How there was a Solar system? Part - 2.
B 1796 the French mathematician and the astronomer Pierre - Simon Laplace put forward the theory of formation of Solar system from the rotating contracting gas fog. Unlike Kant, Laplace considered an initial fog very hot.
Laplace believed that this huge heated gaseous fog (nebula) is that state in which initially there was a Sun. This fog, according to the French scientist, originally slowly rotated in space. But under the influence of gravitation forces the fog gradually contracted, and the speed of its rotation increased. Also centrifugal force increased that brought in a result to the fact that the fog took the linzovidny form. In the center of this huge ring centrifugal force prevailed over extent force more and stronger that, eventually, the mass of the substance which accumulated in the equatorial zone of a fog separated from other body and formed a ring. From the fog continuing to rotate all new rings which, being condensed in certain points, gradually turned into planets and other bodies of solar system consistently separated.
In something Kant and Laplace`s theories differed, but it is impossible to deny the fact that in many respects they were similar.
I the Edging, and Laplace considered formation of planets from scattered substance and therefore often speak about a uniform hypothesis of Kant - Laplace. Both scientists considered that the Solar system resulted from natural development of a fog.
However, even the integrated hypothesis met certain difficulties. Main from which there was the fact that in Solar system there is an unusual distribution of the moment of number of the movement between the central body - the Sun and planets. The moment of number of the movement can be defined as “ rotation stock “ systems. This rotation consists of the orbital movement of planets and rotation around axes of the Sun and planets. The matter is that the greatest share of the moment of number of the movement of Solar system is concentrated in the orbital movement of planets - giants of Jupiter and Saturn. Why it is so Laplace`s theory could not explain, so was not completely well-founded.
But as the science had no at that time more acceptable explanations, this theory had in the 19th century a great number of followers.
At the end of the 19th century the American scientists F. Multon and T. Chamberlain made a hypothesis of formation of planets from the particles called by them planetezimalyam. They mistakenly considered that the planetezimal addressing around the Sun could arise by hardening of the substance which is thrown out by the Sun in the form of huge prominences. But it contradicts conservation law of the moment of number of the movement therefore their theory was insolvent. At the same time in a planetezimalny hypothesis many lines of process of formation of planets were correctly depicted.
In 1916 the English astronomer James Jeans made a hypothesis according to which the Solar system and planets were formed as follows: by the Sun there passed some star which by force of the attraction caused emission of a certain amount of solar substance of which subsequently and planets were formed. It is obvious that in this theory formation of Solar system - a matter of luck, that is Jeans`s hypothesis it is opposite to Kant`s hypothesis - Laplace which considered formation of planetary systems as natural process.
Jeans`s theory is popular in 20 - 30 years of the twentieth century, it did not become clear yet that Jeans`s hypothesis is not capable to explain the huge sizes of planetary system. The matter is that to pull out substance from the Sun, the star had to fly by very close from it, and in that case this substance and the planets which arose from it would have to be close from the Sun. Besides, the pulled-out solar substance would be very hot therefore it would dissipate in space rather, than condensed to planets. Thus, Jeans`s theory was insolvent, and after its crash the planetary cosmogony got back to Kant and Laplace`s classical ideas about formation of planets from scattered substance.
In 1935 there was a theory which author was Russell which claimed that initially the Sun was a double star, and the second star was broken off by gravitation forces at close rapprochement with other, third star. Nine years later Hoil stated the theory that the Sun was a double star, and the second star passed all way of evolution and blew up as supernew, having dumped all cover. The planetary system was also formed of the remains of this cover.