how was uranus formed?
80682
God. As in planet and my anus.
126222
Hi.\n\nThere is every kind of life in Uranus, just we can't see them, because they are small.\n\nHave a nice day. :)
948233
They have solids cores.  Other than that the are mostly gas, due to the distance from the suns gravity.  When our solar system was formed most of the "heavier" elements stayed close to the major gravity pull, the sun. once out any other heavy elements that made it out that far condensed to gether to form cores.  Now; the farther away from the sun you go the coder it gets.  Now the gases that are out that far basically freeze and get "solid".  hope this helps!!\n\nBy the way- ALL planets need a core.  even though it might not be of same rocky material as other planets (Jupiter, saturn)..think of my explaination above.  If none of the solids came out that far out, they could get together to form a core, but something has to be in the center of a planet.
63251
Our solar system- the Sun, planets, Kuiper belt and Oort cloud, everything orbiting the sun even many times further than the orbit of Pluto- is thought to have condensed from a vast cloud of interstellar gas some billions of years ago when that cloud was shocked or squeezed by a supernova explosion. The dust and grains that condensed out of the cooling solar gas aggregated to form larger fragments of rock. Chondritic meteorites are basically just such collections of grains and fragments that have been compacted together to form a larger piece of rock and eventually small planetary bodies. Such bodies are termed planetesimals when they become roughly as large as asteroids (several kilometres to a few hundred kilometres in dimension). The larger they grow, the greater the gravitational attraction that the planetesimals exert and hence the more effectively they sweep up additional particles and rock fragments while circling the Sun. (Britannica CD) \n\nBecause that initial shockwave came from a particular direction and because the cloud was not of uniform density, the particles had a net rotation around their center of gravity. Humans subsequently identified that direction as "counterclockwise as viewed from above the north pole of the sun". As the bodies of the solar system grew by accretion, particles swept up from different distances from the center of gravity (the sun) had different orbital velocities. Analogously, water swirling down a drain moves slower further and faster closer to the center. \n\nGalileo and Newton showed that rotational energy is conserved: The sun and planets ‘inherited' their spin from the orbits of their constituent particles, so to speak. Today, some five billion years later, all that rotational energy is still conserved in the rotations and revolutions of the bodies of the solar system. Our solar system is not unchanging, though. Because of gravitational interactions between moons and their planets, between the planets, meteors and comets themselves and interactions between the solar wind and the magnetospheres of the planets, rotational energy is still be ‘traded' back and forth: Mercury orbits in a 3:2 resonance with its rotation, our day is getting longer while the moon only shows one face towards us, the rings of the gas giants are temporary phenomena,... But that's another story.\n\nIn other words, An act of GOD
923909
the creation of the solar system.  It spins in a giant disk for a few billion years as dust form planets from newborn stars.
624977
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.
755991
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...
292052
That's a really good question, that doesn't have an answer yet.  The current theory of solar system formation suggests that planets spin in coordination with the orbital spin of the disk of matter that forms the core of the solar system.  The spin of the accretion disk itself is the result of conservation of angular momentum, and can either be clockwise or counter-clockwise, which would be a relatively random process.\n\nThere are 'accidents' however, whereby planets are impacted by other large bodies in random ways and can greatly skew the planetary orbit and/or spin.\n\nSometimes the results are really weird, such as Uranus, which rotates top-to-bottom relative to the plane of our solar system.\n\nFrankly, until we're able to do a survey of planets in our galaxy and a few others, I think it would be hard to guess what the real averages would look like, and whether or not they are random.
302598
An interesting question. The question that may comes to \neveryone's mind is "IS the earth round?"  \nAnd the answer is no, at least \nnot perfectly round.  But it is round compared to your average cube, that is \nfor sure!  Now, my understanding of how solar systems form is pretty \ninadequate; all I can tell you is what I see on "Nova."  But basically, I \nguess it has to do with gravity, which is a CENTRAL FORCE.  What that means is \nthat gravity pulls things together along a straight line, and the more massive \none of the things is, the stronger it pulls.  When the earth was forming, it \nwas basically a big ball of dust left over from an exploded sun (a supernova).  \nGravity caused a lot of the matter to condense into a big fiery ball (our \nsun), but some of the dust was far enough away from the Sun so that the \nstronger forces were between planetary dust particles and not the sun.  SO, \nthey swirled together into a ball.  You can see something similar when you \nmake a painting with one of those "spin-art" machines; you put a card on the \nspinner, which whirls around real fast, and then you squirt paint on the card.  \nThe whirling causes the paint to go out away from the center (this is like the \nexplosion of the supernova) and droplets go out along an interesting path \nuntil they stop, which happens when the spinning force is equal and opposite \nto the force which attaches paint to the card (this is like gravity).  Now, if \nthe force attaching paint to the card were not so strong,eventually the drops \nwould get bigger - "planets."
814547
did you mean how do clouds form?\n\nIf so, they form from water evaporating on the surface of the earth. As the vapour rises, it reaches cooler, higher areas of the atmosphere and the vapour begins to condense, around microscopic particles in the air. Once this process has started, other molecules will start to join in, until the vapour condenses and clumps together. When enough forms, it is no longer lighter than air, and rain will occur.
45661
This is a very difficult question to answer that doesn't have a short answer.  What you are referring to is called condensation chemistry.  In the early solar system as the Sun was forming all the elements now in the solar system were in single atomic form because they were so hot.  As the solar system cooled these elements were able to form into various compounds and molecules.  Here is where it gets difficult.  Each element has its own condensation sequence that is dependent on temperature and pressure.
113272
now i dont know much detail, but according to science, there was what is called the Big Bang.  here, this big, huge gas ball started spinning really really fast and formed the milky way, then, smaller gas balls were formed which are the plantes.  then the moons are astroids lurned into the planet's gravitational force.  (just remember-this is not detailed ONE BIT and i might even be wrong on some of this-but the basic idea is correct.)
383934
(1) Could be the gravitational force body that impacted Uranus, also forced the moons to change orbits while passing them. i am sure that it must not have dived straight at 90 degrees onto Uranus's surface, but must have entered Uranus's gravitation filed in an arc and maybe had a few spiriling inward rotations before it impacted, but this is something that I am just thinking loud about.\n\n(2) I am not sure about the exact details on this one and even if it is applicable in this case, because I read about it a few years ago, but, I think any satellite can have only three possible stable positions across an orbit and this has got to do with the plane that cuts across the axis of rotation of the parent body.
965379
Planet formation is still somewhat of a mystery, but astronomers believe they understand the basic process. The best explanation to be accepted by most astronomers is known as the solar nebula hypothesis. Stars are formed from giant clouds of gas and dust known as nebulae. Gravity causes the matter in the nebula to coalesce. Gravity soon causes the central part of the nebula to collapse and form a star. The rest of the gas and dust forms a flat, rotating ring around the new star. Eventually the gravity of the new star begins to pull matter towards it. Small whirlpools of spinning matter form within this disk. Gravity causes these whirlpools to aggregate into small masses known as planetesimals. These planetesimals continue growing, pulling in the matter around them. Gravity soon pulls them into a spherical shape. These small spheres may collide and merge with others as they grow in size and become what is known as a protoplanet. Sometimes, a smaller sphere of matter may become captured by a larger one and enter into an orbit, creating a moon. Over time, gravity causes the heavier elements in the protoplanets to separate from the lighter ones in a process called uniformitarianism. This forms the planet's metal core, rocky crust, and usually an atmosphere composed of gas. As the star and planets continue to grow, the dust and gas of the nebula begins to thin. Smaller chunks of condensed matter is left over in the outer regions of the disk. These form the Kuiper belt of planetoids and the Oort cloud of comets. Eventually the solar wind from the star will blow away the excess gas and dust. A new solar system has been born. The process is slow and takes millions of years. Many stars have been observed to have flat disks of matter around them. These could very well be new solar systems in the making.
456331
The problem with having a true and reliable answer is that new evidence will change it later on.  For now, the best answer is that it formed from a protosolar disc of dust.\n\nSee source for details.
803296
A Jovian (Juputer-like) planet is another term for a gas giant, i.e. one of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. Pluto is not a gas giant, and the question should not list it that way. It is a cold lump of rock and ice.\n\nSo the answer to the question "which of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune has the largest axial tilt?" is Uranus.\n\nAnd this what Wikipedia has to say about it:\n\n"Axial tilt\nOne of the most distinctive features of Uranus is its axial tilt of ninety-eight degrees. Consequently, for part of its orbit one pole faces the Sun continually while the other pole faces away. At the other side of Uranus' orbit the orientation of the poles towards the Sun is reversed. Between these two extremes of its orbit the Sun rises and sets around the equator normally.\n\nAt the time of Voyager 2's passage in 1986, Uranus' south pole was pointed almost directly at the Sun. \n\nOne result of this orientation is that the polar regions of Uranus receive a greater energy input from the Sun than its equatorial regions. Uranus is nevertheless hotter at its equator than at its poles, although the underlying mechanism which causes this is unknown. \n\nThe reason for Uranus' extreme axial tilt is also not known. It is speculated that during the formation of the Solar System, an Earth sized protoplanet collided with Uranus, causing the skewed orientation.\n\nIt appears that Uranus' extreme axial tilt also results in extreme seasonal variations in its weather. During the Voyager 2 flyby, Uranus' banded cloud patterns were extremely bland and faint. \n\nRecent Hubble Space Telescope observations, however, show a more strongly banded appearance now that the Sun is approaching Uranus' equator. By 2007 the Sun will be directly over Uranus' equator."
1116337
Uranus is in the middle