or at least what scientists believe which planet formed first...
204783
Check this out:\n\n"NASA's Hubble Space Telescope precisely measured the mass of the oldest known planet in our Milky Way galaxy. At an estimated age of 13 billion years, the planet is more than twice as old as Earth’s 4.5 billion years. It’s about as old as a planet can be. It formed around a young, sun-like star barely 1 billion years after our universe’s birth in the Big Bang. The ancient planet has had a remarkable history because it resides in an unlikely, rough neighborhood. It orbits a peculiar pair of burned-out stars in the crowded core of a cluster of more than 100,000 stars. The new Hubble findings close a decade of speculation and debate about the identity of this ancient world. Until Hubble’s measurement, astronomers had debated the identity of this object. Was it a planet or a brown dwarf? Hubble’s analysis shows that the object is 2.5 times the mass of Jupiter, confirming that it is a planet. Its very existence provides tantalizing evidence that the first planets formed rapidly, within a billion years of the Big Bang, leading astronomers to conclude that planets may be very abundant in our galaxy."
13645
You've been to Pluto? \nWhat's it like?\n\nThis is a nonproven theory:\nBecause when the Sun was forming, and condensing to it's present size, it spun faster and faster as it grew smaller. The first things to be spun off were rings of light gases that formed the outer gas planets. As it got hotter and smaller and faster, rings of heavier materials were flung off, creating the inner rocky and metallic planets. Pluto is technically a captured comet or other stray chunk, and probably came from further out in the system, perhaps a remnant of stars which previously exploded. We won't know until we get there.
178998
Most likely Venus, as those above me have stated, but Jupiter is also a possibility.  \n\nStarmaps are readily available on the internet, and that would tell you for sure. \n\nHowever, a more fun way to find out would be to take a telescope outside and look at the planet.  Even a very low-end model telescope will have the resolution to see the moons of Jupiter.  Watch it for a week, if you don't see any moons or the giant red spot, it's Venus.
602111
The Big Bang is not a theory of the earth's origin. It is a theory of the origin of the whole universe. The earth wasn't formed until about 8.7 billion years after the universe started.\n\nThe predominant views of the origin of the earth are all variants of the nebular hypothesis which states that a cloud of gas and dust collapsed forming the sun and the solar system. There was a period of intense collisions where the planets grew through accretion. Most of the volatile chemicals (hydrogen, helium) were blown away from the planets near the sun due to solar wind (which was more intense when the sun was young).
383742
We do not have a real explanation...\nDuring the stage of formation of the solar system, the gases and dust accumulated to form one big blog, the sun, and several other blogs that became planets.  This cloud of dust was animated with a small rotation, and each blog rotated with slight differences.  The Sun formed, and the rest of the dust became planets, still with some remaining rotation.  At that time, many small blogs were floating around and hitting each other.  It is likely that, at that stage, Venus (or what would become Venus) was hit by another rock, changed rotation, and still running that way.\nSo, no, Venus is not "special".  It is just another rock that was formed at the time...
157177
I think we would be very naive to believe we are the only life form in the universe.As vast and diverse as it is,I believe there has to be a reason for the formation of these planets to sustain life.That said,who knows when the life was present on these planets?And who knows what life forms are out there as we speak?Perhaps Mars and Pluto had life trillions of years ago but there are no remnants now for us to find.It's a fascinating topic.If you think about the possibilities,it's incredible.
31968
it depends on dimaneions of the blocks, and planet where the experiment is conducted.
410722
I'm sure there's a large chance element in it, but one idea for the pretty clearcut difference between the inner "terrestrial" planets and the rest is explained at the following link:\nhttp://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=246
30893
You should take a look here to see the formation of the ocean basins: http://www.mos.org/oceans/planet/change.html\nand then the next page, to see one theory on where the water comees from:\nhttp://www.mos.org/oceans/planet/cycle.html\n\nPerhaps a better answer is here:\nhttp://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oct99/941236464.Es.r.html\n\nFurther discussion on the origins of all the water is given here:\nhttp://www.oceansonline.com/ocean_form.htm\nand under the "Origin of the oceans" title here:\nhttp://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/oceans.htm
299606
Uranus was the first planet to be discovered that was not known in ancient times; although it had been observed on many previous occasions, it was always mistakenly identified as a star. The earliest recorded sighting was in 1690 when John Flamsteed catalogued it as 34 Tauri. Flamsteed observed Uranus twice again. Sir William Herschel formally discovered the planet on March 13, 1781, but reported it on April 26, 1781, as a "comet."\n\nHerschel originally named it Georgium Sidus (George's Star) in honour of King George III of Great Britain. When it was pointed out that sidus means star and not planet, he rebaptised it the Georgian Planet. This name was not acceptable outside of Britain. Lalande proposed in 1784 to name it Herschel, at the same time that he created the planet's symbol ("a globe surmounted by your initial"); his proposal was readily adopted by French astronomers. Prosperin, of Uppsala, proposed the names Astraea, Cybele, and Neptune (now borne by two asteroids and a planet). Lexell, of St. Petersburg, compromised with George III's Neptune and Great-Britain's Neptune. Bernoulli, from Berlin, suggested Hypercronius and Transaturnis. Lichtenberg, from Göttingen, chimed in with Austräa, a goddess mentioned by Ovid (but who is traditionally associated with Virgo). The name Minerva was also proposed. Finally, Bode, as editor of the Berliner Astronomisches Jahrbuch, opted for Uranus, after Latinized version of the Greek god of the sky, Ouranos; Maximilian Hell followed suit by using it in the first ephemeris, published in Vienna. Examination of earliest issues of Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society from 1827 shows that the name Uranus was already the most common name used even by British astronomers by then, and probably earlier. The name Georgium Sidus or "the Georgian" were still used infrequently (by the British alone) thereafter. The final holdout was HM Nautical Almanac Office, which did not switch to Uranus until 1850.\n\nIn the Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese languages, the planet's name is literally translated as the sky king star (天王星).\n\nHope that's not too long for you!!\n\nP.S. I don't believe your claim that a professor wants a paper on a Saturday. I think you're curious, and impatient, and wanted to know sooner rather than later. It's OK to be curious as long as you own up to it. I'm not saying I'm sure you were lying, but I've got a hunch. Just don't be self-conscious about wanting information.
663141
Yet another interesting question, man_id.\n\nAll a theory of abiogenesis can do is give an answer for how life-from-non-life is *possible*.  ... I.e. what ingredients and conditions might result in a replication system that is sufficient for natural selection to take over?  And which ones *may* have been present in the early days of the earth (knowing what we do know about those days)?  There may, in fact, be multiple answers ... many different recipes, all equally possible.  If so, then we may never know which one actually occurred on our planet.\n\nBut it is also possible that we may never find a recipe that works that we know might have been available in the earth's infancy.  We've only started looking.
596545
if ur asking if we, as humans, can be sure the no one else exists on the other planets? then no..no one can be so sure, but the facts gathered about the other planets, such as chemicals in the air, etc... can tell something about the planets..
37543
If anyone had seen one and been able to prove it without a doubt, you wouldn't need to ask the question because it would have been all over the news.  Unless the government covered it up, that is...  I think the government is likely to cover something like that up if it found out (and could cover it up) because of the likelihood of a mass panic.\n\nHowever, beyond a doubt there are other planets in the universe.  Astronomers have worked out their existence with high-powered telescopes.  And that -was- on the news a few years ago.  So hey, ya never know.
605145
They only hold solar system to it's size. A gravity phenomenom got all planetary make up from the left over gas, dust and ice of the sun's birth phase mould or mould and melt into shapes and form round by cosmic stellar dust wearing it to shape. The mass that gets formed by gravity clogs the core from ripping space or even time but gravity can still go through like a plugged bottle. Holding the planet together. Then reactions from the leftover chemicals of the planet form the ground from volcanism and life from static infection. So the planets just formed there, from out of the millions of solar systems in this galaxy alone one is bound to form life on that solar system's planets. So they just formed there, they don't require a need or if we need it. As we evolved to the Earth, not that the Earth evolved to us. Think of the different species on this Earth alone.\nA galaxy consists of billions and some less to millions of stars and stars' solar system of planets, planetoids, comets, asteroids, satellites and moons.
407794
This is only a theory, no amount of evidence has proven it fact. The only way scientists verify it is through fossil records which show the existence of marine creatures and plants existing at one point in the middle of the dry land continents that we see today. Also, scientists believe that the continents were once one huge land mass that came into existence similar to the way Hawaii did (aka. with a lot of volcanic activity).
136036
Hey...I think it was Johaness Kepler...and his Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion
599169
Yeah.   I reckon we should first study Mars in its pristine form for a few decades.   By then we'll have the technology to terraform it, so we'll have somewhere to run to when we screw up Earth.