Which of the following best explains why we can rule out the idea that planets are usually formed by near collisions between sta
rs? (a)- Studies of the trajectories of nearby stars relative to the Sun show that the Sun is not in danger of a near collision with any of them.
(b)-Stellar near collisions are far too rare to explain all the planets now known to orbit nearby stars.
(c)-A near collision might have created planets, but it could not have created moons, asteroids, or comets.
(d)-A near collision should have left a trail of gas extending out behind the Sun, and we see no evidence of such a trail.
<u>(c)-A near collision might have created planets, but it could not have created moons, asteroids, or comets.</u>
Explanation:
The planets are formed by the solar nebula, the disc type cloud of gas and dust which was leftover from the sun's formation due to the collision with larger bodies and the inner solar system was formed and the formation of planetesimals earlier were warm and gradually cooled.
As a result, some of them formed terrestrial and other gases planets. It is believed that the Tauri stars which were younger like the sun had far stronger stellar winds and drove the gas giants.
The young solar wind has cleared away all the gas and dust in the protoplanetary ring and blew it into interstellar space, ending the growth of the planets. Moon was formed by impact debris from the other planets.
According to Newton's second law of motion, the resultant force is directly proportional to the rate of change in momentum
Therefore; F = ma , where F is the resultant force, m is the mass, and a is the acceleration of the body.
<u>Resultant force depends on the acceleration and the mass of a body in motion, an increase in acceleration causes a corresponding increase in resultant force.</u> A body with higher mass will have a larger strong force if the acceleration is kept constant.
