Acording to the bigbang the universe evolved from a small point which erupted and created the space time contininum at the time of eruption I suppose the point was rotating rapidly because we are all rotating about somethig and this blast nade the matter split up Now imagine this i have made a small ball with a han full of mud and i place it on the ground and rotate it in hthe process of rotation the mud will be splited up from the ball unformly and at last after the ball is all gone i see a disc of mud so my question is why are galaxies in different shapes but not only disc shaped and spiral. I will also be pleased if you would answer for this Why does a body tend to rotate.
2007-02-03 16:51:11 · 6 answers · asked by josyula 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
I think it is related to the effect that we have seen when a skater who has arms extended and is slowly spinning suddenly pullls the arms into the body surface. The result is that spin rate increases. To even spin faster the skater will be standing
straight with the arms up over the head. This makes the distributions of mass as close toe the spin axis as possible and makes the spin as large as possible. The main idea is that angular momentum is conseved, ie, cannot change. Angular momentum is the product of the spin rate and the moment of inertia (a measure of the distribution of the mass about
the axis of rotation). The product is constant. If mass is widely dispersed as before condensing into a planet, and is very slowly rotating, then when it condenses into a planet (making a small moment of inertia) the rate of rotation could be large. So condensing amplifies whatever rotation there was initially. Now, what are the chances of something not rotating exactly before it condenses? Apparently, very small since everything seems to have some rotation. I am not sure this gets to your question of why, but it has been a great question to think about.
Our everyday experience teaches us that an object must be "pushed" by a force in order to keep it moving. Otherwise, it will slow down and eventually stop. But this intuition is absolutely wrong. If an object is moving, then a force is required *to slow it down or stop it*, not to keep it moving. (Hence, "Objects in motion tend to stay in motion. Objects at rest tend to stay at rest.") In our everyday experience, it's the force of friction that tends to stop Earth-bound objects from moving forever. But for the Earth rotating on its axis, there is no force working to counteract the rotation (except the tidal effect of the Moon, but that's working very slowly), so you don't need to have any input energy to keep it spinning.
2007-02-04 00:31:41 · answer #1 · answered by Runa 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well, there must be some force which would work on the object to make it rotate. But there was no force acting on the big bang as there was neither any star or any other heavenly body to apply any force on the Big Bang's small point.
2007-02-03 19:02:58 · answer #2 · answered by satish0811 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i'm not very conscious of different categories at Y!A, even if I do bypass to them at times, it is my "residing house." As astrogeek reported, there are an outstanding volume of trolls in this communicate board. nicely, there is one prevalent suspect, yet he regularly clings to non-enormous bang matters, and so some distance as i can tell, basically comments the best individuals, or maybe then, basically their solutions. relatively bearing on "Moon landing Hoax" and "2012" questions. As I reported on your question the day gone by, the way you provoke those you desire to get solutions from could be a demonstration of the animosity in those solutions. i'm not conscious of any "enormous Brother" sort of censorship in this communicate board. even if it can't be brushed aside as achieveable. I actual have seen multiple valid questions bumped off. yet, it style of feels the questions that I checklist (until they're of course malware links) continually proceed to be on the board. it may be probably which you get under the exterior of barely sufficient human beings to get your question reported. You do genuinely have a fashion of introducing your question in an exceedingly aggressive way. Edit possibly "agressive" isn't the superb be conscious. the two way, (i think of) you recognize what i'm attempting to declare. I do locate it exciting that sarcasm is known in politics. enormously interior the written type. Hmmmm.
2016-12-13 08:24:16 · answer #3 · answered by girardot 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
how u can consider that initially the point mass was rotating
u can'yt ciompare ur model with that one in any case
u know why they errupted
they banged cuz of excess energy and after erruption there are many forces working on them
some galaxies might had again collided but ur mud partic;les can't collide even mud particles don't have energy
so ur hypothecation is wrong and hence ur reserch is tooo
i m sorry
2007-02-03 17:06:15 · answer #4 · answered by n nitant 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
i cant answer ur question on galaxies.if 2 equal & oppsite forces r applied on a body it tends to rotate. either body is fixed at a point or it is not fixed.the equal & oppsite acting on abody is knowing as torque
2007-02-03 17:04:37 · answer #5 · answered by harsh 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I have a freind who is really fat. When we play basket ball and he jumps the fat nearly engulfs his head and when he hits the ground it tends to go into a hypnotic rotation sort of motion. It's interesting now you mention it.
2007-02-03 17:01:30 · answer #6 · answered by Keith B 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋