There are enough paradoxes in the structure of the solar system. The main ones are the angles of inclination of the planets to the ecliptic plane and the direction of rotation of the planets:
Another oddity is the distribution of the types of planets in our system: dense stone planets, then giant planets, followed by small Uranus and Neptune with a dense gas envelope, and then many dwarf planetoids. Why such a distribution of planet types is only speculation. Like this was the distribution of matter in the protoplanetary cloud and so the planets were formed.
Astronomers have now found several thousand exoplanets of various types: from gas giants to terrestrial ones. Searches are focused on terrestrial exoplanets in the habitat of life. Nobody will show you photos of exoplanets, the search is based on indirect signs: shading of a star (transit planets against the background of a star's disk), the Doppler effect when a star-planet pair rotates around a common center of mass, a gravitational lens, etc.
Based on the found worlds, the structures of other stellar systems are diverse. There are very few worlds similar to the solar system. We can say that our system is unique. Why? I propose to get acquainted with the hypothesis of Valentin Pavlov:
Summary of the author's report:
The most sensational thing in the hypothesis of Valentin Pavlov is not even that the terrestrial planets revolved in the orbit of Saturn, but that the transition of some stone satellites of Saturn to internal and external independent orbits occurred in historical time. There was a flood, glaciations and geotectonic disasters.
If all this is admitted, then the question arises in this case: how could there be a comfortable environment on Earth with such a distance from the Sun? There is also not enough solar energy to warm up the Earth's surface and atmosphere! According to the author, additional heating of the Earth occurred from the reflected light of Saturn.
It would be interesting to look at the calculations, maybe the reflected light flux is really enough for additional heat supply to the planet to create even heavenly, comfortable conditions? Moreover, the light from the Sun and the reflected light from Saturn would illuminate and warm the planet more evenly.
The weak point of the hypothesis: the reason for the descent of satellites from their orbits. The author gives an argument towards the etheric funnel and some kind of processes on Saturn. But I would not discount a simpler reason - this is the meeting of the solar system with a star or even a group of stars:
The contenders include: Scholz's star and the mythical Nemesis. According to some groups of astronomers, Scholz's star passed our solar system quite recently. And this is a binary star system (red and brown dwarf). So they could disturb the orbits of Saturn's satellites. And they began to fly away: some inward, approached the Sun, others, smaller ones, began to be attracted to the Scholz star system.
This process of rebuilding the solar system explains why Mercury was so close to the sun. It is possible that some of the planets generally fell on the Sun. It explains why the Earth has such an unnaturally large satellite - the Moon (an accidental meeting during movement and capture of the Moon). But some of the former satellites of Saturn were not lucky. Perhaps they collided and formed the asteroid belt. And there, in this resonant orbit between Mars and Jupiter, other former satellites of Saturn fell, and now are planetoids: Ceres, Vesta, etc. They are spherical and cannot be called fragments of destroyed planets.
Mars was also unlucky. A large planetoid collided with it. He has a dent in the height maps. And on the other side of this fall site on Mars there is a giant rift - the Mariner Valley (canyon) and giant volcanoes next to the fault. Mars died as a living planet.
What happened to Venus is vaguely explained by the author of the hypothesis. I think Venus has too much degassing. Whether this is related to the de-orbit around Saturn is also a question.
If this really happened (to admit such a process), then the former satellites of Saturn (some of them) were distributed in resonant orbits in accordance with the Titius-Bode rule. I wrote about this here.
The hypothesis is very controversial, but not devoid of logic. What do you think about this version of the formation of the solar system in this form?
Author: sibved