/sci/ - Science & Math

Among the terrestrial planets the most abundant element by mass is oxygen, which takes the form of mostly greenhouse gases (save for Earth). For the gas giants it would easily be Hydrogen which takes up over 90% of their atmospheres. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the wording of your second question.

>>5016544
>can we balance the elements in a planet in order to give it a general charge?

Sure, let's vaporize some planets. It'll be very general after that.

Iron and Oxygen are the most abundant elements composing the terrestrial planets.

Hydrogen and (to a much lesser extent Helium) comprise most of the jovians

>>5016621
Iron is definitely not an abundant element on any planet in our solar system.

>>5016631
Dude, what? We are sitting on a gigantic ball of iron right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_on_Earth#Abundance_of_elements_in_the_Earth

>>5016631

>>5016652
Abundance != Abundance by mass

Iron is a lot more fucking heavier than oxygen.

>>5016631
Earth is 32% iron, 30% oxygen, 15% silicon by mass

>>5016652
>he thinks that because it's here its everywhere

What I meant in the second question is:
Suppose we could in fact account for every atom on earth. Then could we see if there are more positively charged elements on a planet or negatively charged ones? So a planet could be considered negative or positive.
I don't know if this makes any more sense.

ITT: Idiots thinks the mass of an element equates to its abundance and take a geocentric view of the elemental composition in our solar system.

>>5016679
An atom is neutral by default OP. only ions carry an inherent negative or positive charge.

>>5016665
>>5016680
Faggots who cannot into reading nor following a thread proper.

>>5016680
>Idiots thinks
Whoa!

But abundance by mass isn't the same as atomic abundance.. Someone please source to what the actual ratio between iron:oxygen atoms in the solar system, this thread is making me weep for humanity.

>>5016704
Hydrogen and helium are estimated to make up roughly 74% and 24% of all baryonic matter in the universe respectively.

I would presume this is a fairly accurate starting point for the solar system.

>>5016679
Even if we could account for the charge of every atom on our planet, it would still have polarity; some parts would be positive, some negative, and some neutral. Also, the charge of a planet is never constant. We eject a shit ton of charged particles into space and absorb a shit ton of charged particles from solar winds (although our magnetosphere helps to deter a lot of it).

I think that answers your question OP.

>>5016728
We're arguing about the Earth here though. Any free hydrogen or helium floats up high into the atmosphere because of its little density and we lose it to space.

>>5016704
>>5016728
Btw, is it really so hard to google/wiki all the individual planets? Give or take Pluto if feeling lazy.

>>5016661
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_on_Earth
Abundance = by mass OR by mole. So you we're wrong.
>>5016740
No we're not arguing about Earth. Just because some dumbass thought Earth doesn't have an abundance of iron doesn't make this an Earth thread. OP had a more general quesiton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System#Composition

>>5016766
What dictionary gave you the definition of abundance? Abundance by quantity (atoms) and abundance by quality (mass) are two separate things.

The Earth has a low abundance by quantity of iron, but has a high abundance by quality of it.

>>5016811
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_on_Earth

"The abundance of a chemical element measures how relatively common (or rare) the element is, or how much of the element is present in a given environment by comparison to all other elements. Abundance may be variously measured by the mass-fraction (the same as weight fraction), or mole-fraction (fraction of atoms by numerical count, or sometimes fraction of molecules in gases), or by volume-fraction. Measurement by volume-fraction is a common abundance measure in mixed gases such as planetary atmospheres, and is close to molecular mole-fraction for ideal gas mixtures (i.e., gas mixtures at relatively low densities and pressures)."

Do you even try?

Carbon? Srs.

>>5016729
It sort of does answer my question.
I was trying to think of the solar system as an atom. The sun being positively charged, lots of helium. And, the planets being electrons. I know they dont change their level like electrons do. I got to looking for planet charge by elements. Oxygen being negative.

>>5016820
Did you even read what you just pasted? It's exactly what I said.

>For example, the mass-fraction abundance of oxygen in water is about 89%, because that is the fraction of water's mass which is oxygen. However, the mole-fraction abundance of oxygen in water is only 33% because only 1 atom of 3 in water is an oxygen atom.

>>5016811
>Abundance by quantity (atoms) and abundance by quality (mass) are two separate things.

The Earth has a low abundance by quantity of iron, but has a high abundance by quality of it.

>>5016838
Yes, but you insisted on there being somehow two or more different kinds of qualities called abundance, based on the fact that it can be quantified differently. It is the exact same quality however.