earth, how did the earth manage to realize an oblate spheriodal shape?

Gravity acts as a point force whose field is omnidirectional. Gravitational field emanates from the centre of mass of an object, therefore all masses tend to act towards each other's centre (until an equilibrium centre is reached). Of course, when an object becomes very massive, its core will heat up due to immense pressure (if you compress anything with enough pressure, it will melt due to excessive agitation of its atoms), so as the core of the earth heated up, it became fluid, and so began to assume the most energetically stable shape available(that of its gravitational field). Also, at the time the earth was forming, space was richer in debris than it is now, so the friction from rain of meteorites happening from all corners caused the surface of the earth to heat up and melt. Since this molten surface could burrow through rocks, it sank in, following the spherical path of the earth's gravitational field (towards earth's centre). By the time the space debris had significantly reduced, earth began to cool down, and then stayed spherical.
The oblateness is simply due to earth's rotation around an axis. The centrifugal force of that rotation tends to cause the flattening of the regions around the rotation axis.

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

LOL. Apart from the salt video, which other matter has been observed to form spontaneously into clumps?

Is this a trick question? Let's start with all the naturally occurring elements, compounds and molecules in existence.

Why did the cameras capture planets and stars like we have now when they supposedly peered into the past as far as 13.2 billion years ago? Nobody asked you about waves. Stick to the question.

Imagine a room lit with 100 deep-UV bulbs and 1 green bulb; were you to enter that room, you will only see green light, and then probably conclude that there is only green light in that room. This erroneous conclusion stems from the fact that the spectral sensitivity of your eyes does not cover UV wavelengths. However, if you entered the room with an InGaAs photodetector, you will be able to see the green light as well as the light from the 100 deep UV bulbs because InGaAs photodetectors are sensitive to UV spectrum. Same thing applies to optical telescopes. If you look into space with them, no matter how far back you go, you will only be able to see things within the spectral range of optical telescopes. To see other things outside of this spectral range (e.g. redshifted microwave background, where disorderliness will surely exist), you will need a different kind of telescope that can detect microwave signals. This is where WMAP and CHIME come in. That said, please do NOT enter a room filled with deep UV bulbs. If you do, you will come out with your skin completely ionised and your eyes cooked beyond redemption!

If you don't know when the physical laws began to act, I take it that you don't know enough to make claims like "matter spontaneously forms clumps."

This is a preposterous presumption. I am most certain you don't need to know how/when gravity came about to be sure that jumping from a 100 storey building would inexorably result in your shattered brain sullying the pavement. So I am surprised that you think I must know when physical laws came to be in order to know what their effects on matter can be.

DoctorAlien:
So gravity continued to pull rocks together until the earth was formed? Is that how the earth was formed?

Precisely! In fact, the earth still continues to cannibalise space debris like meteors and asteroids that manage to come within its gravitational vicinity. Sometimes we see them as shooting stars or meteor showers; and the ones that make it past our atmosphere, we call meteorites.

You couldn't even tell me when gravity began to exist. LOL.

Nope, but I can tell you what it does.

shadeyinka:
I think yours is an escapist way of looking at things. Theists say the origin of Man is Extraterrestrial. Extraterrestrial could mean any living being of which God or gods or Aliens are specific definitions.

If you claim the origin of man is extraterrestrial, I only have to ask for the evidence supporting this claim.

It is either Atheist concur or they provide a different valid explanation. I believe that is the import of the original post.

You completely miss the point then! This is not an 'either or' situation at all. If you claim there is a rat in my brain that sh!ts brilliant ideas into it, I don't suppose you'd argue that the choices before me are: concur with the ridiculous claim or provide an alternative explanation about how you get brilliant ideas. I know a rat cannot survive in my brain due to insufficient Oxygen. So while I can be fairly certain there isn't a rat in my brain, I don't have to know what makes my brain function the way it does.

Trying to compel me to provide an alternative explanation because I've rejected your ridiculous assertion of some imperceptible god is the definition of FALSE DICHOTOMY. I reject your argument on the basis of its incongruencies, not because I necessarily have an alternative (although, in this specific case, I have a much more compelling alternative).

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

When the first elementary particles managed to form the first few electrically stable molecules of the rocks which make up the earth now, what forces brought and kept them together to form the earth?

Edited.

1) Rocks are minerals that were manufactured by exploding stars, not directly by elementary particles.
2) Why do you say the rocks of earth are electrically neutral (I assume this is what you meant)? This is not true. Many minerals found in rocks have net electric charges. (I hate to sound like a broken record, but I insist you watch the NASA video I shared)
3) When the rocks become massive enough, gravity takes over. Gravity is a very weak force, but its effect is noticeable when massive objects are involved. It is what's keeping the earth together. Gravity is also what keeps the sun together, against the immense outward pressure from nuclear fusion.