I. Introduction
The solar system is the collection of celestial bodies that orbit around the sun. This includes the sun itself, the eight planets and their moons, dwarf planets, comets, asteroids, and other small bodies.
The solar system is made up of four types of celestial bodies: the sun, the planets, the dwarf planets, and small bodies (comets, asteroids, and other small bodies).
II. The Sun
The sun is a star that is located at the center of the solar system. It is a medium-sized star and is primarily composed of hydrogen and helium. It is responsible for providing the energy that sustains life on Earth.
The sun plays a crucial role in the formation of the solar system. It is believed that the sun and the solar system formed from a cloud of gas and dust that collapsed under its own gravity. This collapse caused the material to heat up and form the sun, while the remaining material formed the planets and other celestial bodies.
III. The Planets
The solar system has eight planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.
Mercury is the closest planet to the sun and is small and rocky. Venus is the hottest planet and is covered in thick clouds. Earth is the third planet and is the only known planet to support life. Mars is the fourth planet and is known as the "Red Planet" because of its reddish appearance. Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system and is made mostly of gas. Saturn is the second largest planet and is known for its rings. Uranus is the third largest planet and is tilted on its axis. Neptune is the fourth largest planet and is known for its strong winds.
IV. The Dwarf Planets
Dwarf planets are celestial bodies that orbit the sun and have enough mass to have a nearly spherical shape, but they have not cleared the neighborhood around their orbit.
The five known dwarf planets in the solar system are Ceres, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris. Ceres is the largest object in the asteroid belt and is classified as a dwarf planet. Pluto was reclassified as a dwarf planet in 2006. Haumea, Makemake, and Eris are also classified as dwarf planets.
V. The Moons
The solar system has more than 200 moons, with the most moons orbiting Jupiter and Saturn.
The most notable moons include Earth's Moon, Jupiter's four largest moons (Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto), and Saturn's largest moon, Titan. Earth's Moon is the largest relative to the size of its host planet, and it has been studied extensively for its impact on tides and the potential for future colonization. Jupiter's moons are notable for their potential to support life, with the subsurface oceans of Europa and Ganymede being of particular interest. Titan is notable for its dense atmosphere and the potential for similar processes that shaped Earth to have occurred there.
VI. The Asteroid Belt
The asteroid belt is a region of the solar system that lies between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.
It is composed of a large number of small, irregularly shaped bodies made of rock and metal. The asteroid belt is believed to be the remains of a planet that failed to form due to the gravitational influence of Jupiter.
VII. The Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud
The Kuiper Belt is a region of the solar system beyond the orbit of Neptune that is home to many small, icy bodies, including Pluto.
The Oort Cloud is a region of the solar system
The term "solar system" was first used by the ancient Greeks, specifically by the philosopher Anaximander in the 6th century BCE. He was the first to propose that the sun, moon, and planets all revolved around the Earth. However, the concept of the solar system as we understand it today, with the sun at the center and the planets orbiting around it, was first proposed by the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus in the 16th century. He published his ideas in a book called "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), which is considered the starting point of modern astronomy and the scientific revolution.
About the Creator
Keep reading
More stories from Giridharan and writers in Earth and other communities.
History of Earth
I. Introduction A. Definition of Earth: Earth is the third planet from the sun and the only known planet to support life. It is a terrestrial planet, meaning it is primarily composed of rock or metal. Earth has a diameter of about 12,742 km and is the fifth densest planet in the solar system.
By Giridharan3 years ago in Earth
Trump’s Plan to Own the Western Hemisphere and Greenland Is Not What Americans Want
Donald Trump’s foreign policy ambitions have always made headlines, but in early 2026, the conversation took a new turn — one that’s making Americans sit up and take notice. From proposals to dominate the Western Hemisphere to floating ideas about acquiring Greenland, Trump’s rhetoric has been bold, controversial, and, for many, out of step with what the public actually wants. While these ideas might energize parts of the political base, polls and public opinion suggest most Americans are skeptical, even alarmed, about using the military or U.S. influence to expand territory. Let’s break down what’s happening and why the majority of Americans are not on board. The “Don‑roe Doctrine” and a Bold Vision Trump’s team has revived the Monroe Doctrine — the 19th-century policy that told European powers to stay out of the Western Hemisphere — but with a modern twist. Some have jokingly dubbed it the “Don‑roe Doctrine”, emphasizing America’s supposed right to dominate the region and block rivals like China and Russia from gaining influence. In recent statements, Trump and his advisers have stressed that the Western Hemisphere should be under U.S. control, signaling a willingness to increase American power in Latin America. While rooted in history, this rhetoric goes far beyond traditional diplomacy, suggesting active intervention or oversight in neighboring countries’ affairs. Greenland: The Arctic Gambit If dominating the hemisphere wasn’t ambitious enough, Trump has also made headlines with Greenland, the world’s largest island and an autonomous territory of Denmark. Trump has suggested that the U.S. should explore acquiring Greenland, citing strategic national security reasons. The White House went even further, confirming that “a range of options” is on the table — including military involvement if negotiations fail. This statement made global headlines, sparking criticism not just from Denmark but from European leaders across the board. It’s an idea that would have seemed unthinkable a decade ago, and it raises serious questions about international law, diplomacy, and the U.S.’s reputation abroad. Why Americans Aren’t Buying It You might assume bold expansionist rhetoric would excite a nationalist base, but surveys and polls tell a different story. Only about 11% of Americans support purchasing or annexing Greenland. A majority of respondents oppose it outright, including many Republicans. Most Americans prefer a focus on diplomacy, domestic issues, and practical governance, rather than acquiring distant lands. There’s also a strong sense of military fatigue. After decades of overseas interventions, many Americans are wary of costly and risky military actions that may not directly protect U.S. interests. International Pushback Trump’s Greenland idea hasn’t just been controversial domestically — it’s caused outrage abroad. Denmark, the sovereign nation over Greenland, made it clear that the island is not for sale. European leaders have voiced strong support for Greenland’s autonomy and warned that any U.S. attempt to take control could strain alliances, including NATO. Even countries in the Western Hemisphere are cautious. Many Latin American leaders view heavy-handed U.S. influence as unwelcome, highlighting the risks of a foreign policy focused on territorial dominance. The Public Sentiment Gap The contrast between Trump’s ambitions and American public opinion is stark: Sovereignty matters: Most Americans recognize that countries, including Greenland, have the right to self-govern. Military intervention fatigue: There’s little appetite for new foreign conflicts, especially for reasons seen as symbolic or expansionist. Focus on domestic priorities: Healthcare, the economy, education, and infrastructure consistently outrank foreign conquest in Americans’ list of priorities. In short, the public is telling leaders that the future of U.S. influence lies in cooperation, not domination. Why This Matters Trump’s rhetoric has drawn global attention, strained alliances, and created diplomatic tensions. But beyond the headlines, it’s also a reminder of the limits of foreign policy that ignores public opinion. Americans want their leaders focused on practical issues — and most see territorial expansion or hemispheric control as a distraction at best, a liability at worst. The Greenland debate, in particular, highlights the potential clash between ambitious political theater and real-world consequences. While Trump’s ideas make for sensational headlines, they don’t reflect the priorities of everyday Americans. Final Thoughts Donald Trump’s vision of owning the Western Hemisphere and potentially acquiring Greenland is bold — some might even call it audacious. But boldness alone doesn’t win hearts and minds. In fact, Americans are largely rejecting expansionist rhetoric, favoring diplomacy, alliances, and domestic problem-solving over territorial ambition. In a world that is interconnected and wary of unilateral power grabs, the public seems to be sending a clear message: power is important, but consent, cooperation, and practicality matter even more. As Trump continues to push these ideas, he faces the reality that public opinion, international norms, and global diplomacy may be the real limits on his ambitions — not headlines or political theatrics.
By Muhammad Hassan7 days ago in Earth
BRICS Wargames: Why They Matter — And Why India Chose to Sit Out
BRICS — the economic and political bloc comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa — has long been seen as a counterweight to Western-dominated global institutions. Over the years, it has expanded its influence in finance, trade, and diplomacy. Yet, in recent times, BRICS has begun exploring another domain that grabs headlines and sparks speculation: military cooperation, including large-scale wargames. These exercises are designed to simulate joint operations, test interoperability, and send a signal of strength. For members like Russia and China, wargames serve as both a show of force and a tool to deepen military collaboration within the bloc. However, India’s decision to opt out of recent BRICS wargames has raised questions: why does this matter, and why is India taking a different path from its BRICS partners? The Rise of BRICS Military Exercises Historically, BRICS has been portrayed as primarily economic, focused on initiatives like the New Development Bank (NDB) and trade agreements aimed at reducing Western dominance. But recent years have seen an evolution. Military drills among BRICS members are increasingly prominent, especially in the context of global tension and regional conflicts. These wargames are about more than just tactical drills. They serve multiple purposes: Strategic signaling: By conducting joint exercises, BRICS countries demonstrate unity and military capability to the rest of the world. Operational readiness: Countries test their ability to coordinate in complex scenarios, from humanitarian missions to potential combat operations. Diplomatic leverage: The exercises send subtle messages to other global powers, indicating that BRICS members can collaborate beyond economic forums. For nations like Russia, recently facing sanctions and international scrutiny, these exercises are particularly important. They showcase the ability to maintain partnerships and project power despite global isolation. For China, it is a way to cement strategic influence in Asia and beyond. Why BRICS Wargames Matter Globally The significance of these exercises extends beyond the bloc itself. Analysts note several key implications: Challenge to NATO and U.S. influence: BRICS wargames signal that alternative power centers exist outside Western-led military alliances. Regional security dynamics: Countries bordering BRICS members, particularly in South Asia, Africa, and Latin America, must monitor these developments carefully. Economic-military linkages: Military coordination among major emerging economies could shape security considerations in trade corridors, energy supply routes, and resource-rich regions. In essence, BRICS wargames are not just about soldiers and tanks, but about the broader geopolitical landscape: signaling, strategy, and shaping perceptions of influence. India’s Calculated Decision to Opt Out While Russia, China, Brazil, and South Africa have shown interest in participating actively, India has strategically chosen to abstain from the most recent wargames. This decision may appear surprising, given India’s economic and political stake in BRICS, but several factors explain it. Geopolitical balancing: India maintains complex relations with both China and Russia. While it has defense and historical ties with Russia, its relationship with China has grown tense due to border disputes and regional competition. Joining a wargame with China could be politically and militarily sensitive. Alignment with Western partnerships: India has strengthened ties with Western-led coalitions, including the Quad (U.S., Japan, Australia, India). Participating in BRICS military drills could conflict with these alliances, potentially sending mixed signals. Strategic autonomy: India has long emphasized a policy of strategic autonomy — making decisions based on national interest rather than bloc pressure. Opting out allows India to maintain flexibility in foreign policy and avoid entanglement in exercises that may not align with its regional objectives. Domestic perception: Indian public opinion and political narratives favor cautious engagement with China and Russia on military matters. Skipping the wargames minimizes domestic criticism of appearing too closely aligned with either of the more assertive BRICS powers. What India Gains by Sitting Out Choosing not to participate does not mean India is disengaged from BRICS. Economically and diplomatically, it remains a key player in the bloc. By skipping the wargames, India can: Maintain regional credibility in South Asia while avoiding the perception of aligning militarily with China. Signal strategic independence, reinforcing its image as a nation that prioritizes national security over bloc politics. Focus on bilateral and multilateral exercises elsewhere, such as those with the U.S., Japan, and Australia, which are more aligned with India’s current security priorities. In short, opting out allows India to navigate the delicate balance between its BRICS commitments and broader global strategic interests. Implications for BRICS and Global Security India’s abstention also reflects broader trends within BRICS: the bloc is not monolithic. While economic cooperation is often strong, military integration faces political and strategic limits. Differing national interests, historical rivalries, and regional tensions prevent uniform alignment. For global observers, this is crucial. It shows that while BRICS wargames are important, they are not necessarily indicative of a fully unified military bloc. The exercises are as much about optics as operations, and India’s absence underscores the challenges of aligning countries with divergent security priorities. Conclusion BRICS wargames matter because they are a window into the bloc’s evolving strategic ambitions. They signal power, test cooperation, and demonstrate emerging global influence. Yet India’s decision to opt out highlights that even within this growing coalition, national interests remain paramount. For India, the choice reflects a calculated approach: engage where it benefits national interest, avoid where risks outweigh gains, and maintain strategic flexibility. For the rest of the world, it is a reminder that BRICS, while increasingly important, is not a military monolith. Ultimately, BRICS wargames are as much about geopolitics and signaling as they are about military maneuvers — and India’s careful stance illustrates how emerging powers navigate this complex global chessboard.Start writing...
By Muhammad Hassan3 days ago in Earth
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.