The birth of the planet. When and how the earth was formed. Basic modern scientific theory

That's a very difficult question. And it is hardly possible to give an exhaustive answer to it. At least for now. The Earth itself preserves its past, but there is no one to tell about this past - it was so long ago.

Scientists are slowly “questioning” the Earth through the study of radioactive rocks and are getting some answers. But the known past of the Earth is not final, but goes into an even more distant past - what happened before it solidified? Scientists compare planets with each other in their present state and try to judge from them the evolution of the Earth. Understanding the world is a long and not so easy process.
There are many hypotheses about the origin of the Earth and other planets, some of which we will consider separately on our website.
Modern hypotheses about the origin of the Solar System must take into account not only the mechanical characteristics of the Solar System, but also take into account numerous physical data on the structure of the planets and the Sun.
In the field of cosmogony, a stubborn ideological struggle has constantly been and is being waged, since the worldview of scientists is dramatically affected here. Proponents of the theory of creationism, for example, believe that the age of the Earth is no more than 10,000 years, and supporters of the theory of evolution measure the age of the Earth in billions of years.

Thus, there is not yet a hypothesis that answers all questions about the origin of the Earth and other planets of the solar system. But scientists increasingly agree that the Sun and the planets were formed simultaneously (or almost simultaneously) from a single material medium, from a single cloud of gas and dust.
There are the following hypotheses about the origin of the planets of the solar system (including the Earth): the hypothesis of Laplace, Kant, Schmidt, Buffon, Hoyle, etc.

Basic modern scientific theory

The emergence of the Solar System began with the gravitational compression of a gas and dust cloud, in the center of which the most massive body, the Sun, was formed. The matter of the protoplanetary disk gathered into small planetesimals, which collided with each other and formed planets. Some planetesimals were ejected from the inner regions into the Kuiper Belt and the Oort cloud.
Kuiper Belt- the region of the Solar System from the orbit of Neptune to a distance of about 55 AU. e. from the Sun. Although the Kuiper Belt is similar to the asteroid belt, it is about 20 times wider and more massive than the latter. Like the asteroid belt, it consists mainly of small bodies, that is, material left over from the formation of the Solar System. Unlike asteroid belt objects, which are primarily composed of rocks and metals, Kuiper belt objects are composed primarily of volatile substances (called ices) such as methane, ammonia, and water. This region of near space contains at least three dwarf planets: Pluto, Haumea and Makemake. It is believed that some satellites of the planets of the solar system (Neptune's satellite Triton and Saturn's satellite Phoebe) also arose in this area.
Oort cloud- a hypothetical spherical region of the Solar System that serves as a source of long-period comets. The existence of the Oort cloud has not been instrumentally confirmed, but many indirect facts indicate its existence.
The Earth formed about 4.54 billion years ago from the solar nebula. Volcanic degassing created the primary atmosphere on earth was created as a result of volcanic activity, but it had almost no oxygen, it would have been toxic and not suitable for life. Much of the Earth was molten due to active volcanism and frequent collisions with other space objects. One of these large impacts is believed to have tilted the Earth's axis and formed the Moon. Over time, such cosmic bombardment ceased, allowing the planet to cool and form a solid crust. The water delivered to the planet by comets and asteroids condensed into clouds and oceans. The earth finally became hospitable to life, and its earliest forms enriched the atmosphere with oxygen. For at least the first billion years, life on Earth took small and microscopic forms. Well, then the process of evolution began.
As we said earlier, there is no consensus on this matter. Therefore, hypotheses about the origin of the Earth and other planets of the solar system continue to arise, and old ones also exist.

J. Buffon's hypothesis

Not all scientists agreed with the evolutionary scenario for the origin of the planets. Back in the 18th century, the French naturalist Georges Buffon expressed a hypothesis, supported and developed by the American physicists Chamberlain and Multon. The hypothesis is this: once upon a time another star flew in the vicinity of the Sun. Its gravity caused a huge tidal wave on the Sun, stretching in space for hundreds of millions of kilometers. Having broken away, this wave began to swirl around the Sun and disintegrate into clumps, each of which formed its own planet.

F. Hoyle's conjecture

The English astrophysicist Fred Hoyle proposed another hypothesis in the 20th century: the Sun had a twin star that exploded. Most of the fragments were carried into outer space, a smaller part remained in the orbit of the Sun and formed planets.

Creation theory

Creationism- a theological and ideological concept according to which the main forms of the organic world (life), humanity, planet Earth, as well as the world as a whole, are considered as directly created by the Creator, or God. The term "creationism" became popular around the end of the 19th century, meaning concepts that recognize the truth of the creation story set out in the Old Testament. It should be noted that there are several directions in the theory of creationism itself, but, for example, Templeton Prize-winning geneticist, evolutionist and former Dominican Catholic priest Francisco Ayala believes that there are no significant contradictions between Christianity and evolutionary theory, and evolutionary theory, on the contrary, helps explain both the perfection of the world created by God and the cause of evil in the world.

Protodeacon A. Kuraev in the book “Orthodoxy and Evolution” he writes: “Those who vaguely think that God becomes unnecessary if we extend the process of creation are naive. Equally naive are those who believe that the creation of the world in more than six days diminishes the greatness of the Creator. It is only important for us to remember that nothing interfered or limited creative action. Everything happened according to the will of the Creator. But whether this will was to create the world instantly, or in six days, or in six thousand years, or in myriads of centuries, we do not know.”

The question of the origin of the Earth, planets and the solar system as a whole has worried people since ancient times. Myths about the origin of the Earth can be traced among many ancient peoples. The Chinese, Egyptians, Sumerians, and Greeks had their own idea of ​​the formation of the world. At the beginning of our era, their naive ideas were replaced by religious dogmas that did not tolerate objections. In medieval Europe, attempts to find the truth sometimes ended in the fire of the Inquisition. The first scientific explanations of the problem date back only to the 18th century. Even now there is no single hypothesis for the origin of the Earth, which provides scope for new discoveries and food for an inquisitive mind.

Mythology of the ancients

Man is an inquisitive creature. Since ancient times, people differed from animals not only in their desire to survive in the harsh wild world, but also in their attempt to understand it. Recognizing the total superiority of the forces of nature over themselves, people began to deify the processes taking place. Most often, it is the celestials who are credited with the creation of the world.

Myths about the origin of the Earth in different parts of the planet differed significantly from each other. According to the ideas of the ancient Egyptians, she hatched from a sacred egg, molded by the god Khnum from ordinary clay. According to the beliefs of the island peoples, the gods fished the land out of the ocean.

Chaos theory

The Ancient Greeks came closest to a scientific theory. According to their concepts, the birth of the Earth occurred from the primordial Chaos, filled with a mixture of water, earth, fire and air. This fits with the scientific postulates of the theory of the origin of the Earth. An explosive mixture of elements rotated chaotically, filling everything that existed. But at some point, from the depths of the primordial Chaos, the Earth was born - the goddess Gaia, and her eternal companion, Sky, - the god Uranus. Together, they filled the lifeless spaces with a variety of life.

A similar myth has formed in China. Chaos Hun-tun, filled with the five elements - wood, metal, earth, fire and water - circled in the shape of an egg throughout the boundless Universe until the god Pan-Gu was born in him. When he woke up, he found only lifeless darkness around him. And this fact saddened him greatly. Having gathered his strength, the deity Pan-Gu broke the shell of the chaos egg, releasing two principles: Yin and Yang. Heavy Yin sank down, forming the earth, light and light Yang soared up, forming the sky.

Class theory of the formation of the Earth

The origin of the planets, and in particular the Earth, has been sufficiently studied by modern scientists. But there are a number of fundamental questions (for example, where the water came from) that are hotly debated. Therefore, the science of the Universe is developing, each new discovery becomes a brick in the foundation of the hypothesis of the origin of the Earth.

The famous Soviet scientist, better known for polar research, grouped all the proposed hypotheses and combined them into three classes. The first includes theories based on the postulate about the formation of the Sun, planets, moons and comets from a single material (nebula). These are the well-known hypotheses of Voitkevich, Laplace, Kant, Fesenkov, recently revised by Rudnik, Sobotovich and other scientists.

The second class unites ideas according to which the planets were formed directly from the matter of the Sun. These are the hypotheses of the origin of the Earth by scientists Jeans, Jeffreys, Multon and Chamberlin, Buffon and others.

And finally, the third class includes theories that do not unite the Sun and planets by a common origin. The most famous is Schmidt's hypothesis. Let's look at the characteristics of each class.

Kant's hypothesis

In 1755, the German philosopher Kant briefly described the origin of the Earth as follows: the original Universe consisted of stationary dust particles of varying densities. The forces of gravity caused their movement. They stuck to each other (accretion effect), which ultimately led to the formation of a central hot clump - the Sun. Further collisions of particles led to the rotation of the Sun, and with it the dust cloud.

In the latter, separate clumps of matter gradually formed - the embryos of future planets, around which satellites were formed according to a similar pattern. The Earth formed in this way at the beginning of its existence seemed cold.

Laplace's concept

The French astronomer and mathematician P. Laplace proposed a somewhat different option explaining the origin of planet Earth and other planets. The solar system, in his opinion, was formed from a hot gas nebula with a bunch of particles in the center. It rotated and contracted under the influence of universal gravity. With further cooling, the rotation speed of the nebula increased, rings peeled off along its periphery, which disintegrated into prototypes of future planets. At the initial stage, the latter were hot balls of gas, which gradually cooled and solidified.

Disadvantage of the Kant and Laplace hypotheses

The hypotheses of Kant and Laplace, explaining the origin of the planet Earth, were dominant in cosmogony until the beginning of the twentieth century. And they played a progressive role, serving as the basis for the natural sciences, especially geology. The main drawback of the hypothesis is its inability to explain the distribution of angular momentum (MKM) within the Solar System.

The MCR is defined as the product of the mass of a body, the distance from the center of the system and the speed of its rotation. Indeed, based on the fact that the Sun has more than 90% of the total mass of the system, it should also have a high IQR. In fact, the Sun has only 2% of the total ICR, while the planets, especially the giants, are endowed with the remaining 98%.

Fesenkov's theory

In 1960, the Soviet scientist Fesenkov tried to explain this contradiction. According to his version of the origin of the Earth, the Sun and the planets were formed as a result of the compaction of a giant nebula - a “globule”. The nebula had very rarefied matter, composed mainly of hydrogen, helium and a small amount of heavy elements. Under the influence of gravity, a star-shaped condensation - the Sun - arose in the central part of the globule. It was spinning quickly. As a result of the substance, matter was emitted from time to time into the surrounding gas and dust environment. This led to the Sun losing its mass and transferring a significant part of the MCR to the created planets. The formation of planets took place through the accretion of nebula matter.

Theories of Moulton and Chamberlin

American researchers, astronomer Multon and geologist Chamberlin, proposed similar hypotheses for the origin of the Earth and the Solar System, according to which the planets were formed from the substance of gaseous branches of spirals “stretched” from the Sun by an unknown star that passed at a fairly close distance from it.

Scientists introduced the concept of “planetesimal” into cosmogony - these are clumps condensed from gases of the original substance, which became the embryos of planets and asteroids.

Jeans' judgment

The English astronomer and physicist D. Jeans (1919) suggested that when another star approached the Sun, a cigar-shaped protrusion came off from the latter, which subsequently disintegrated into separate clumps. Moreover, from the middle thickened part of the “cigar” large planets were formed, and small ones were formed along its edges.

Schmidt's hypothesis

In matters of the theory of the origin of the Earth, Schmidt expressed an original point of view in 1944. This is the so-called meteorite hypothesis, which was subsequently physically and mathematically substantiated by the students of the famous scientist. By the way, the hypothesis does not consider the problem of the formation of the Sun.

According to the theory, the Sun, at one of the stages of its development, captured (pulled towards itself) a cold gas-dust meteorite cloud. Before this, it had a very small MCR, and the cloud rotated at a significant speed. In the strong Sun, differentiation of the meteorite cloud began in terms of mass, density and size. Some of the meteorite material fell on the star, while others, as a result of accretion processes, formed clumps-embryos of planets and their satellites.

In this hypothesis, the origin and development of the Earth depends on the influence of the “solar wind” - the pressure of solar radiation, which pushed light gas components to the periphery of the Solar system. The Earth formed in this way was a cold body. Further heating is associated with radiogenic heat, gravitational differentiation and other sources of internal energy of the planet. The researchers consider the big drawback of the hypothesis to be the very low probability of such a meteorite cloud being captured by the Sun.

Assumptions by Rudnik and Sobotovich

The history of the origin of the Earth still worries scientists. Relatively recently (in 1984), V. Rudnik and E. Sobotovich presented their own version of the origin of the planets and the Sun. According to their ideas, the initiator of processes in the gas-dust nebula could be a nearby explosion of a supernova. Further events, according to researchers, looked like this:

1. Under the influence of the explosion, the compression of the nebula began and the formation of a central clump - the Sun.
2. From the forming Sun, the MRC was transmitted to the planets by electromagnetic or turbulent-convective means.
3. Giant rings reminiscent of the rings of Saturn began to form.
4. As a result of the accretion of material from the rings, planetesimals first appeared, which later formed into modern planets.

All evolution took place very quickly - over about 600 million years.

Formation of the composition of the Earth

There are different understandings of the sequence of formation of the internal parts of our planet. According to one of them, the proto-earth was an unsorted conglomerate of iron-silicate matter. Subsequently, as a result of gravity, a division into an iron core and a silicate mantle occurred - a phenomenon of homogeneous accretion. Proponents of heterogeneous accretion believe that a refractory iron core accumulated first, then more fusible silicate particles stuck to it.

Depending on the solution to this issue, we can talk about the degree of initial heating of the Earth. Indeed, immediately after its formation, the planet began to warm up due to the combined actions of several factors:

• Bombardment of its surface by planetesimals, which was accompanied by the release of heat.
• isotopes, including short-lived isotopes of aluminum, iodine, plutonium, etc.
• Gravitational differentiation of the interior (if we accept homogeneous accretion).

According to some researchers, at this early stage of the planet's formation, the outer parts could have been in a state close to melting. In the photo, planet Earth would look like a hot ball.

Contraction theory of continent formation

One of the first hypotheses for the origin of continents was contraction, according to which mountain building was associated with the cooling of the Earth and a reduction in its radius. It was this that served as the foundation for early geological research. On its basis, the Austrian geologist E. Suess synthesized all the knowledge existing at that time about the structure of the earth’s crust in the monograph “The Face of the Earth”. But already at the end of the 19th century. Data have appeared indicating that compression occurs in one part of the earth's crust, and tension occurs in the other. The contraction theory finally collapsed after the discovery of radioactivity and the presence of large reserves of radioactive elements in the Earth's crust.

Continental drift

At the beginning of the twentieth century. the hypothesis of continental drift is emerging. Scientists have long noticed the similarity of the coastlines of South America and the Arabian Peninsula, Africa and Hindustan, etc. The first to compare the data was Pilligrini (1858), later Bikhanov. The very idea of ​​continental drift was formulated by the American geologists Taylor and Baker (1910) and the German meteorologist and geophysicist Wegener (1912). The latter substantiated this hypothesis in his monograph “The Origin of Continents and Oceans,” which was published in 1915. Arguments given in defense of this hypothesis:

• The similarity of the outlines of the continents on both sides of the Atlantic, as well as the continents bordering the Indian Ocean.
• Similarity of structure on adjacent continents of late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic rocks.
• Fossilized remains of animals and plants, which indicate that the ancient flora and fauna of the southern continents formed a single group: this is especially evidenced by the fossilized remains of dinosaurs of the genus Lystrosaurus, found in Africa, India and Antarctica.
• Paleoclimatic data: for example, the presence of traces of Late Paleozoic glaciation.

Formation of the earth's crust

The origin and development of the Earth is inextricably linked with mountain formation. A. Wegener argued that continents consisting of fairly light mineral masses seem to float on the underlying heavy plastic substance of the basalt bed. It is assumed that in the beginning a thin layer of granite material allegedly covered the entire Earth. Gradually, its integrity was disrupted by the tidal forces of attraction of the Moon and the Sun, acting on the surface of the planet from east to west, as well as centrifugal forces from the rotation of the Earth, acting from the poles to the equator.

The single supercontinent Pangea (presumably) consisted of granite. It existed until the middle and disintegrated in the Jurassic period. A proponent of this hypothesis of the origin of the Earth was the scientist Staub. Then a union of continents of the northern hemisphere arose - Laurasia, and a union of continents of the southern hemisphere - Gondwana. Sandwiched between them were the rocks of the Pacific Ocean floor. Beneath the continents lay a sea of ​​magma along which they moved. Laurasia and Gondwana rhythmically moved either to the equator or to the poles. When moving toward the equator, the supercontinents compressed frontally, while pressing on the Pacific mass with their flanks. These geological processes are considered by many to be the main factors in the formation of large mountain ranges. Movement towards the equator occurred three times: during the Caledonian, Hercynian and Alpine orogenies.

Conclusion

A lot of popular science literature, children's books, and specialized publications have been published on the topic of the formation of the Solar System. The origin of the Earth for children is presented in an accessible form in school textbooks. But if we take the literature from 50 years ago, it is clear that modern scientists look at some problems differently. Cosmology, geology and related sciences do not stand still. Thanks to the conquest of near-Earth space, people already know how planet Earth appears in the photo from space. New knowledge forms a new understanding of the laws of the Universe.

It is obvious that powerful forces of nature were used to create the Earth, planets and the Sun from the primordial chaos. It is not surprising that the ancient ancestors compared them with the accomplishments of the Gods. Even figuratively it is impossible to imagine the origin of the Earth; pictures of reality would certainly surpass the wildest fantasies. But based on the grains of knowledge collected by scientists, a holistic picture of the world around us is gradually being built.

How was the Earth born?

There are several theories of the origin of our planet, each of which has its supporters and its right to life. Of course, it is impossible to determine absolutely exactly which theory actually describes the appearance of the Earth and whether such a theory exists at all, but in this article we will consider each of them in detail. The question of the origin of the Earth has not yet been fully studied and does not have an absolutely accurate answer.

Modern idea of ​​the origin of planet Earth

Today, the most recognized theory of the origin of planet Earth is the theory according to which the Earth was formed from gas and dust matter scattered in the solar system.

According to this theory, the Sun appeared before the planets, and the Earth, like other planets in the solar system, was born from debris, gas and dust left after the formation of the Sun. Thus, it is believed that the Earth was formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago, and the process of its formation took approximately 10 - 20 million years.

History of the development of the theory

The first to put forward this theory in 1755 was the German philosopher I. Kant. He believed that the Sun and the planets of the solar system arose from dust and gas that was scattered in space. Particles of dust and gas, under the influence of the shock wave from the Big Bang, moved randomly, collided with each other, transferring energy. Thus, the heaviest and largest particles were formed, which were attracted to each other and eventually formed the Sun. After the Sun acquired a large size, smaller particles began to revolve around it, the paths of which intersected. Thus, gaseous rings were formed in which light particles were attracted to heavier nuclei, creating spherical clusters that became future planets.

There are other theories about the origin of the Earth, which were put forward by different scientists at different times and even had their followers in the future.

Tidal theory of the origin of the Earth

According to this theory, the Sun appeared much earlier than the planets, and the Earth and other planets of the solar system were formed from substances released by the Sun or another large star.

History of the development of the theory

The history of this theory began in 1776, when the mathematician J. Buffon put forward theory about the collision of the Sun with a comet. As a result of this collision, material was released from which both planet Earth and other planets were born.

This theory found its follower in the 20th century. It was then that the scientist astrophysicist I.I. Wulfson, using computer calculations, showed that for material to be torn off, a star does not have to collide with the Sun. According to his theory, any large and cold star from a new cluster of stars could approach the Sun at a short distance and thereby cause giant tides both on its surface and on the Sun. The amplitude of these tides increases until material is torn away from the Sun or an approaching star and takes up space between these stellar bodies in the form of a cigar-shaped stream. Then the cold star leaves, and the emerging jet disintegrates into the planets of the solar system.

How the Earth was born according to the “nebular theory”

The creator of the first nebular theory was the French astronomer and mathematician P.-S. Laplace. He believed that there was some kind of gas disk rotating from compression; the speed of its rotation increased until the centrifugal force at its edge began to exceed the gravitational force of attraction. After this, the disk ruptured, and after some time this process was repeated. Thus, the rings turned into planets, and the central mass into the Sun.

This theory explains well the fact that the Earth and the Sun rotate in the same plane and in the same direction, but it also has significant gaps.

According to this theory, the Sun should rotate very quickly (with a rotation period of several hours). However, in fact, the Sun rotates much slower - 1 revolution every 27 days. Another drawback of the theory is the mechanism for collecting particles into planets. The theory does not answer the question of why the substances, after the rupture of the disk, divided into rings, and did not take the form of the same disk, but of smaller sizes.

This concludes the story about the birth of planet Earth and recommends that you read about it.

Scientists studying the Earth are accustomed to working on different scales of time and space. In order to get an answer to the question of how planet Earth was created, a lot of scientific research is being carried out. The physical dimensions of objects of study vary from global to microscopic, from masses of matter with a volume of cubic kilometers to interatomic spaces measured in angstroms. When solving a particular scientific problem, one often has to deal with a wide range of linear scales; for example, an earthquake caused by the displacement of rocks along a fault at a distance of several centimeters excites seismic waves that propagate thousands of kilometers in the Earth.

Also, units of time in geology refer not only to short-term phenomena such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions or meteorite impacts, but also to events lasting tens and hundreds (for example, river meandering), thousands (glaciations), millions (continental drift) and even billions of years (formation of the oxygen-rich atmosphere of today). And in this case, the same process - say, weathering - can again be studied over a wide range of time: from the minutes and hours of a laboratory experiment, during which the rate of dissolution of a mineral is measured, to the thousands of years required for soil formation.

The parameters of geological space and time, taken in various combinations, form the subject of this article, including the variety of major and less significant changes that have occurred - and continue to occur - in the history of the Earth. Many geologists, oceanographers and scientists in other fields who study the Earth from time to time have a desire to consider the Earth as a machine or even as a living organism. The comparison to a machine reflects one of the important features of Earth dynamics: despite all the changes observed at very different scales of time and space, the Earth as a whole remains remarkably constant. In recent years, it has become especially clear that large components of the globe, such as the core, mantle, crust, oceans and atmosphere, can be considered as a complex, interacting system with cyclical transfer of matter from one reservoir to another. The mechanical model of the Earth as a vast cyclical system is comparable to the physiological model of dynamic equilibrium known as homeostasis.

The hierarchy of scales in the work of a scientist studying the Earth is perhaps best illustrated by the process of creating a geological map - a creative act that, using not entirely geological phraseology, can be characterized as a graphic representation in the coordinate system of the earth's surface of the position of rock strata of different ages. The first step in geological mapping is working in the field to identify two important features of rocks: their composition and age. In a typical rock outcrop, only small-scale relationships can usually be observed over distances measured in meters. A generalized geological map of the area is compiled from a set of observations of this kind using, as when constructing any graph, interpolation and extrapolation techniques and depicting elements according to the scale of the map. On a map for an area of, say, 200 km 2, you can see the river network and characteristic folds and breaks in the bedrock. The wealth of information gained from studying each individual outcrop is sacrificed for the sake of depicting larger features. On a map of an area covering many thousands of square kilometers, elements of even greater size begin to emerge: plateaus, mountains, plains, entire river systems, the contours of rift valleys, glacial lakes. On maps of continents and maps of global coverage, the largest structures of the surface of the continents, the main mountain ranges, are visible. In any case, when generalizing an image to move to smaller-scale maps, the trick is to determine which details should be sacrificed. In other words, the essence of this stage of geological analysis is always the separation of the “signal” of interest to us from the “noise”.

The planet that serves as our home is beautiful and unique. Beautiful waterfalls and seas, lush green tropical forests, an atmosphere filled with oxygen allowing all living things to breathe - all this is our planet called Earth. But she wasn't always so beautiful.

When she experienced her birth, her appearance was not so attractive and it is unlikely that you would have liked it. In the modern age of astronautics, man was able to see Earth from the outside and make sure that this is a real pearl of the universe.

Modern science is still trying to explain the appearance of the Earth and restore the entire chronology of events. We will try to return to the very beginning of the birth of our planet. Modern space technologies make it possible to see the birth of new stars and planets. This will help to understand how our planet came to be.

The birth of our planet cannot be considered separately from the birth of our solar system. The birth of such systems occurs almost always in the same way. IN space There are many nebulae, huge accumulations of gases. It is in them that new stars and planets are born. They are capable of shrinking, turning into planets, so says Kant's theory of the nebula.

Thanks to the observations of modern astronomers, we can understand how our planet was born. Using the latest NASA telescopes, scientists are studying the universe as it is, and not as we imagine it. Scientists saw how the nebula was compressing, and particles of cosmic dust slowly rotating inside it, forming a kind of core. The more the nebula contracts, the faster the speed of rotation of the particles and the higher the temperature inside the nebula, when the temperature becomes very high, a nuclear reaction begins. This is how a new star appears. Once upon a time ours was born Sun.

Planets began to form around the young Sun. In zero-gravity conditions, the friction of particles causes the formation of a magnetic field, which attracts particles to each other and forms clumps. A process of accretion occurs, which helps the planets form.

If we consider the structure of our planets solar system, then we note that all planets differ in their composition. It all depends on the distance at which a particular planet is from the Sun. Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun and consists of metal, since the temperature near the sun is very high, water and gas cannot form there.

Distant planets have rocky surfaces. Venus, Earth and Mars are such planets. Our planet is located at the most suitable distance from the Sun and there are ideal conditions for life. It's neither cold nor hot on Earth. The ozone layer protects us from the sun's rays. Jupiter and Saturn are far from the Sun and are gas giants because they formed in a cold environment. They serve as protection for the entire solar system, as they repel meteorites that fall into their orbits.

Now we see what an amazing chance our planet has had so that it can become alive and this is amazing and wonderful.