How did round planets form from the explosion of the Big Bang?

The "explosion" was everywhere. Every point, everywhere in the universe, is where the big bang was. [/qs]That sounds quite confusing and contradictory. Every point being already there may mean that all space was already there and that only the point of time was so lonely and unprecedented. Was there any distance between any two points? Any two points with distance separating them is a single point. Any distance separating them may imply a division of that distance into points. An infinity of spatial points shared by a single point of time? That sounds absurd again. A great collection of spatial points with a single point of time to measure them all.
In this context it may imply that the space was big enough already to grow even bigger later which is strange too.
Anyway that is not how the hypothesis was first formulated. That all must be later adjustments in an attempts to clarify the initial confusion. In the beginning there was a cosmic egg that hatched. Eggs imply a certain location. Also it is claimed that everything was very dense and hot. Compared to what? If it was equally dense and hot at all of those numerous points that was just normal state of affairs. The scenario is that it then got less dense. That means it got diluted. The question is, diluted by what? By more points cool and empty?
Also another consideration. Heat is but one of the measures of motion. Heat and motion are circular notion and it is hard to tell which results in which. Cooling is a relative motion spent. To be spent it has to be earned first. Space and time are two other such measures. The three are mutually convertible measures. It could be said that space is the heat is space spent in motion measured by time or any other way round.
So then how we get a great hulking amount of motion in space measured by a single point of time? That's all absurd and sounds like very bad accounting.

That is not my idea at all. It is an ancient myth. For your information, Cosmic egg was re-introduced by into cosmology albeit under the name of primaeval atom by a catholic priest Abbe Lemaitre who was the egg the Big Bang hypothesis hatched from.
You don't seem particularly bright, my friend. Apart from adhominems added, your post grapples with a single quote out of context. Is it beyond the means of your feeble birdbrain to take in my whole post? Did you pick the egg out because that was the only thing that glistened to attract your attention?

Thank you for your tender care about my vocabulary expansion. As to the distinction you draw between ad hominem arguments and insults...well, I would say that the essence of that fallacy is insulting the opponent to cover an own lack of arguments to which your post above is a good illustration.
That could be called red herring just as well. How about showing me what your think about the topic at hand instead?

Well, yes, I could do that, on the other hand, since that is one and only reality or universe the theories are there to explain, everything that might be a topic for one theory, and in this case the Big Bang theory is a topic for any other. Ideally it could, of course, be arranged in such a way that each cosmological theory should get a separate universe to describe, yet as it is there simply are not enough universes to do that. That is why what is a topic in one theory tends to overlap perfectly with everything that a topic for another. Also since the Big Bang theory is currently the prevailing competing cosmological theory, it itself is largely a topic for the theory I favour.

Those books unlike ancient mythologies might not mention literal eggs, yet the underlying logic and all the train of thought and chain of associations behind the ancient ideas and their modern version is the same. An egg cosmic or otherwise is something relatively small compared to a bird species or the entirety of the universe. The hatching of it is a single event that had allegedly occurred at a certain point of time giving birth to many subsequent events to which all of those events could be traced. A some kind of calendar of those chains of events or a timescale is always present and so on.
Now whether in the modern versions this is called a primeval atom or Planck particle, the fundamental idea is the same. One primeval atom splits into many at a certain point of time and the resulting many, in their turn split in many more as a function of time. That could be called an expansion of the egg. Hatching of an egg is a kind of bursting. An explosion of sorts. Similar in a way to an explosion of the bomb Gamow was involved in designing. The model is the same, only the length of time-line and the pretended precision of measurements would vary.The egg expansion period in some variations of the myth may be followed by a contraction stage with the whole cycle infinitely repeated. If you remove the maths, the message is very like what Penrose is suggesting. In Stenger instead of a particle you get a single bit of information to expand later into all the quadrillions of terabytes of cosmic data . In all the versions of the myth some kind of cosmic evolution is present as all the enormity of existence is contained inside something relatively tiny only to shrink back again. In the Bible there isn't even anything material splitting or hatching. Just a single word of God out of which all of existence with the space and time is to be drawn out in a series of epochs.
If you fail to catch on to the similarities, that is not my problem, I am sorry.Also, when you call what I write a lot of nonsense, be more specific and attach a bit of your own good sense next to it so that the difference should be apparent.
Otherwise, some people may be left unimpressed. Back it up a bit more and you'll be alright, I promise.