By the reasoning given for why Mercury is the closest for each planet, the Sun is the closest object for each planet, on average, excluding satellites of the planets.
Thanks for the attempt but your calculation is wrong, as it considers distance only on a one axis and not a two axis plane. With your circle assumption, mercury would be further than the sun on average.
I wonder if anyone has the data without the circle assumption, and also correcting for the various other complexities.
What about if you add the sun into the equation?
If you take the sun out of the equation, the planets fly apart in all directions. Hope that helps ;)
I mean would the planets be closer to mercury or the sun on average
By the reasoning given for why Mercury is the closest for each planet, the Sun is the closest object for each planet, on average, excluding satellites of the planets.
I would agree but unsure because there are the intricacies of orbit cycles and timings and the 3d plane of space
I mean, the Solar System isn’t all that 3D. Inside of the Oort Cloud, almost every notable object is on or close to the ecliptic
deleted by creator
Thanks for the attempt but your calculation is wrong, as it considers distance only on a one axis and not a two axis plane. With your circle assumption, mercury would be further than the sun on average.
I wonder if anyone has the data without the circle assumption, and also correcting for the various other complexities.
deleted by creator
hope my shitty drawing helps
(replying from my alt)
deleted by creator
I don’t think that would help, I quite like our relative location.