Earth is a truly clever place. That is to say, I've spent my whole life here and I'm speculating you have, as well, and there's bounty to see and do, yet what is it doing here by any means? For quite a while, scientists have attempted to answer that question with changing degrees of achievement, however another hypothesis of how Earth shaped is picking up footing, and it may be the clarification we've been searching for.
The most widely-accepted explanation for how Earth and most terrestrial plants formed hinges on materials orbiting a newborn star — in this case, our sun — which bunched up and formed planets. It’s a fine theory, but some researchers have grown increasingly skeptical that the materials that make up our planet, which is rocky and iron-rich, could have stuck together on their own.
A new idea, introduced by Alexander Hubbard, a Ph.D. in Astronomy who now works with the American Museum of Natural History, turns to the sun for an explanation. Hubbard has proposed that the sun went through a period of intense volatility in which essentially roasted much of the material in its immediate vicinity, stretching as far as Mars. The softened materials would have been the right consistency to bunch up and form planets, and would explain why the rocky worlds of Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars sprung up.
Hubbard's hypothesis isn't only an arbitrary figure; He's constructing the thought with respect to watched conduct of an infant star which experienced a stage simply like the one he's proposing of our own sun. FU Orionis was first watched quickly lighting up in 1936 and at present it sparkles more than 100 times brighter than it did when initially watched. In the event that our own sun pulled a similar trap in its initial life it could have been precisely what was expected to frame our planet.