Who is our nearest planetary neighbor, on average?












22












$begingroup$


Assume that the planets have circular orbits centered on the sun. Assume that the radius of the orbits is 0.39, 0.723, 1, and 1.524 for Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars.



Assume also that there are no resonances, in other words, that for a given position of planet A planet B will be in every other position over a long period of time.




What is the closest planet to Earth on average?











share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Though this is a somewhat mathematical puzzle, the answer is a little surprising...
    $endgroup$
    – Dr Xorile
    2 days ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    I assume you mean the closest planet besides Earth?
    $endgroup$
    – Deusovi
    2 days ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Didn't I see someone promoting their paper on this today?
    $endgroup$
    – Jay
    2 days ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Deusovi It's not in the body of the question, but "neighbour" in the title clearly excludes the Earth.
    $endgroup$
    – yo'
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    A great puzzle for pi day
    $endgroup$
    – Strawberry
    18 hours ago
















22












$begingroup$


Assume that the planets have circular orbits centered on the sun. Assume that the radius of the orbits is 0.39, 0.723, 1, and 1.524 for Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars.



Assume also that there are no resonances, in other words, that for a given position of planet A planet B will be in every other position over a long period of time.




What is the closest planet to Earth on average?











share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Though this is a somewhat mathematical puzzle, the answer is a little surprising...
    $endgroup$
    – Dr Xorile
    2 days ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    I assume you mean the closest planet besides Earth?
    $endgroup$
    – Deusovi
    2 days ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Didn't I see someone promoting their paper on this today?
    $endgroup$
    – Jay
    2 days ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Deusovi It's not in the body of the question, but "neighbour" in the title clearly excludes the Earth.
    $endgroup$
    – yo'
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    A great puzzle for pi day
    $endgroup$
    – Strawberry
    18 hours ago














22












22








22


3



$begingroup$


Assume that the planets have circular orbits centered on the sun. Assume that the radius of the orbits is 0.39, 0.723, 1, and 1.524 for Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars.



Assume also that there are no resonances, in other words, that for a given position of planet A planet B will be in every other position over a long period of time.




What is the closest planet to Earth on average?











share|improve this question











$endgroup$




Assume that the planets have circular orbits centered on the sun. Assume that the radius of the orbits is 0.39, 0.723, 1, and 1.524 for Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars.



Assume also that there are no resonances, in other words, that for a given position of planet A planet B will be in every other position over a long period of time.




What is the closest planet to Earth on average?








mathematics physics






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 23 hours ago









smci

35229




35229










asked 2 days ago









Dr XorileDr Xorile

13.7k32774




13.7k32774








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Though this is a somewhat mathematical puzzle, the answer is a little surprising...
    $endgroup$
    – Dr Xorile
    2 days ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    I assume you mean the closest planet besides Earth?
    $endgroup$
    – Deusovi
    2 days ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Didn't I see someone promoting their paper on this today?
    $endgroup$
    – Jay
    2 days ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Deusovi It's not in the body of the question, but "neighbour" in the title clearly excludes the Earth.
    $endgroup$
    – yo'
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    A great puzzle for pi day
    $endgroup$
    – Strawberry
    18 hours ago














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Though this is a somewhat mathematical puzzle, the answer is a little surprising...
    $endgroup$
    – Dr Xorile
    2 days ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    I assume you mean the closest planet besides Earth?
    $endgroup$
    – Deusovi
    2 days ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Didn't I see someone promoting their paper on this today?
    $endgroup$
    – Jay
    2 days ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Deusovi It's not in the body of the question, but "neighbour" in the title clearly excludes the Earth.
    $endgroup$
    – yo'
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    A great puzzle for pi day
    $endgroup$
    – Strawberry
    18 hours ago








2




2




$begingroup$
Though this is a somewhat mathematical puzzle, the answer is a little surprising...
$endgroup$
– Dr Xorile
2 days ago




$begingroup$
Though this is a somewhat mathematical puzzle, the answer is a little surprising...
$endgroup$
– Dr Xorile
2 days ago




5




5




$begingroup$
I assume you mean the closest planet besides Earth?
$endgroup$
– Deusovi
2 days ago




$begingroup$
I assume you mean the closest planet besides Earth?
$endgroup$
– Deusovi
2 days ago




2




2




$begingroup$
Didn't I see someone promoting their paper on this today?
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago




$begingroup$
Didn't I see someone promoting their paper on this today?
$endgroup$
– Jay
2 days ago




2




2




$begingroup$
@Deusovi It's not in the body of the question, but "neighbour" in the title clearly excludes the Earth.
$endgroup$
– yo'
yesterday




$begingroup$
@Deusovi It's not in the body of the question, but "neighbour" in the title clearly excludes the Earth.
$endgroup$
– yo'
yesterday




1




1




$begingroup$
A great puzzle for pi day
$endgroup$
– Strawberry
18 hours ago




$begingroup$
A great puzzle for pi day
$endgroup$
– Strawberry
18 hours ago










7 Answers
7






active

oldest

votes


















21












$begingroup$

The closest planet to Earth on average is:




Mercury




The other answers didn't give any calculations, so I'll provide some numbers. Hopefully they are correct!




As other answers suggested, we can leave Earth stationary and just have the other planets do their orbits. Actually we only need to do half an orbit, because the other half will be exactly like the first half and not change the average in any way.

By law of cosines, we can find the distance between the Earth and another planet by looking at the triangle that is formed when you connect the Earth with the other planet and the Sun. Obviously the distance to the Sun is the radius of the orbits and the angle will be $theta$. The distance between the planets is then $sqrt{r^2+R^2-2*r*R*cos(theta)}$ where $r$ is the radius of Earth's orbit and $R$ is the radius of the other planet's orbit and $theta$ is the angle between them.

Now just find the integral as $theta$ goes from 0 to $pi$ and divide by $pi$.




Earth to Mars:




$frac{int_0^pi sqrt{1^2+1.524^2-2*1*1.524*cos(theta)} dtheta}{pi} = 1.693AU$




Earth to Venus:




$frac{int_0^pi sqrt{1^2+0.723^2-2*1*0.723*cos(theta)} dtheta}{pi} = 1.136AU$




Earth to Mercury:




$frac{int_0^pi sqrt{1^2+0.39^2-2*1*.0.39*cos(theta)} dtheta}{pi} = 1.038AU$







share|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    The key in this calculation is “divide by pi”. Here you are assuming a uniform distribution of theta. That is, you assume the probability of the other planet being in any other theta is equal, and then you take the expected value. Depending on the other planets’ theta as a function of time, this need not be true. So here we are making the simplifying assumption that all planets travel at a constant speed.
    $endgroup$
    – darksky
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    @darksky Well, we are assuming the orbits are circles, so we are leaving Kepler out of it! Or, rather, we are leaving Kepler in it - “equal areas during equal intervals of time” in a circle would mean constant speed.
    $endgroup$
    – Amorydai
    yesterday








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @darksky Yep, constant speed and circular orbits. Both are not true, but the corrections would be much less than 7% difference between Mercury and Venus
    $endgroup$
    – yo'
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Amorydai, how did you calculate the integrals?
    $endgroup$
    – Dr Xorile
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    How very dare you use the word "Obviously"?! When did puzzling start allowing witchcraft in answers? That formula is satanic... I mean, what sort of wizard-y demon-scratch is that un-figurable? Let's have a vote on a site-wide ban on pomped up NASA geniuses... (in English: "This made me feel dumb")
    $endgroup$
    – Brent Hackers
    18 hours ago





















19












$begingroup$

I must admit, I'm a bit rusty at calculus. So here's an attempt at an answer free of calculations, but with some more visual reasoning.




First, let's draw out the orbits of the planets. Because there is no resonance, let's assume Earth is still and they all rotate at the same speed. Also, for reference we'll draw a circle of distance 1 AU around Earth.

Orbits




Now, notice that:




I've drawn a few dotted lines here. If we imagine these circles as pie charts, the left part of the charts represent the time spent more than 1 AU away from the Earth.




So:




Let's plot the distance away from the Earth over time, which looks vaguely like this:

Orbital graph




Here, you should note:




The arrows along the bottom, telling you the time spent above the green line (1AU still) and the arrows in the middle, telling you that for the Venus and Mercury, (maximum distance - 1AU) is equal to (1AU - minimum distance).


Also, Mars is clearly out of the question. Goodbye Mars.




So:




It's between Mercury and Venus. From calculus or intuition, we know that the average distance of the planet is proportional to the area under the curve. And now it gets a bit non-technical.


The area under the curve is equal to 2π AU·rad + (bit above the curve) - (bits below the curve). But the bit above the curve is approximately the same shape as the bit below the curve (if we shift the right bit under the curve to the left side of the graph), and since they are the same height their area is probably proportional to their width. And since Venus' width of bit above the curve to width of bit below the curve ratio is bigger than that of Mercury, and the fact that those bits are taller than Mercury's bits, I estimate Venus' total area is probably more than that of Mercury's.




So my guess is that:




Mercury is on average closest to the Earth. (I'd love to know how accurate this argument is, but that maths is beyond me.)




NB: Click on images for slightly higher quality if they're a bit fuzzy.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Heck, I so love this one. If you wanna teach mathematical/physical intuition, this is the way!
    $endgroup$
    – yo'
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    Love this answer. Super helpful for gaining the intuition.
    $endgroup$
    – Dr Xorile
    yesterday



















8












$begingroup$

The answer:




Mercury




Reasoning:




The average position of Earth (and indeed all planets in a circular orbit) is the middle of the Sun. Since Mercury's orbit is closest to the sun, it's the nearest on average to the Earth, and indeed all the other planets.







share|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Following that reasonning, wouldn't the answer be "All planets are equally close to the Earth on average, as all of their average positions fall at the same place (middle of the Sun)" ?
    $endgroup$
    – Soltius
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    By this logic, the average closest planet to our moon is also Mercury.
    $endgroup$
    – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    @BlueRaja That's only true if you assume that the orbits of the Moon and the Earth around the sun are independent, which they obviously aren't.
    $endgroup$
    – Matthew Barber
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @Soltius No, that does not follow, as you cannot calculate average distances entirely from average positions. Averaging the position of the Earth won't help you calculate the distance either. It's just something that illustrates why the distance from the sun of the other planet is the only thing that matters in the ordering.
    $endgroup$
    – Matthew Barber
    yesterday



















5












$begingroup$

Others have done all the necessary calculations, so here's some hairy maths. I assume as per the question that all orbits are circular and that the planets move in such a way that the average distance equals the average over all angular differences. Then it turns out that the average distance from earth to a planet whose orbit has radius $r$ astronomical units (i.e., $r$ times the radius of the earth's orbit) is $frac2pi(1+r)E(frac{4r}{1+r^2})$ astronomical units, where E is the so-called complete elliptic integral of the second kind, what Mathematica calls EllipticE.



So what we'd like to be true is that this is an increasing function of $r$. This does appear to be true, but proving it is not so trivial.



Rather than looking at the average over the whole orbit, let's look at just two antipodal points. So, suppose the angle between earth's position and the other planet's position is $theta$, so that the distance is $sqrt{(r-costheta)^2+sin^2theta}$; half-way around the orbit the other planet's position is $theta+pi$ and the distance is $sqrt{(r+costheta)^2+sin^2theta}$. The sum of these is $f(r,theta):=sqrt{(r-costheta)^2+sin^2theta}+sqrt{(r+costheta)^2+sin^2theta}$, our average is the average of this over all values of $theta$, and it will be an increasing function of $r$ if $f$ is for every $theta$. This will be true if it's true when we consider instead $g(r,u,v):=sqrt{(r-u)^2+v^2}+sqrt{(r+u)^2+v^2}$ and allow $u,v$ to take any value at all. (Which just corresponds to letting the earth's distance from the sun be something other than 1 unit.)



The derivative of this thing is $frac{r+u}{sqrt{(r+u)^2+v^2}}+frac{r-u}{sqrt{(r-u)^2+v^2}}$. Obviously this is positive when $r>u$. When $r<u$ it's $h(u+r,v)-h(u-r,v)$ where $h(p,q)=frac{p}{sqrt{p^2+q^2}}=costan^{-1}frac qp$. But this is obviously a decreasing function of $q/p$, hence an increasing function of $p$, which means that $h(u+r,v)>h(u-r,v)$, which means that $frac{partial g}{partial r}>0$, which means that $frac{partial f}{partial r}>0$, which means that $frac{partialint f}{partial r}>0$, which means that indeed the average distance is an increasing function of $r$.



I suspect there may be an easier more purely geometrical way to do this.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    @boboquack gets at a nice intuition for why this is true. I think also looking at the pairs of points: in line with the earth they balance out (so 0 difference) and at right angles the further out the orbit the further out the distance. So a continuity argument says that the overall average is monotonic.
    $endgroup$
    – Dr Xorile
    yesterday





















4












$begingroup$

It's




Mercury.




Because:




Fix the position of the Earth, and let the planets move in orbit. We want the average distance. If the Sun was an object to consider, the radius R would be the average. If there was another planet on Earth's orbit, it's average would be greater than R, as most of the orbit is at a further distance than R from the Earth (draw a circle radius R from the Earth - it cuts the other orbit before the halfway points).


As this is a continuous and monotonic increasing function, the planet closest on average is Mercury.







share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Why is it continuous and monotonic? And how did you deal with Mars?
    $endgroup$
    – boboquack
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @boboquack; the orbit moves continuously and so therefore does the average function, which is a quadratic, and therefore has a monotonic differential. Larger orbits just get bigger (monotonic increasing remember!). Also see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit.
    $endgroup$
    – JonMark Perry
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    Average distance to earth is not a quadratic function of orbit radius because for very large orbits it's approximately equal to the radius.
    $endgroup$
    – Gareth McCaughan
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @GarethMcCaughan; this doesn't change my argument much though. the average function depends on R and only approximates R locally.
    $endgroup$
    – JonMark Perry
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    The function in question is monotone increasing, though. At least, I think it is, though I haven't tried to prove it; it's a pretty ugly function involving elliptic integrals.
    $endgroup$
    – Gareth McCaughan
    yesterday



















3












$begingroup$


I'd say the closest planet to Earth is Earth with an average distance of 0







share|improve this answer










New contributor




user57862 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Well, unfortunately for you, a neighbour is a well defined notion in geometry, and excludes you yourself...
    $endgroup$
    – yo'
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @yo' I disagree. In graph theory this might be true, but if you’re talking about metric spaces (which we are), then an epsilon neighborhood around a point always contains that point.
    $endgroup$
    – Santana Afton
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    Well, in clustering theory, statistics etc. it's all pretty clear, and that's the context in which I see this puzzle.
    $endgroup$
    – yo'
    yesterday



















2












$begingroup$

Here is another way to deduce the same result without any calculations.



First the inner planets.




Imagine that instead of the Earth, there is a wall at 1 AU from the sun. The average distance of any inner planet's orbit to the wall is easily seen to be exactly 1 AU.
enter image description here

This is because you can pair up points on the left and right sides of the orbit. The average distance of those two points to the wall is the same as the distance of their midpoint to the wall.


If you now go back to measuring the distance to the Earth itself, the distances get larger.
enter image description here

Crucially, the larger the orbit, the higher the slopes of the line segments we are measuring, and the further away the average distance is from 1 AU.


This shows that amongst the inner planets, the innermost planet (Mercury) has the smallest average distance to Earth.




What about the outer planets?




Let's go back to the wall replacing the Earth. If an planet's orbit crosses the wall, then when it comes to measuring its distance, we might as well mirror the planet's position in the wall and measure the distance to its mirror image.
enter image description here

When we then do the same trick of pairing points in the two halves of the orbit, it is clear that the average distance to the wall becomes greater than 1 AU to start with. Combine that with the fact that when measuring the distance to Earth itself the slopes of the line segments are even larger than before, it is clear that the average distance to the planet is even greater compared to the inner planets.







share|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "559"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f80615%2fwho-is-our-nearest-planetary-neighbor-on-average%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    7 Answers
    7






    active

    oldest

    votes








    7 Answers
    7






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    21












    $begingroup$

    The closest planet to Earth on average is:




    Mercury




    The other answers didn't give any calculations, so I'll provide some numbers. Hopefully they are correct!




    As other answers suggested, we can leave Earth stationary and just have the other planets do their orbits. Actually we only need to do half an orbit, because the other half will be exactly like the first half and not change the average in any way.

    By law of cosines, we can find the distance between the Earth and another planet by looking at the triangle that is formed when you connect the Earth with the other planet and the Sun. Obviously the distance to the Sun is the radius of the orbits and the angle will be $theta$. The distance between the planets is then $sqrt{r^2+R^2-2*r*R*cos(theta)}$ where $r$ is the radius of Earth's orbit and $R$ is the radius of the other planet's orbit and $theta$ is the angle between them.

    Now just find the integral as $theta$ goes from 0 to $pi$ and divide by $pi$.




    Earth to Mars:




    $frac{int_0^pi sqrt{1^2+1.524^2-2*1*1.524*cos(theta)} dtheta}{pi} = 1.693AU$




    Earth to Venus:




    $frac{int_0^pi sqrt{1^2+0.723^2-2*1*0.723*cos(theta)} dtheta}{pi} = 1.136AU$




    Earth to Mercury:




    $frac{int_0^pi sqrt{1^2+0.39^2-2*1*.0.39*cos(theta)} dtheta}{pi} = 1.038AU$







    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      The key in this calculation is “divide by pi”. Here you are assuming a uniform distribution of theta. That is, you assume the probability of the other planet being in any other theta is equal, and then you take the expected value. Depending on the other planets’ theta as a function of time, this need not be true. So here we are making the simplifying assumption that all planets travel at a constant speed.
      $endgroup$
      – darksky
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      @darksky Well, we are assuming the orbits are circles, so we are leaving Kepler out of it! Or, rather, we are leaving Kepler in it - “equal areas during equal intervals of time” in a circle would mean constant speed.
      $endgroup$
      – Amorydai
      yesterday








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @darksky Yep, constant speed and circular orbits. Both are not true, but the corrections would be much less than 7% difference between Mercury and Venus
      $endgroup$
      – yo'
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @Amorydai, how did you calculate the integrals?
      $endgroup$
      – Dr Xorile
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      How very dare you use the word "Obviously"?! When did puzzling start allowing witchcraft in answers? That formula is satanic... I mean, what sort of wizard-y demon-scratch is that un-figurable? Let's have a vote on a site-wide ban on pomped up NASA geniuses... (in English: "This made me feel dumb")
      $endgroup$
      – Brent Hackers
      18 hours ago


















    21












    $begingroup$

    The closest planet to Earth on average is:




    Mercury




    The other answers didn't give any calculations, so I'll provide some numbers. Hopefully they are correct!




    As other answers suggested, we can leave Earth stationary and just have the other planets do their orbits. Actually we only need to do half an orbit, because the other half will be exactly like the first half and not change the average in any way.

    By law of cosines, we can find the distance between the Earth and another planet by looking at the triangle that is formed when you connect the Earth with the other planet and the Sun. Obviously the distance to the Sun is the radius of the orbits and the angle will be $theta$. The distance between the planets is then $sqrt{r^2+R^2-2*r*R*cos(theta)}$ where $r$ is the radius of Earth's orbit and $R$ is the radius of the other planet's orbit and $theta$ is the angle between them.

    Now just find the integral as $theta$ goes from 0 to $pi$ and divide by $pi$.




    Earth to Mars:




    $frac{int_0^pi sqrt{1^2+1.524^2-2*1*1.524*cos(theta)} dtheta}{pi} = 1.693AU$




    Earth to Venus:




    $frac{int_0^pi sqrt{1^2+0.723^2-2*1*0.723*cos(theta)} dtheta}{pi} = 1.136AU$




    Earth to Mercury:




    $frac{int_0^pi sqrt{1^2+0.39^2-2*1*.0.39*cos(theta)} dtheta}{pi} = 1.038AU$







    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      The key in this calculation is “divide by pi”. Here you are assuming a uniform distribution of theta. That is, you assume the probability of the other planet being in any other theta is equal, and then you take the expected value. Depending on the other planets’ theta as a function of time, this need not be true. So here we are making the simplifying assumption that all planets travel at a constant speed.
      $endgroup$
      – darksky
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      @darksky Well, we are assuming the orbits are circles, so we are leaving Kepler out of it! Or, rather, we are leaving Kepler in it - “equal areas during equal intervals of time” in a circle would mean constant speed.
      $endgroup$
      – Amorydai
      yesterday








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @darksky Yep, constant speed and circular orbits. Both are not true, but the corrections would be much less than 7% difference between Mercury and Venus
      $endgroup$
      – yo'
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @Amorydai, how did you calculate the integrals?
      $endgroup$
      – Dr Xorile
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      How very dare you use the word "Obviously"?! When did puzzling start allowing witchcraft in answers? That formula is satanic... I mean, what sort of wizard-y demon-scratch is that un-figurable? Let's have a vote on a site-wide ban on pomped up NASA geniuses... (in English: "This made me feel dumb")
      $endgroup$
      – Brent Hackers
      18 hours ago
















    21












    21








    21





    $begingroup$

    The closest planet to Earth on average is:




    Mercury




    The other answers didn't give any calculations, so I'll provide some numbers. Hopefully they are correct!




    As other answers suggested, we can leave Earth stationary and just have the other planets do their orbits. Actually we only need to do half an orbit, because the other half will be exactly like the first half and not change the average in any way.

    By law of cosines, we can find the distance between the Earth and another planet by looking at the triangle that is formed when you connect the Earth with the other planet and the Sun. Obviously the distance to the Sun is the radius of the orbits and the angle will be $theta$. The distance between the planets is then $sqrt{r^2+R^2-2*r*R*cos(theta)}$ where $r$ is the radius of Earth's orbit and $R$ is the radius of the other planet's orbit and $theta$ is the angle between them.

    Now just find the integral as $theta$ goes from 0 to $pi$ and divide by $pi$.




    Earth to Mars:




    $frac{int_0^pi sqrt{1^2+1.524^2-2*1*1.524*cos(theta)} dtheta}{pi} = 1.693AU$




    Earth to Venus:




    $frac{int_0^pi sqrt{1^2+0.723^2-2*1*0.723*cos(theta)} dtheta}{pi} = 1.136AU$




    Earth to Mercury:




    $frac{int_0^pi sqrt{1^2+0.39^2-2*1*.0.39*cos(theta)} dtheta}{pi} = 1.038AU$







    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    The closest planet to Earth on average is:




    Mercury




    The other answers didn't give any calculations, so I'll provide some numbers. Hopefully they are correct!




    As other answers suggested, we can leave Earth stationary and just have the other planets do their orbits. Actually we only need to do half an orbit, because the other half will be exactly like the first half and not change the average in any way.

    By law of cosines, we can find the distance between the Earth and another planet by looking at the triangle that is formed when you connect the Earth with the other planet and the Sun. Obviously the distance to the Sun is the radius of the orbits and the angle will be $theta$. The distance between the planets is then $sqrt{r^2+R^2-2*r*R*cos(theta)}$ where $r$ is the radius of Earth's orbit and $R$ is the radius of the other planet's orbit and $theta$ is the angle between them.

    Now just find the integral as $theta$ goes from 0 to $pi$ and divide by $pi$.




    Earth to Mars:




    $frac{int_0^pi sqrt{1^2+1.524^2-2*1*1.524*cos(theta)} dtheta}{pi} = 1.693AU$




    Earth to Venus:




    $frac{int_0^pi sqrt{1^2+0.723^2-2*1*0.723*cos(theta)} dtheta}{pi} = 1.136AU$




    Earth to Mercury:




    $frac{int_0^pi sqrt{1^2+0.39^2-2*1*.0.39*cos(theta)} dtheta}{pi} = 1.038AU$








    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered yesterday









    AmorydaiAmorydai

    1,24514




    1,24514












    • $begingroup$
      The key in this calculation is “divide by pi”. Here you are assuming a uniform distribution of theta. That is, you assume the probability of the other planet being in any other theta is equal, and then you take the expected value. Depending on the other planets’ theta as a function of time, this need not be true. So here we are making the simplifying assumption that all planets travel at a constant speed.
      $endgroup$
      – darksky
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      @darksky Well, we are assuming the orbits are circles, so we are leaving Kepler out of it! Or, rather, we are leaving Kepler in it - “equal areas during equal intervals of time” in a circle would mean constant speed.
      $endgroup$
      – Amorydai
      yesterday








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @darksky Yep, constant speed and circular orbits. Both are not true, but the corrections would be much less than 7% difference between Mercury and Venus
      $endgroup$
      – yo'
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @Amorydai, how did you calculate the integrals?
      $endgroup$
      – Dr Xorile
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      How very dare you use the word "Obviously"?! When did puzzling start allowing witchcraft in answers? That formula is satanic... I mean, what sort of wizard-y demon-scratch is that un-figurable? Let's have a vote on a site-wide ban on pomped up NASA geniuses... (in English: "This made me feel dumb")
      $endgroup$
      – Brent Hackers
      18 hours ago




















    • $begingroup$
      The key in this calculation is “divide by pi”. Here you are assuming a uniform distribution of theta. That is, you assume the probability of the other planet being in any other theta is equal, and then you take the expected value. Depending on the other planets’ theta as a function of time, this need not be true. So here we are making the simplifying assumption that all planets travel at a constant speed.
      $endgroup$
      – darksky
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      @darksky Well, we are assuming the orbits are circles, so we are leaving Kepler out of it! Or, rather, we are leaving Kepler in it - “equal areas during equal intervals of time” in a circle would mean constant speed.
      $endgroup$
      – Amorydai
      yesterday








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @darksky Yep, constant speed and circular orbits. Both are not true, but the corrections would be much less than 7% difference between Mercury and Venus
      $endgroup$
      – yo'
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @Amorydai, how did you calculate the integrals?
      $endgroup$
      – Dr Xorile
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      How very dare you use the word "Obviously"?! When did puzzling start allowing witchcraft in answers? That formula is satanic... I mean, what sort of wizard-y demon-scratch is that un-figurable? Let's have a vote on a site-wide ban on pomped up NASA geniuses... (in English: "This made me feel dumb")
      $endgroup$
      – Brent Hackers
      18 hours ago


















    $begingroup$
    The key in this calculation is “divide by pi”. Here you are assuming a uniform distribution of theta. That is, you assume the probability of the other planet being in any other theta is equal, and then you take the expected value. Depending on the other planets’ theta as a function of time, this need not be true. So here we are making the simplifying assumption that all planets travel at a constant speed.
    $endgroup$
    – darksky
    yesterday






    $begingroup$
    The key in this calculation is “divide by pi”. Here you are assuming a uniform distribution of theta. That is, you assume the probability of the other planet being in any other theta is equal, and then you take the expected value. Depending on the other planets’ theta as a function of time, this need not be true. So here we are making the simplifying assumption that all planets travel at a constant speed.
    $endgroup$
    – darksky
    yesterday














    $begingroup$
    @darksky Well, we are assuming the orbits are circles, so we are leaving Kepler out of it! Or, rather, we are leaving Kepler in it - “equal areas during equal intervals of time” in a circle would mean constant speed.
    $endgroup$
    – Amorydai
    yesterday






    $begingroup$
    @darksky Well, we are assuming the orbits are circles, so we are leaving Kepler out of it! Or, rather, we are leaving Kepler in it - “equal areas during equal intervals of time” in a circle would mean constant speed.
    $endgroup$
    – Amorydai
    yesterday






    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    @darksky Yep, constant speed and circular orbits. Both are not true, but the corrections would be much less than 7% difference between Mercury and Venus
    $endgroup$
    – yo'
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    @darksky Yep, constant speed and circular orbits. Both are not true, but the corrections would be much less than 7% difference between Mercury and Venus
    $endgroup$
    – yo'
    yesterday




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @Amorydai, how did you calculate the integrals?
    $endgroup$
    – Dr Xorile
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    @Amorydai, how did you calculate the integrals?
    $endgroup$
    – Dr Xorile
    yesterday




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    How very dare you use the word "Obviously"?! When did puzzling start allowing witchcraft in answers? That formula is satanic... I mean, what sort of wizard-y demon-scratch is that un-figurable? Let's have a vote on a site-wide ban on pomped up NASA geniuses... (in English: "This made me feel dumb")
    $endgroup$
    – Brent Hackers
    18 hours ago






    $begingroup$
    How very dare you use the word "Obviously"?! When did puzzling start allowing witchcraft in answers? That formula is satanic... I mean, what sort of wizard-y demon-scratch is that un-figurable? Let's have a vote on a site-wide ban on pomped up NASA geniuses... (in English: "This made me feel dumb")
    $endgroup$
    – Brent Hackers
    18 hours ago













    19












    $begingroup$

    I must admit, I'm a bit rusty at calculus. So here's an attempt at an answer free of calculations, but with some more visual reasoning.




    First, let's draw out the orbits of the planets. Because there is no resonance, let's assume Earth is still and they all rotate at the same speed. Also, for reference we'll draw a circle of distance 1 AU around Earth.

    Orbits




    Now, notice that:




    I've drawn a few dotted lines here. If we imagine these circles as pie charts, the left part of the charts represent the time spent more than 1 AU away from the Earth.




    So:




    Let's plot the distance away from the Earth over time, which looks vaguely like this:

    Orbital graph




    Here, you should note:




    The arrows along the bottom, telling you the time spent above the green line (1AU still) and the arrows in the middle, telling you that for the Venus and Mercury, (maximum distance - 1AU) is equal to (1AU - minimum distance).


    Also, Mars is clearly out of the question. Goodbye Mars.




    So:




    It's between Mercury and Venus. From calculus or intuition, we know that the average distance of the planet is proportional to the area under the curve. And now it gets a bit non-technical.


    The area under the curve is equal to 2π AU·rad + (bit above the curve) - (bits below the curve). But the bit above the curve is approximately the same shape as the bit below the curve (if we shift the right bit under the curve to the left side of the graph), and since they are the same height their area is probably proportional to their width. And since Venus' width of bit above the curve to width of bit below the curve ratio is bigger than that of Mercury, and the fact that those bits are taller than Mercury's bits, I estimate Venus' total area is probably more than that of Mercury's.




    So my guess is that:




    Mercury is on average closest to the Earth. (I'd love to know how accurate this argument is, but that maths is beyond me.)




    NB: Click on images for slightly higher quality if they're a bit fuzzy.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Heck, I so love this one. If you wanna teach mathematical/physical intuition, this is the way!
      $endgroup$
      – yo'
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      Love this answer. Super helpful for gaining the intuition.
      $endgroup$
      – Dr Xorile
      yesterday
















    19












    $begingroup$

    I must admit, I'm a bit rusty at calculus. So here's an attempt at an answer free of calculations, but with some more visual reasoning.




    First, let's draw out the orbits of the planets. Because there is no resonance, let's assume Earth is still and they all rotate at the same speed. Also, for reference we'll draw a circle of distance 1 AU around Earth.

    Orbits




    Now, notice that:




    I've drawn a few dotted lines here. If we imagine these circles as pie charts, the left part of the charts represent the time spent more than 1 AU away from the Earth.




    So:




    Let's plot the distance away from the Earth over time, which looks vaguely like this:

    Orbital graph




    Here, you should note:




    The arrows along the bottom, telling you the time spent above the green line (1AU still) and the arrows in the middle, telling you that for the Venus and Mercury, (maximum distance - 1AU) is equal to (1AU - minimum distance).


    Also, Mars is clearly out of the question. Goodbye Mars.




    So:




    It's between Mercury and Venus. From calculus or intuition, we know that the average distance of the planet is proportional to the area under the curve. And now it gets a bit non-technical.


    The area under the curve is equal to 2π AU·rad + (bit above the curve) - (bits below the curve). But the bit above the curve is approximately the same shape as the bit below the curve (if we shift the right bit under the curve to the left side of the graph), and since they are the same height their area is probably proportional to their width. And since Venus' width of bit above the curve to width of bit below the curve ratio is bigger than that of Mercury, and the fact that those bits are taller than Mercury's bits, I estimate Venus' total area is probably more than that of Mercury's.




    So my guess is that:




    Mercury is on average closest to the Earth. (I'd love to know how accurate this argument is, but that maths is beyond me.)




    NB: Click on images for slightly higher quality if they're a bit fuzzy.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Heck, I so love this one. If you wanna teach mathematical/physical intuition, this is the way!
      $endgroup$
      – yo'
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      Love this answer. Super helpful for gaining the intuition.
      $endgroup$
      – Dr Xorile
      yesterday














    19












    19








    19





    $begingroup$

    I must admit, I'm a bit rusty at calculus. So here's an attempt at an answer free of calculations, but with some more visual reasoning.




    First, let's draw out the orbits of the planets. Because there is no resonance, let's assume Earth is still and they all rotate at the same speed. Also, for reference we'll draw a circle of distance 1 AU around Earth.

    Orbits




    Now, notice that:




    I've drawn a few dotted lines here. If we imagine these circles as pie charts, the left part of the charts represent the time spent more than 1 AU away from the Earth.




    So:




    Let's plot the distance away from the Earth over time, which looks vaguely like this:

    Orbital graph




    Here, you should note:




    The arrows along the bottom, telling you the time spent above the green line (1AU still) and the arrows in the middle, telling you that for the Venus and Mercury, (maximum distance - 1AU) is equal to (1AU - minimum distance).


    Also, Mars is clearly out of the question. Goodbye Mars.




    So:




    It's between Mercury and Venus. From calculus or intuition, we know that the average distance of the planet is proportional to the area under the curve. And now it gets a bit non-technical.


    The area under the curve is equal to 2π AU·rad + (bit above the curve) - (bits below the curve). But the bit above the curve is approximately the same shape as the bit below the curve (if we shift the right bit under the curve to the left side of the graph), and since they are the same height their area is probably proportional to their width. And since Venus' width of bit above the curve to width of bit below the curve ratio is bigger than that of Mercury, and the fact that those bits are taller than Mercury's bits, I estimate Venus' total area is probably more than that of Mercury's.




    So my guess is that:




    Mercury is on average closest to the Earth. (I'd love to know how accurate this argument is, but that maths is beyond me.)




    NB: Click on images for slightly higher quality if they're a bit fuzzy.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    I must admit, I'm a bit rusty at calculus. So here's an attempt at an answer free of calculations, but with some more visual reasoning.




    First, let's draw out the orbits of the planets. Because there is no resonance, let's assume Earth is still and they all rotate at the same speed. Also, for reference we'll draw a circle of distance 1 AU around Earth.

    Orbits




    Now, notice that:




    I've drawn a few dotted lines here. If we imagine these circles as pie charts, the left part of the charts represent the time spent more than 1 AU away from the Earth.




    So:




    Let's plot the distance away from the Earth over time, which looks vaguely like this:

    Orbital graph




    Here, you should note:




    The arrows along the bottom, telling you the time spent above the green line (1AU still) and the arrows in the middle, telling you that for the Venus and Mercury, (maximum distance - 1AU) is equal to (1AU - minimum distance).


    Also, Mars is clearly out of the question. Goodbye Mars.




    So:




    It's between Mercury and Venus. From calculus or intuition, we know that the average distance of the planet is proportional to the area under the curve. And now it gets a bit non-technical.


    The area under the curve is equal to 2π AU·rad + (bit above the curve) - (bits below the curve). But the bit above the curve is approximately the same shape as the bit below the curve (if we shift the right bit under the curve to the left side of the graph), and since they are the same height their area is probably proportional to their width. And since Venus' width of bit above the curve to width of bit below the curve ratio is bigger than that of Mercury, and the fact that those bits are taller than Mercury's bits, I estimate Venus' total area is probably more than that of Mercury's.




    So my guess is that:




    Mercury is on average closest to the Earth. (I'd love to know how accurate this argument is, but that maths is beyond me.)




    NB: Click on images for slightly higher quality if they're a bit fuzzy.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited yesterday

























    answered 2 days ago









    boboquackboboquack

    15.8k149119




    15.8k149119








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Heck, I so love this one. If you wanna teach mathematical/physical intuition, this is the way!
      $endgroup$
      – yo'
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      Love this answer. Super helpful for gaining the intuition.
      $endgroup$
      – Dr Xorile
      yesterday














    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Heck, I so love this one. If you wanna teach mathematical/physical intuition, this is the way!
      $endgroup$
      – yo'
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      Love this answer. Super helpful for gaining the intuition.
      $endgroup$
      – Dr Xorile
      yesterday








    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    Heck, I so love this one. If you wanna teach mathematical/physical intuition, this is the way!
    $endgroup$
    – yo'
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    Heck, I so love this one. If you wanna teach mathematical/physical intuition, this is the way!
    $endgroup$
    – yo'
    yesterday












    $begingroup$
    Love this answer. Super helpful for gaining the intuition.
    $endgroup$
    – Dr Xorile
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    Love this answer. Super helpful for gaining the intuition.
    $endgroup$
    – Dr Xorile
    yesterday











    8












    $begingroup$

    The answer:




    Mercury




    Reasoning:




    The average position of Earth (and indeed all planets in a circular orbit) is the middle of the Sun. Since Mercury's orbit is closest to the sun, it's the nearest on average to the Earth, and indeed all the other planets.







    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 5




      $begingroup$
      Following that reasonning, wouldn't the answer be "All planets are equally close to the Earth on average, as all of their average positions fall at the same place (middle of the Sun)" ?
      $endgroup$
      – Soltius
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      By this logic, the average closest planet to our moon is also Mercury.
      $endgroup$
      – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      @BlueRaja That's only true if you assume that the orbits of the Moon and the Earth around the sun are independent, which they obviously aren't.
      $endgroup$
      – Matthew Barber
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @Soltius No, that does not follow, as you cannot calculate average distances entirely from average positions. Averaging the position of the Earth won't help you calculate the distance either. It's just something that illustrates why the distance from the sun of the other planet is the only thing that matters in the ordering.
      $endgroup$
      – Matthew Barber
      yesterday
















    8












    $begingroup$

    The answer:




    Mercury




    Reasoning:




    The average position of Earth (and indeed all planets in a circular orbit) is the middle of the Sun. Since Mercury's orbit is closest to the sun, it's the nearest on average to the Earth, and indeed all the other planets.







    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 5




      $begingroup$
      Following that reasonning, wouldn't the answer be "All planets are equally close to the Earth on average, as all of their average positions fall at the same place (middle of the Sun)" ?
      $endgroup$
      – Soltius
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      By this logic, the average closest planet to our moon is also Mercury.
      $endgroup$
      – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      @BlueRaja That's only true if you assume that the orbits of the Moon and the Earth around the sun are independent, which they obviously aren't.
      $endgroup$
      – Matthew Barber
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @Soltius No, that does not follow, as you cannot calculate average distances entirely from average positions. Averaging the position of the Earth won't help you calculate the distance either. It's just something that illustrates why the distance from the sun of the other planet is the only thing that matters in the ordering.
      $endgroup$
      – Matthew Barber
      yesterday














    8












    8








    8





    $begingroup$

    The answer:




    Mercury




    Reasoning:




    The average position of Earth (and indeed all planets in a circular orbit) is the middle of the Sun. Since Mercury's orbit is closest to the sun, it's the nearest on average to the Earth, and indeed all the other planets.







    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    The answer:




    Mercury




    Reasoning:




    The average position of Earth (and indeed all planets in a circular orbit) is the middle of the Sun. Since Mercury's orbit is closest to the sun, it's the nearest on average to the Earth, and indeed all the other planets.








    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 2 days ago









    Matthew BarberMatthew Barber

    5173




    5173








    • 5




      $begingroup$
      Following that reasonning, wouldn't the answer be "All planets are equally close to the Earth on average, as all of their average positions fall at the same place (middle of the Sun)" ?
      $endgroup$
      – Soltius
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      By this logic, the average closest planet to our moon is also Mercury.
      $endgroup$
      – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      @BlueRaja That's only true if you assume that the orbits of the Moon and the Earth around the sun are independent, which they obviously aren't.
      $endgroup$
      – Matthew Barber
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @Soltius No, that does not follow, as you cannot calculate average distances entirely from average positions. Averaging the position of the Earth won't help you calculate the distance either. It's just something that illustrates why the distance from the sun of the other planet is the only thing that matters in the ordering.
      $endgroup$
      – Matthew Barber
      yesterday














    • 5




      $begingroup$
      Following that reasonning, wouldn't the answer be "All planets are equally close to the Earth on average, as all of their average positions fall at the same place (middle of the Sun)" ?
      $endgroup$
      – Soltius
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      By this logic, the average closest planet to our moon is also Mercury.
      $endgroup$
      – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      @BlueRaja That's only true if you assume that the orbits of the Moon and the Earth around the sun are independent, which they obviously aren't.
      $endgroup$
      – Matthew Barber
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @Soltius No, that does not follow, as you cannot calculate average distances entirely from average positions. Averaging the position of the Earth won't help you calculate the distance either. It's just something that illustrates why the distance from the sun of the other planet is the only thing that matters in the ordering.
      $endgroup$
      – Matthew Barber
      yesterday








    5




    5




    $begingroup$
    Following that reasonning, wouldn't the answer be "All planets are equally close to the Earth on average, as all of their average positions fall at the same place (middle of the Sun)" ?
    $endgroup$
    – Soltius
    yesterday






    $begingroup$
    Following that reasonning, wouldn't the answer be "All planets are equally close to the Earth on average, as all of their average positions fall at the same place (middle of the Sun)" ?
    $endgroup$
    – Soltius
    yesterday














    $begingroup$
    By this logic, the average closest planet to our moon is also Mercury.
    $endgroup$
    – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
    yesterday






    $begingroup$
    By this logic, the average closest planet to our moon is also Mercury.
    $endgroup$
    – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
    yesterday














    $begingroup$
    @BlueRaja That's only true if you assume that the orbits of the Moon and the Earth around the sun are independent, which they obviously aren't.
    $endgroup$
    – Matthew Barber
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    @BlueRaja That's only true if you assume that the orbits of the Moon and the Earth around the sun are independent, which they obviously aren't.
    $endgroup$
    – Matthew Barber
    yesterday












    $begingroup$
    @Soltius No, that does not follow, as you cannot calculate average distances entirely from average positions. Averaging the position of the Earth won't help you calculate the distance either. It's just something that illustrates why the distance from the sun of the other planet is the only thing that matters in the ordering.
    $endgroup$
    – Matthew Barber
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    @Soltius No, that does not follow, as you cannot calculate average distances entirely from average positions. Averaging the position of the Earth won't help you calculate the distance either. It's just something that illustrates why the distance from the sun of the other planet is the only thing that matters in the ordering.
    $endgroup$
    – Matthew Barber
    yesterday











    5












    $begingroup$

    Others have done all the necessary calculations, so here's some hairy maths. I assume as per the question that all orbits are circular and that the planets move in such a way that the average distance equals the average over all angular differences. Then it turns out that the average distance from earth to a planet whose orbit has radius $r$ astronomical units (i.e., $r$ times the radius of the earth's orbit) is $frac2pi(1+r)E(frac{4r}{1+r^2})$ astronomical units, where E is the so-called complete elliptic integral of the second kind, what Mathematica calls EllipticE.



    So what we'd like to be true is that this is an increasing function of $r$. This does appear to be true, but proving it is not so trivial.



    Rather than looking at the average over the whole orbit, let's look at just two antipodal points. So, suppose the angle between earth's position and the other planet's position is $theta$, so that the distance is $sqrt{(r-costheta)^2+sin^2theta}$; half-way around the orbit the other planet's position is $theta+pi$ and the distance is $sqrt{(r+costheta)^2+sin^2theta}$. The sum of these is $f(r,theta):=sqrt{(r-costheta)^2+sin^2theta}+sqrt{(r+costheta)^2+sin^2theta}$, our average is the average of this over all values of $theta$, and it will be an increasing function of $r$ if $f$ is for every $theta$. This will be true if it's true when we consider instead $g(r,u,v):=sqrt{(r-u)^2+v^2}+sqrt{(r+u)^2+v^2}$ and allow $u,v$ to take any value at all. (Which just corresponds to letting the earth's distance from the sun be something other than 1 unit.)



    The derivative of this thing is $frac{r+u}{sqrt{(r+u)^2+v^2}}+frac{r-u}{sqrt{(r-u)^2+v^2}}$. Obviously this is positive when $r>u$. When $r<u$ it's $h(u+r,v)-h(u-r,v)$ where $h(p,q)=frac{p}{sqrt{p^2+q^2}}=costan^{-1}frac qp$. But this is obviously a decreasing function of $q/p$, hence an increasing function of $p$, which means that $h(u+r,v)>h(u-r,v)$, which means that $frac{partial g}{partial r}>0$, which means that $frac{partial f}{partial r}>0$, which means that $frac{partialint f}{partial r}>0$, which means that indeed the average distance is an increasing function of $r$.



    I suspect there may be an easier more purely geometrical way to do this.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      @boboquack gets at a nice intuition for why this is true. I think also looking at the pairs of points: in line with the earth they balance out (so 0 difference) and at right angles the further out the orbit the further out the distance. So a continuity argument says that the overall average is monotonic.
      $endgroup$
      – Dr Xorile
      yesterday


















    5












    $begingroup$

    Others have done all the necessary calculations, so here's some hairy maths. I assume as per the question that all orbits are circular and that the planets move in such a way that the average distance equals the average over all angular differences. Then it turns out that the average distance from earth to a planet whose orbit has radius $r$ astronomical units (i.e., $r$ times the radius of the earth's orbit) is $frac2pi(1+r)E(frac{4r}{1+r^2})$ astronomical units, where E is the so-called complete elliptic integral of the second kind, what Mathematica calls EllipticE.



    So what we'd like to be true is that this is an increasing function of $r$. This does appear to be true, but proving it is not so trivial.



    Rather than looking at the average over the whole orbit, let's look at just two antipodal points. So, suppose the angle between earth's position and the other planet's position is $theta$, so that the distance is $sqrt{(r-costheta)^2+sin^2theta}$; half-way around the orbit the other planet's position is $theta+pi$ and the distance is $sqrt{(r+costheta)^2+sin^2theta}$. The sum of these is $f(r,theta):=sqrt{(r-costheta)^2+sin^2theta}+sqrt{(r+costheta)^2+sin^2theta}$, our average is the average of this over all values of $theta$, and it will be an increasing function of $r$ if $f$ is for every $theta$. This will be true if it's true when we consider instead $g(r,u,v):=sqrt{(r-u)^2+v^2}+sqrt{(r+u)^2+v^2}$ and allow $u,v$ to take any value at all. (Which just corresponds to letting the earth's distance from the sun be something other than 1 unit.)



    The derivative of this thing is $frac{r+u}{sqrt{(r+u)^2+v^2}}+frac{r-u}{sqrt{(r-u)^2+v^2}}$. Obviously this is positive when $r>u$. When $r<u$ it's $h(u+r,v)-h(u-r,v)$ where $h(p,q)=frac{p}{sqrt{p^2+q^2}}=costan^{-1}frac qp$. But this is obviously a decreasing function of $q/p$, hence an increasing function of $p$, which means that $h(u+r,v)>h(u-r,v)$, which means that $frac{partial g}{partial r}>0$, which means that $frac{partial f}{partial r}>0$, which means that $frac{partialint f}{partial r}>0$, which means that indeed the average distance is an increasing function of $r$.



    I suspect there may be an easier more purely geometrical way to do this.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      @boboquack gets at a nice intuition for why this is true. I think also looking at the pairs of points: in line with the earth they balance out (so 0 difference) and at right angles the further out the orbit the further out the distance. So a continuity argument says that the overall average is monotonic.
      $endgroup$
      – Dr Xorile
      yesterday
















    5












    5








    5





    $begingroup$

    Others have done all the necessary calculations, so here's some hairy maths. I assume as per the question that all orbits are circular and that the planets move in such a way that the average distance equals the average over all angular differences. Then it turns out that the average distance from earth to a planet whose orbit has radius $r$ astronomical units (i.e., $r$ times the radius of the earth's orbit) is $frac2pi(1+r)E(frac{4r}{1+r^2})$ astronomical units, where E is the so-called complete elliptic integral of the second kind, what Mathematica calls EllipticE.



    So what we'd like to be true is that this is an increasing function of $r$. This does appear to be true, but proving it is not so trivial.



    Rather than looking at the average over the whole orbit, let's look at just two antipodal points. So, suppose the angle between earth's position and the other planet's position is $theta$, so that the distance is $sqrt{(r-costheta)^2+sin^2theta}$; half-way around the orbit the other planet's position is $theta+pi$ and the distance is $sqrt{(r+costheta)^2+sin^2theta}$. The sum of these is $f(r,theta):=sqrt{(r-costheta)^2+sin^2theta}+sqrt{(r+costheta)^2+sin^2theta}$, our average is the average of this over all values of $theta$, and it will be an increasing function of $r$ if $f$ is for every $theta$. This will be true if it's true when we consider instead $g(r,u,v):=sqrt{(r-u)^2+v^2}+sqrt{(r+u)^2+v^2}$ and allow $u,v$ to take any value at all. (Which just corresponds to letting the earth's distance from the sun be something other than 1 unit.)



    The derivative of this thing is $frac{r+u}{sqrt{(r+u)^2+v^2}}+frac{r-u}{sqrt{(r-u)^2+v^2}}$. Obviously this is positive when $r>u$. When $r<u$ it's $h(u+r,v)-h(u-r,v)$ where $h(p,q)=frac{p}{sqrt{p^2+q^2}}=costan^{-1}frac qp$. But this is obviously a decreasing function of $q/p$, hence an increasing function of $p$, which means that $h(u+r,v)>h(u-r,v)$, which means that $frac{partial g}{partial r}>0$, which means that $frac{partial f}{partial r}>0$, which means that $frac{partialint f}{partial r}>0$, which means that indeed the average distance is an increasing function of $r$.



    I suspect there may be an easier more purely geometrical way to do this.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    Others have done all the necessary calculations, so here's some hairy maths. I assume as per the question that all orbits are circular and that the planets move in such a way that the average distance equals the average over all angular differences. Then it turns out that the average distance from earth to a planet whose orbit has radius $r$ astronomical units (i.e., $r$ times the radius of the earth's orbit) is $frac2pi(1+r)E(frac{4r}{1+r^2})$ astronomical units, where E is the so-called complete elliptic integral of the second kind, what Mathematica calls EllipticE.



    So what we'd like to be true is that this is an increasing function of $r$. This does appear to be true, but proving it is not so trivial.



    Rather than looking at the average over the whole orbit, let's look at just two antipodal points. So, suppose the angle between earth's position and the other planet's position is $theta$, so that the distance is $sqrt{(r-costheta)^2+sin^2theta}$; half-way around the orbit the other planet's position is $theta+pi$ and the distance is $sqrt{(r+costheta)^2+sin^2theta}$. The sum of these is $f(r,theta):=sqrt{(r-costheta)^2+sin^2theta}+sqrt{(r+costheta)^2+sin^2theta}$, our average is the average of this over all values of $theta$, and it will be an increasing function of $r$ if $f$ is for every $theta$. This will be true if it's true when we consider instead $g(r,u,v):=sqrt{(r-u)^2+v^2}+sqrt{(r+u)^2+v^2}$ and allow $u,v$ to take any value at all. (Which just corresponds to letting the earth's distance from the sun be something other than 1 unit.)



    The derivative of this thing is $frac{r+u}{sqrt{(r+u)^2+v^2}}+frac{r-u}{sqrt{(r-u)^2+v^2}}$. Obviously this is positive when $r>u$. When $r<u$ it's $h(u+r,v)-h(u-r,v)$ where $h(p,q)=frac{p}{sqrt{p^2+q^2}}=costan^{-1}frac qp$. But this is obviously a decreasing function of $q/p$, hence an increasing function of $p$, which means that $h(u+r,v)>h(u-r,v)$, which means that $frac{partial g}{partial r}>0$, which means that $frac{partial f}{partial r}>0$, which means that $frac{partialint f}{partial r}>0$, which means that indeed the average distance is an increasing function of $r$.



    I suspect there may be an easier more purely geometrical way to do this.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered yesterday









    Gareth McCaughanGareth McCaughan

    64.6k3164253




    64.6k3164253












    • $begingroup$
      @boboquack gets at a nice intuition for why this is true. I think also looking at the pairs of points: in line with the earth they balance out (so 0 difference) and at right angles the further out the orbit the further out the distance. So a continuity argument says that the overall average is monotonic.
      $endgroup$
      – Dr Xorile
      yesterday




















    • $begingroup$
      @boboquack gets at a nice intuition for why this is true. I think also looking at the pairs of points: in line with the earth they balance out (so 0 difference) and at right angles the further out the orbit the further out the distance. So a continuity argument says that the overall average is monotonic.
      $endgroup$
      – Dr Xorile
      yesterday


















    $begingroup$
    @boboquack gets at a nice intuition for why this is true. I think also looking at the pairs of points: in line with the earth they balance out (so 0 difference) and at right angles the further out the orbit the further out the distance. So a continuity argument says that the overall average is monotonic.
    $endgroup$
    – Dr Xorile
    yesterday






    $begingroup$
    @boboquack gets at a nice intuition for why this is true. I think also looking at the pairs of points: in line with the earth they balance out (so 0 difference) and at right angles the further out the orbit the further out the distance. So a continuity argument says that the overall average is monotonic.
    $endgroup$
    – Dr Xorile
    yesterday













    4












    $begingroup$

    It's




    Mercury.




    Because:




    Fix the position of the Earth, and let the planets move in orbit. We want the average distance. If the Sun was an object to consider, the radius R would be the average. If there was another planet on Earth's orbit, it's average would be greater than R, as most of the orbit is at a further distance than R from the Earth (draw a circle radius R from the Earth - it cuts the other orbit before the halfway points).


    As this is a continuous and monotonic increasing function, the planet closest on average is Mercury.







    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Why is it continuous and monotonic? And how did you deal with Mars?
      $endgroup$
      – boboquack
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @boboquack; the orbit moves continuously and so therefore does the average function, which is a quadratic, and therefore has a monotonic differential. Larger orbits just get bigger (monotonic increasing remember!). Also see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit.
      $endgroup$
      – JonMark Perry
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      Average distance to earth is not a quadratic function of orbit radius because for very large orbits it's approximately equal to the radius.
      $endgroup$
      – Gareth McCaughan
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @GarethMcCaughan; this doesn't change my argument much though. the average function depends on R and only approximates R locally.
      $endgroup$
      – JonMark Perry
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      The function in question is monotone increasing, though. At least, I think it is, though I haven't tried to prove it; it's a pretty ugly function involving elliptic integrals.
      $endgroup$
      – Gareth McCaughan
      yesterday
















    4












    $begingroup$

    It's




    Mercury.




    Because:




    Fix the position of the Earth, and let the planets move in orbit. We want the average distance. If the Sun was an object to consider, the radius R would be the average. If there was another planet on Earth's orbit, it's average would be greater than R, as most of the orbit is at a further distance than R from the Earth (draw a circle radius R from the Earth - it cuts the other orbit before the halfway points).


    As this is a continuous and monotonic increasing function, the planet closest on average is Mercury.







    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Why is it continuous and monotonic? And how did you deal with Mars?
      $endgroup$
      – boboquack
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @boboquack; the orbit moves continuously and so therefore does the average function, which is a quadratic, and therefore has a monotonic differential. Larger orbits just get bigger (monotonic increasing remember!). Also see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit.
      $endgroup$
      – JonMark Perry
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      Average distance to earth is not a quadratic function of orbit radius because for very large orbits it's approximately equal to the radius.
      $endgroup$
      – Gareth McCaughan
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @GarethMcCaughan; this doesn't change my argument much though. the average function depends on R and only approximates R locally.
      $endgroup$
      – JonMark Perry
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      The function in question is monotone increasing, though. At least, I think it is, though I haven't tried to prove it; it's a pretty ugly function involving elliptic integrals.
      $endgroup$
      – Gareth McCaughan
      yesterday














    4












    4








    4





    $begingroup$

    It's




    Mercury.




    Because:




    Fix the position of the Earth, and let the planets move in orbit. We want the average distance. If the Sun was an object to consider, the radius R would be the average. If there was another planet on Earth's orbit, it's average would be greater than R, as most of the orbit is at a further distance than R from the Earth (draw a circle radius R from the Earth - it cuts the other orbit before the halfway points).


    As this is a continuous and monotonic increasing function, the planet closest on average is Mercury.







    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    It's




    Mercury.




    Because:




    Fix the position of the Earth, and let the planets move in orbit. We want the average distance. If the Sun was an object to consider, the radius R would be the average. If there was another planet on Earth's orbit, it's average would be greater than R, as most of the orbit is at a further distance than R from the Earth (draw a circle radius R from the Earth - it cuts the other orbit before the halfway points).


    As this is a continuous and monotonic increasing function, the planet closest on average is Mercury.








    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 2 days ago

























    answered 2 days ago









    JonMark PerryJonMark Perry

    20.2k64098




    20.2k64098












    • $begingroup$
      Why is it continuous and monotonic? And how did you deal with Mars?
      $endgroup$
      – boboquack
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @boboquack; the orbit moves continuously and so therefore does the average function, which is a quadratic, and therefore has a monotonic differential. Larger orbits just get bigger (monotonic increasing remember!). Also see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit.
      $endgroup$
      – JonMark Perry
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      Average distance to earth is not a quadratic function of orbit radius because for very large orbits it's approximately equal to the radius.
      $endgroup$
      – Gareth McCaughan
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @GarethMcCaughan; this doesn't change my argument much though. the average function depends on R and only approximates R locally.
      $endgroup$
      – JonMark Perry
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      The function in question is monotone increasing, though. At least, I think it is, though I haven't tried to prove it; it's a pretty ugly function involving elliptic integrals.
      $endgroup$
      – Gareth McCaughan
      yesterday


















    • $begingroup$
      Why is it continuous and monotonic? And how did you deal with Mars?
      $endgroup$
      – boboquack
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @boboquack; the orbit moves continuously and so therefore does the average function, which is a quadratic, and therefore has a monotonic differential. Larger orbits just get bigger (monotonic increasing remember!). Also see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit.
      $endgroup$
      – JonMark Perry
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      Average distance to earth is not a quadratic function of orbit radius because for very large orbits it's approximately equal to the radius.
      $endgroup$
      – Gareth McCaughan
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @GarethMcCaughan; this doesn't change my argument much though. the average function depends on R and only approximates R locally.
      $endgroup$
      – JonMark Perry
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      The function in question is monotone increasing, though. At least, I think it is, though I haven't tried to prove it; it's a pretty ugly function involving elliptic integrals.
      $endgroup$
      – Gareth McCaughan
      yesterday
















    $begingroup$
    Why is it continuous and monotonic? And how did you deal with Mars?
    $endgroup$
    – boboquack
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    Why is it continuous and monotonic? And how did you deal with Mars?
    $endgroup$
    – boboquack
    yesterday












    $begingroup$
    @boboquack; the orbit moves continuously and so therefore does the average function, which is a quadratic, and therefore has a monotonic differential. Larger orbits just get bigger (monotonic increasing remember!). Also see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit.
    $endgroup$
    – JonMark Perry
    yesterday






    $begingroup$
    @boboquack; the orbit moves continuously and so therefore does the average function, which is a quadratic, and therefore has a monotonic differential. Larger orbits just get bigger (monotonic increasing remember!). Also see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit.
    $endgroup$
    – JonMark Perry
    yesterday














    $begingroup$
    Average distance to earth is not a quadratic function of orbit radius because for very large orbits it's approximately equal to the radius.
    $endgroup$
    – Gareth McCaughan
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    Average distance to earth is not a quadratic function of orbit radius because for very large orbits it's approximately equal to the radius.
    $endgroup$
    – Gareth McCaughan
    yesterday












    $begingroup$
    @GarethMcCaughan; this doesn't change my argument much though. the average function depends on R and only approximates R locally.
    $endgroup$
    – JonMark Perry
    yesterday






    $begingroup$
    @GarethMcCaughan; this doesn't change my argument much though. the average function depends on R and only approximates R locally.
    $endgroup$
    – JonMark Perry
    yesterday














    $begingroup$
    The function in question is monotone increasing, though. At least, I think it is, though I haven't tried to prove it; it's a pretty ugly function involving elliptic integrals.
    $endgroup$
    – Gareth McCaughan
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    The function in question is monotone increasing, though. At least, I think it is, though I haven't tried to prove it; it's a pretty ugly function involving elliptic integrals.
    $endgroup$
    – Gareth McCaughan
    yesterday











    3












    $begingroup$


    I'd say the closest planet to Earth is Earth with an average distance of 0







    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    user57862 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$









    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Well, unfortunately for you, a neighbour is a well defined notion in geometry, and excludes you yourself...
      $endgroup$
      – yo'
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @yo' I disagree. In graph theory this might be true, but if you’re talking about metric spaces (which we are), then an epsilon neighborhood around a point always contains that point.
      $endgroup$
      – Santana Afton
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      Well, in clustering theory, statistics etc. it's all pretty clear, and that's the context in which I see this puzzle.
      $endgroup$
      – yo'
      yesterday
















    3












    $begingroup$


    I'd say the closest planet to Earth is Earth with an average distance of 0







    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    user57862 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$









    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Well, unfortunately for you, a neighbour is a well defined notion in geometry, and excludes you yourself...
      $endgroup$
      – yo'
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @yo' I disagree. In graph theory this might be true, but if you’re talking about metric spaces (which we are), then an epsilon neighborhood around a point always contains that point.
      $endgroup$
      – Santana Afton
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      Well, in clustering theory, statistics etc. it's all pretty clear, and that's the context in which I see this puzzle.
      $endgroup$
      – yo'
      yesterday














    3












    3








    3





    $begingroup$


    I'd say the closest planet to Earth is Earth with an average distance of 0







    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    user57862 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$




    I'd say the closest planet to Earth is Earth with an average distance of 0








    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    user57862 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited yesterday









    Ahmed Ashour

    976313




    976313






    New contributor




    user57862 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    answered yesterday









    user57862user57862

    391




    391




    New contributor




    user57862 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





    New contributor





    user57862 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    user57862 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.








    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Well, unfortunately for you, a neighbour is a well defined notion in geometry, and excludes you yourself...
      $endgroup$
      – yo'
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @yo' I disagree. In graph theory this might be true, but if you’re talking about metric spaces (which we are), then an epsilon neighborhood around a point always contains that point.
      $endgroup$
      – Santana Afton
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      Well, in clustering theory, statistics etc. it's all pretty clear, and that's the context in which I see this puzzle.
      $endgroup$
      – yo'
      yesterday














    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Well, unfortunately for you, a neighbour is a well defined notion in geometry, and excludes you yourself...
      $endgroup$
      – yo'
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @yo' I disagree. In graph theory this might be true, but if you’re talking about metric spaces (which we are), then an epsilon neighborhood around a point always contains that point.
      $endgroup$
      – Santana Afton
      yesterday












    • $begingroup$
      Well, in clustering theory, statistics etc. it's all pretty clear, and that's the context in which I see this puzzle.
      $endgroup$
      – yo'
      yesterday








    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    Well, unfortunately for you, a neighbour is a well defined notion in geometry, and excludes you yourself...
    $endgroup$
    – yo'
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    Well, unfortunately for you, a neighbour is a well defined notion in geometry, and excludes you yourself...
    $endgroup$
    – yo'
    yesterday












    $begingroup$
    @yo' I disagree. In graph theory this might be true, but if you’re talking about metric spaces (which we are), then an epsilon neighborhood around a point always contains that point.
    $endgroup$
    – Santana Afton
    yesterday






    $begingroup$
    @yo' I disagree. In graph theory this might be true, but if you’re talking about metric spaces (which we are), then an epsilon neighborhood around a point always contains that point.
    $endgroup$
    – Santana Afton
    yesterday














    $begingroup$
    Well, in clustering theory, statistics etc. it's all pretty clear, and that's the context in which I see this puzzle.
    $endgroup$
    – yo'
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    Well, in clustering theory, statistics etc. it's all pretty clear, and that's the context in which I see this puzzle.
    $endgroup$
    – yo'
    yesterday











    2












    $begingroup$

    Here is another way to deduce the same result without any calculations.



    First the inner planets.




    Imagine that instead of the Earth, there is a wall at 1 AU from the sun. The average distance of any inner planet's orbit to the wall is easily seen to be exactly 1 AU.
    enter image description here

    This is because you can pair up points on the left and right sides of the orbit. The average distance of those two points to the wall is the same as the distance of their midpoint to the wall.


    If you now go back to measuring the distance to the Earth itself, the distances get larger.
    enter image description here

    Crucially, the larger the orbit, the higher the slopes of the line segments we are measuring, and the further away the average distance is from 1 AU.


    This shows that amongst the inner planets, the innermost planet (Mercury) has the smallest average distance to Earth.




    What about the outer planets?




    Let's go back to the wall replacing the Earth. If an planet's orbit crosses the wall, then when it comes to measuring its distance, we might as well mirror the planet's position in the wall and measure the distance to its mirror image.
    enter image description here

    When we then do the same trick of pairing points in the two halves of the orbit, it is clear that the average distance to the wall becomes greater than 1 AU to start with. Combine that with the fact that when measuring the distance to Earth itself the slopes of the line segments are even larger than before, it is clear that the average distance to the planet is even greater compared to the inner planets.







    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      2












      $begingroup$

      Here is another way to deduce the same result without any calculations.



      First the inner planets.




      Imagine that instead of the Earth, there is a wall at 1 AU from the sun. The average distance of any inner planet's orbit to the wall is easily seen to be exactly 1 AU.
      enter image description here

      This is because you can pair up points on the left and right sides of the orbit. The average distance of those two points to the wall is the same as the distance of their midpoint to the wall.


      If you now go back to measuring the distance to the Earth itself, the distances get larger.
      enter image description here

      Crucially, the larger the orbit, the higher the slopes of the line segments we are measuring, and the further away the average distance is from 1 AU.


      This shows that amongst the inner planets, the innermost planet (Mercury) has the smallest average distance to Earth.




      What about the outer planets?




      Let's go back to the wall replacing the Earth. If an planet's orbit crosses the wall, then when it comes to measuring its distance, we might as well mirror the planet's position in the wall and measure the distance to its mirror image.
      enter image description here

      When we then do the same trick of pairing points in the two halves of the orbit, it is clear that the average distance to the wall becomes greater than 1 AU to start with. Combine that with the fact that when measuring the distance to Earth itself the slopes of the line segments are even larger than before, it is clear that the average distance to the planet is even greater compared to the inner planets.







      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        2












        2








        2





        $begingroup$

        Here is another way to deduce the same result without any calculations.



        First the inner planets.




        Imagine that instead of the Earth, there is a wall at 1 AU from the sun. The average distance of any inner planet's orbit to the wall is easily seen to be exactly 1 AU.
        enter image description here

        This is because you can pair up points on the left and right sides of the orbit. The average distance of those two points to the wall is the same as the distance of their midpoint to the wall.


        If you now go back to measuring the distance to the Earth itself, the distances get larger.
        enter image description here

        Crucially, the larger the orbit, the higher the slopes of the line segments we are measuring, and the further away the average distance is from 1 AU.


        This shows that amongst the inner planets, the innermost planet (Mercury) has the smallest average distance to Earth.




        What about the outer planets?




        Let's go back to the wall replacing the Earth. If an planet's orbit crosses the wall, then when it comes to measuring its distance, we might as well mirror the planet's position in the wall and measure the distance to its mirror image.
        enter image description here

        When we then do the same trick of pairing points in the two halves of the orbit, it is clear that the average distance to the wall becomes greater than 1 AU to start with. Combine that with the fact that when measuring the distance to Earth itself the slopes of the line segments are even larger than before, it is clear that the average distance to the planet is even greater compared to the inner planets.







        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        Here is another way to deduce the same result without any calculations.



        First the inner planets.




        Imagine that instead of the Earth, there is a wall at 1 AU from the sun. The average distance of any inner planet's orbit to the wall is easily seen to be exactly 1 AU.
        enter image description here

        This is because you can pair up points on the left and right sides of the orbit. The average distance of those two points to the wall is the same as the distance of their midpoint to the wall.


        If you now go back to measuring the distance to the Earth itself, the distances get larger.
        enter image description here

        Crucially, the larger the orbit, the higher the slopes of the line segments we are measuring, and the further away the average distance is from 1 AU.


        This shows that amongst the inner planets, the innermost planet (Mercury) has the smallest average distance to Earth.




        What about the outer planets?




        Let's go back to the wall replacing the Earth. If an planet's orbit crosses the wall, then when it comes to measuring its distance, we might as well mirror the planet's position in the wall and measure the distance to its mirror image.
        enter image description here

        When we then do the same trick of pairing points in the two halves of the orbit, it is clear that the average distance to the wall becomes greater than 1 AU to start with. Combine that with the fact that when measuring the distance to Earth itself the slopes of the line segments are even larger than before, it is clear that the average distance to the planet is even greater compared to the inner planets.








        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 19 hours ago









        Jaap ScherphuisJaap Scherphuis

        16.2k12772




        16.2k12772






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Puzzling Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f80615%2fwho-is-our-nearest-planetary-neighbor-on-average%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Plaza Victoria

            Puebla de Zaragoza

            Musa