Problem with the theories about the Sun and the planets

In summary: The inner planets are left with much higher proportions of metal and rock. It's a bit like two people making cookies by cutting out rounds of dough from the same sheet: the first and last cookies have scraps of the sheet stuck to them, but the middle ones don't. So the inner planets are generally smaller and denser than the outer ones and have very different atmospheres because of it.In summary, the planets are not parts of the sun and they formed differently, which is why they are so different from the sun. The reason they do not shine like the sun is due to their composition and central temperatures. Additionally, moving the Earth closer to the sun would not cause an explosion, as evidenced by the other inner planets
  • #1
scogos.com
1
0
I am not an astronomer or astrophysicist but lately, I have been reading a lot of books to upgrade my knowledge in cosmology.

I have encountered two issues that I am baffled about and wonder if anyone can help me throw some light on them

(1) If the planets are parts of the sun or came from the sun, why are the planets so different from the sun? Why are the planets not shining like the sun?

(2) My idea is that if the Earth were to move about 1 million miles closer to the Sun, not only would all the ice in the northern and southern poles melt and flood the whole planet and swallow up all the continents, but I also believe the Earth would explode from the heat.

If this could happen to earth, why is it that Mercury and Venus are so near to the Sun and yet they have not exploded?

I would appreciate any explanation about these two issues.

Thanks
Scogos
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
scogos.com said:
(1) If the planets are parts of the sun or came from the sun, why are the planets so different from the sun? Why are the planets not shining like the sun?

The planets have never been parts of the sun. It is true that the stuff that makes up planets and the sun came from the same cloud of gas, but the processes by which they formed were quite different. As for the reason that the planets don't shine, it has to do with their composition and central temperatures. The sun is powered by nuclear fusion, a process that requires temperatures and densities high enough to cause nuclei to merge. The planets aren't massive enough to keep these conditions in their core.

On a side note, Jupiter is actually shining, but not brightly enough to be noticable over the sun's reflected light. It's not powered by nuclear fusion, but rather by the energy released in its slow collapse.
(2) My idea is that if the Earth were to move about 1 million miles closer to the Sun, not only would all the ice in the northern and southern poles melt and flood the whole planet and swallow up all the continents, but I also believe the Earth would explode from the heat.

If this could happen to earth, why is it that Mercury and Venus are so near to the Sun and yet they have not exploded?

Although the ice caps would melt, the Earth would not explode if brought to Mercury's distance.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
scogos.com said:
(2) My idea is that if the Earth were to move about 1 million miles closer to the Sun, not only would all the ice in the northern and southern poles melt and flood the whole planet and swallow up all the continents, but I also believe the Earth would explode from the heat.


Thanks
Scogos

For one thing, since the Earth's orbit aorund the Sun is not a perfect circle, it already does not keep a constant distance from the Sun. In fact, it varies by 3,000,000 miles; The Earth is 3,000,000 miles closer to the Sun in January than it is in July. You will notice that the Earth is actually closer to the Sun when it is summer in the Northern hemisphere than when it is summer. Since a three million mile variation causes very little actual change in temperature on the Earth, it is safe to say that you are over estimating how much change in temperature a 1 million mile difference will make.

Second, even if the ice caps melted, the continents would not be swallowed up, the oceans would only rise a few hundred meters. Coastal areas would be flooded, but the vasrt majority of the land mass would remain above sea level.
 
  • #4
Janus said:
For one thing, since the Earth's orbit aorund the Sun is not a perfect circle, it already does not keep a constant distance from the Sun. In fact, it varies by 3,000,000 miles; The Earth is 3,000,000 miles closer to the Sun in January than it is in July.

Good catch, I skimmed past the numbers. Janus is quite right, a change that small wouldn't even have a large impact on climate, though moving Earth to Mercury or Venus' distance certainly would.

And I just realized this isn't cosmology...let's move it to general astro.
 
  • #5
scogos.com said:
(2) My idea is that if the Earth were to move about 1 million miles closer to the Sun, not only would all the ice in the northern and southern poles melt and flood the whole planet and swallow up all the continents, but I also believe the Earth would explode from the heat.

If this could happen to earth, why is it that Mercury and Venus are so near to the Sun and yet they have not exploded?
You just debunked your own idea! Besides what Janus said, if the that didn't happen to the other inner planets, then the reason why is that your idea isn't right.

Think about it this way: why, exactly, would a planet explode?
(1) If the planets are parts of the sun or came from the sun, why are the planets so different from the sun? Why are the planets not shining like the sun?
You may have noticed that the inner and outer planets are quite different from each other. The outer planets are mostly hydrogen, not unlike the sun. The inner planets likely started forming with a lot of hydrogen around them, but it got lost when the sun ignited.
 
Last edited:

FAQ: Problem with the theories about the Sun and the planets

What is the current theory about the formation of the Sun and the planets?

The current theory, known as the nebular hypothesis, proposes that the Sun and the planets formed from a rotating cloud of gas and dust, called a solar nebula, approximately 4.6 billion years ago. As the nebula collapsed due to its own gravity, it spun faster and flattened into a disk shape, with the Sun forming at the center and the planets forming from the remaining material around it.

Why do some scientists believe there may be a problem with current theories about the Sun and the planets?

Some scientists believe there may be a problem with current theories because there are inconsistencies and unanswered questions, such as the angular momentum problem and the formation of planetary systems around other stars that do not fit with the nebular hypothesis. Additionally, new discoveries and advancements in technology may challenge previously held beliefs and theories.

What is the angular momentum problem and how does it relate to the theories about the Sun and the planets?

The angular momentum problem refers to the fact that the Sun and the planets have a much lower total angular momentum than what is predicted by the nebular hypothesis. This raises questions about how the planets could have formed from a rotating disk without retaining more of the original angular momentum.

Are there any alternative theories about the formation of the Sun and the planets?

Yes, there are alternative theories, such as the capture theory and the disk instability model. The capture theory proposes that the Sun and the planets formed separately and were later brought together by gravitational forces. The disk instability model suggests that the planets formed from instabilities in the original disk rather than from gradual accretion.

How do scientists continue to study and understand the formation of the Sun and the planets?

Scientists continue to study and understand the formation of the Sun and the planets through observations and experiments, as well as theoretical models and simulations. New missions and technologies, such as space telescopes and spacecraft, also provide valuable data and insights. Collaboration and open-mindedness among scientists is also crucial in advancing our understanding of the solar system's origins.

Back
Top