@dman68854 Maybe that wasn't clear - I think what I meant to say was that EVEN IF Mars was say 50ºF, the water would quickly evaporate b/c of the very low atmospheric pressure.
Carl Sagan - "Our collective free time needs to shift as much as possible to education. Whether you're a young student or finished school long ago, get out to the library whenever you can and work hard to learn everything you can about this world. Each individual and society will benefit from being able to solve more problems and make better decisions. Education is an amazing discovery process that repays you endlessly."
@doctordave Cool. Well, thanks for the video though, great information. :) Only beef is that it seemed to stop at the middle of Saturn and I didn't see any link to any "part 2".
@tomwduda What's your point? He included Pluto in "The Planets" of our solar system. That's factually wrong, because Pluto is not a planet, it's a dwarf planet. If he's gonna talk about just the main planets, then there's 8. If he's gonna talk about ALL planets, then there's 8 + 12 or so.
It's not a big deal, but he's being factually wrong. Wouldn't you question someone who told us that the world was flat? Besides, he replied to my comment so it's case closed.
@DrMadolite My point is that he was describing interesting items about each planet. To have a magnetic field, a planet should have a liquid core. Mercury has a magnetic field but does nave a liquid core.I think that's an interesting item.
@tomwduda "does nave" = "doesn't have" I assume. Ok nvm then, thought you were being sarcastic. But yeah, these contradictions are interesting, they make us rethink how the universe works. For instance, I read somewhere that the Canis Majoris star defies all natural laws, it's simply too large t be a star. And yet it is.
@tomwduda correction: "...does have a liquid core" should be "... does NOT have a liquid core." My thanks to sharp-eyed DrMadolite for catching my goof. Peer-reviewed comments. Who woulda thunk? :-D
Fred Bailey has discovered the underlying nataural mechanism that regulates Sunspot production and Climate Change, there is a connection between them but Sunspots have nothing to do with Climate Change, Google solarchords and you will see for yourself
@doctordave, Can we approximately date WHEN Mars lost the majority of its atmosphere? Could it correlate (coincidentally ; ) with the appearance of even single-celled life on this planet? ...not that i'm suggesting anything (that hasn't been suggested before ; )
@audreyfischer Mars lost its magnetosphere about 4 billion years ago, which effectively means the atmosphere as a whole, due to the Sun subsequently chipping away the ionosphere etc.
@doctordave, Can we approximately date WHEN Mars lost the majority of its atmosphere? Could it correlate (coincidentally ; ) with the appearance of even single-celled life on this planet? ...not that i'm suggesting anything.
@doctordave I've heard that a newborn star w/it's already formed planets are ejected together from its nebula. Could it be that all our solar system's planets started out w/the same atmosphere and then adjusted (in part) according to their orbit w/the sun (for example hydrogen and helium boiled off terrestrial planets), and then evolved independently with their own unique planetary events? i very much enjoy your lectures!
@Searcher4Heaven We see the sun's position relative to the other planets. The sun is always at one of the foci of the ellipse of all solar orbits. I have read the entire Koran and its knowledge of astronomy is primitive and ancient- it was obviously not written by any all-knowing god. I study ancient astronomy at my university, and I can tell you, modern astronomers know far more about the universe than the koran lol
@Searcher4Heaven False. We do see the sun's position. The light we receive from it is 8 minutes old, but the sun still emits light and it remains in its position relative to our orbit. The stars we see are actually as they existed thousands to millions of light years ago. Some still exist. Some do not. And the Quran is a very bad source for astronomical information.
Hi i like your channel and your videos I just want a little favour from you guys.I am a fourth generation musician. I play an instrument which is called rudraveena. its a dying indian classical instrument. it has a 5000 thousand years old musical history. its a rare indian classical music instrument. it is oldest . Only few people are playing this instrument. So please subscribe and add your comment. It will be a great help for this instrument to survive in hi-tech world. go on binsitar
@wavepsychic The small tilts of the Sun and planets' rotational axes relative to the average plane of the SS by no means "disprove" the theories of SS formation. Do you really think you are the first person to have noticed this? Do you really think there aren't astrophysicists who spend their whole careers working on the dynamics of the SS who probably understand the details of the physics involved a little bit better than you do based on the handful of internet videos you've watched?
@doctordave I have an idea for wavepsychic, that I would like to submit to the group for peer review. I assert that we deal with him, in much the same manner as Newton dealt with why gravity works as it does...siomply ignore it, him, her.
If Jupiter is Hydrogen and Helium and that's why it can't be close too the sun then how come every extra solar planet we find is a Jupiter sized star/planet orbiting very close too it's star or sun? So he just said they can't be close and they are close. He also said we don't have any examples of other solar systems but we do have examples of this.
@wavepsychic That's a good point - this lecture is kind of showing its age. We have many more examples now of what are called "Hot jupiters" - and these close-to-their-star Jovian-type planets posed a big problem for our theories of solar system formation. As I understand it, the latest thinking on "Hot Jupiters" is that they FORM way out where OUR Jupiter is, and for various complicated reasons, migrate inward towards their star during the history of the system.
@doctordave I don't know if you are the dude in the video or not but I seriously can't watch this whole video. The standard model doesn't explain anything. There are lots of problems what this lecture. I am wondering what the students are thinking listening too this. It's like they are just sucking it all in and not really thinking about how wrong it sounds.
Why isn't Jupiter or Saturn wondering into the inner solar system? The sun is titled 5 degrees and the planets don't line up with the sun.
@wavepsychic I am the "dude in the video" and I have a PhD in physics. What, pray tell, are your qualifications to critique the dominant theories of modern astrophysics because you think they "sound wrong"?
@doctordave Hello PhD in Physics. Everything you know about the planets in the solar system I have easily learned by looking them up on the internet. I have been too NASA's web site and if you ask me all your PhD means is that you have been brain washed by older men with older views about the Universe. I am not prone too such brain washing. Just because they sound wrong? Do not belittle Philosophy. Your dominate theories make no sense and fail too explain EVERY FACT ABOUT THE PLANETS.
@wavepsychic First of all, science never claims to explain every fact about anything. That's not how science works. Second of all - philosophy? Philosophy is not how you determine facts about the natural world. Don't agree? Read what Aristotle and Descartes had to say about the reasons planets orbit the Sun.
@doctordave He should also read what Feynman said about it "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds." or another one I love. "You need to learn there is a huge difference between knowing the name of something, and knowing it." I paraphrased the 2nd one, cuz its simple enough that I mix up the exact wording, but the first one I know like my name.
Even in death Dr. Feynman is still letting all the air out of the pseudo, and wannabe scientists balloons.
@doctordave Hey! Me too! I totally agree with this wavepsychic dude. I too, know everything you know about physics, just by looking at NASAs website (just like wavepsychic). Can we both get... like.. you know... honorary PhDs in physics and stuff? I surf the net a lot and have a lot of oppinions about stuff. Ive looked up some stuff on existentialism on wikipedia as well, so maybe I can get like a bachelors in philosophy. Like a minor degree and stuff...
@AegisDK Nicely put, Aegis. I like to think of it this way: I watch a lot of football on TV... Do you think the Jets will let me play in their game against the Colts this weekend? NO?! Why not? What makes them so special? Could it be perhaps that the act of playing football is somewhat more demanding than the process of watching it? I wonder, then, if participating in the act of constructing & evaluating scientific theories might also be somewhat more complicated than reading New Scientist?
@doctordave Excuse me Dr., I was under the impression that astronomers had found Jupiter-mass planets, not Jupiter-like planets. Have I missed something in the popular journals, or on the web? Have we been able to get spectra on their atmospheres?
@washmlakid not that I know of... I think I was just using "jupiterlike" as short hand for similar size/mass/orbit. Although I can't think of too many reasons we would expect the composition of jupiter-sized exoplanets to be too terribly different from Jupiter!
@doctordave Just speculating, why necessarily similar? Could there not be Jupiter- mass terrestrial planets? I haven't seen the studies, I have a B.S. in Physics not in Astronomy, but I don't know of a reason. It would go far towards explaining why the ones we've found are so massive and so close to the star. Could it possibly be a 'failed' binary falling into its twin? If possible, could you direct me to where I might find the info? Thank you.
@doctordave It would be rather difficult for a terrestrial planet to survive at Jupiter's size, no? Then again, Ive mentioned before, Science for a long time figured our Solar System to be the model for any others that may exist, so until confirmed otherwise, Id say there likely isnt a precise model of a standard planetary system, yet there may and will likely be marked similarities in some ways.
I dont think we can get enough light from them to do a spectral analysis. First, its star, in addition to being bright to the point of obscuring the planet in light, by that same token would also influence/contaminate the spectrum of a body near it...again if you can get it. Perhaps in the newest gen of space scopes or the giant mirror in Chilé will get us closer, or even to that, but as of now, I do not believe they can get that data on such a dim body next to a high magnitude body.
@doctordave I also might add there's a lot in astronomy that isn't necessarily spelled out on the internet. The in depth mathematics, what equations to use, or how to interpret those equations. There's way more to astronomy than classifying stars and planets. I'd like to see that clown deal with the math on a simple 3 body problem or deal with the statistics of light reflection from within a nebula. It seems simple but gets really complicated really quick.
@Ripley747 Ripley, if you wish to know the maths in as in-depth a way you'd like to find, the search term "Astrophysics" will yield better results. It is full of lectures by Leonard Susskind and other very heavy hitters, so If you wish to delve deep into the numbers on YouTube, that's a pretty good start. A regular Astronomy class will go thru some of the maths, but certainly not in the introductory lecture, so my best recommendation is the search term I mentioned. Best of luck, and cheers!
@painxtreme This was more of a response to wavephysics who thinks you can learn everything some of those heavy hitters know simply by searching on the internet. I agree the internet is a start and to learn as much as professionals like Dr Dave, you really must study in depth at an undergraduate and post graduate level. The math equations are horrendous. As Dr. Krauss explained, he has to lie a little each time he does a lecture because the real explanation is in the mathematics.
@Ripley747 Im familiar. My best friend is the Director of Graduate studies in Astrophysics at the University, where disability has placed me in a really limited Emeritus role, and thats fine. Im having an argument with him at lunch tomorrow about Guth.
Anyway, as far as I could tell the poster, other than enrolling, is to use the internet as a starting point. Maybe Susskind's maths will fly right over him, but the concept may grab him, but yes, his intro Astronomy class and others are all here.
@wavepsychic You obviously need a better understanding of Gravity and Physics. Both Jupiter and Saturn are also pulling on the sun with their own gravity. They are locked in their place by gravity and are spinning around it in perfect unison. As long as nothing ruins that, the gravitational forces keep them in place. The tilt of the sun has nothing to do with it. The earth is tilted and the moon doesn't line up with it. Even so space isn't flat, so tilt would effect nothing.
@gangstacrak2 No you misunderstand. The accepted theory has a dust cloud forming into our sun and the planets from a dusty disk. The tilt of the sun disproves this. I'm not the one who claims space is flat. The Einstein cult with there trampoline model claims space is flat and curved by weight. I understand enough about gravity and angular momentum but that doesn't prove the nebula disk model.
@wavepsychic write a scientific paper on your finding, get it peer reviewed, suggest a more plausible model and provide evidence for it, then come back and say the current theory isn't correct.
Simply stating an arbitrary fact and claiming it means something it doesn't is in no way proof that you are right.
American's gotta switch to metric when it comes to science. When your talking about anything in space, it's much better to talk in kelvin, as three different scales for the same thing is a bitch much.
One more note on facts - always problematic when mixing Degrees F and Degrees C - Mercury reaches 430C on the sun side, whereas Venus reaches 465C - both about the same temp. However, you mention one degrees F and the other in degrees C and ask why the temperatures are son different. Still a great seminar though.
Nice seminar - just a factual mistake: "Until the mid-1960's, astronomers believed that Mercury rotated once every 88 Earth days, the same time the planet takes to go around the sun. If Mercury did this, one side of the planet would always face the sun, and the other side would always be dark. However, radar studies conducted in 1965 showed that the planet rotates once in about 59 days."
@Topmostpop Your absolutly fucking insane. Could you please explain to me where you stumbled across this information about angles, satans planet and the earth being recreated. What is your source?
Who said mercury is tidally lucked to the sun, what the hell he is talking about????? it takes 58.646 days for mercury to rotate on it's axis and it take 87.969 days for mercury to rotate the sun, as a result it takes 176 days for mercury to change from night to day and that's very slow but it's not tidally lucked .
@mobinmahmoudi It's not tidally locked to a 1:1 ratio like the Earth's moon, but it is locked in a 3:2 orbital resonance which is result of a similar sort of tidal/orbital interaction
I wish I could find a video of the solar system to scale in orbit? I heard Pluto isn't in line with the other planets and it even crosses the path of other planets. I can't find a single video that shows it. Why are there so many rubbish junior school videos?
@SuzLa1 Even if you cant find a video, you could probably download a free piece of software like Celestia, (or other planetarium/virtual solar system software) and explore for yourself :-) These usually have the orbits of all the planets, as well as a LOT of other useful information.
You are correct though - Pluto's orbit is highly inlined to the plane of the other planets (called the ecliptic), and at times is closer to the sun than Neptune. It doesnt actually "cross paths" though.
sir did y take and make all the measurements yr self ??? if the Earth is orbiting and circling around it self around the sun around the gala, and within the gala etc so how any body make or made any measurements impossible
@ejasem1 I'm not sure I understand. You mean how do we know how fast the Sun is circling the center of the galaxy? Using redshift/blueshift measurements of stars within the galaxy, it's fairly easy to determine our proper motion relative to them, and figure out our speed around the center.
@doctordave Thanks doctordave for your reply. I knew you have a PhD, however, i had to inform Kevin1278, from another site, as he said you were "not even a doctor". Just wanted him to know. And yes, i know i am being small minded.
Can someone explain to me how any kind of explosion produces spheres? All the planets we are aware of are nearly perfect spheres and no big bang can account for this. And why are all stars spheres? Spheres are not randomly naturally occurring shapes any more than cubes are. There shouldn't be one sphere in the universe if all matter came from some gargantuan explosion.
@wbvvmd1234 You are very confused about the Big Bang theory and what it's about. It's about the expansion of the universe as a whole, not the formation of the Solar System and the planets, and event which occurred TEN BILLION YEARS after the initial big bang expansion.
Spheres are not naturally occurring shapes? I reccmend you head to Toys 'R Us and buy a bottle of bubble solution and rethink that comment.
@wbvvmd1234 He briefly mentioned the formation of solar systems at the beggining. Lets just use stars for the example. Simply put, gas from nebulae after a certain point is pushed together by gravity to form an object (bigger object, bigger gravity) and the reason it's a sphere is because if an object was a cube or anything else, it wouldn't be able to hold it self for it is not a good foundation and gravity will push it down until the object is evened out, a sphere. and for the record i'm 13.
@ThyHolySpork Not quite, Spork... planets are round because gravity pulls symmetrically towards the center. It's the same reason that bubbles are round - because the force of air pressure is similarly symmetric. The rotation of the planets makes them NON-spherical!!! (All rotating planets are slightly oblate ellipsoids.)
@doctordave could you direct me to your profile page please? someone on the ashatur (size of planets and stars) site, said you were'nt a doctor. I think he believes there are only doctors of medicine. nextbid.
@doctordave thank you. i think i understand now. i was confused because of TV. however, you and "recoveredperv", who has a degree in geology, and your common sense replies, have cleared me up on the subject. sorry for wasting your time. I did enjoy the subject matter though. yours, nextbid
@recoveredperv sorryy cob. I thought that was from doctordave. As i now apoligise to doctordave as i thought it was him. SO, can you agree with me on the 10,000 metre uplift , at least? P.S Sorry doctordave. (i think you are both wrong) nextbid
@nextbid Yeah - glad someone cleared that up. Anyway, I think you are confusing the geological forces responsible for raising the Colorado Plateau and the erosive forces responsible for digging out the canyon. YouTube doesn't let one post links but u can Google... "The uplift was caused by pressures deep with the Earth and may have been caused by additional conflict between the North American Plates and the Pacific Plates."
... for a page with a detailed account of the geological history.
@WGBraves24 You won't make it in college if you use Wikipedia and try to pass it off as a primary source in a RESEARCH PAPER, but if you want to know what the mass of Jupiter is or what year Einstein died, it's absolutely fine.
@doctordave. ok, i don't want to waste your time because geology isn't your thing, however, if you had have scrolled down on the wikipedia grand canyon page you would have found info on the 'colorado plateau' which uplifted, and steepened the "stream gradient". It goes on.... anyhow, back to space. nextbid
@nextbid exactly - it goes on to say "This uplift has steepened the stream gradient of the Colorado River and its tributaries, which in turn has increased their speed and thus their ability to cut through rock." So geology lifted the surrounding plateau, but the CANYON was cut entirely by the river.
@nextbid Sorry bro, but I have a degree in Geology and the Grand Canyon WAS carved out by the river. The Colorado river carries five times as much sediment as any other river and is basically liquid sandpaper. Also, there is no way NatGeo would support a theory saying the GC is the edge of two continents.
@doctordave. I watched a geography doco on the Grand canyon on Nat Geo. It made sense. Think about it. We would have Grand Canyons everywhere. Please check Nat Geo. nextbid.
you said in your lecture on our solar system ( which i loved ) that the grand canyon was formed by the Colorado river. not true. It was formed by either two continents, or two tectonic plates colliding,pushing up a mountain range, then retracting to leave a vast canyon. Much like when two forces of water meet together, then retreat. No river has, or can leave a canyon that deep.Erosion doesn't take that big apart. Still, i am a fan. Thank you.
@nextbid -First sentence on the Wikipedia entry for Grand Canyon - "The Grand Canyon is a steep-sided gorge carved by the Colorado River in the United States in the state of Arizona."
Care to provide a reference for your alternative claim??
@2SKARX Absolutely. Wikipedia is an EXCELLENT source for basic science information. The articles are usually well sourced, and there is good oversight. Don't believe me? Try to change one!!
It's not an appropriate scholarly source, but it's a great place for basic, widely accepted info.
@koolkatdjsonic21 A gass planet has the same lava, magmatic core that Earth has. In other words, it's already ignited at its core. The only reason it is a "gas" planet, is because it is too big. In other words, in its outter surface, the gravity is much less stronger,because it's much farther away from its center, and so gases form, rather than solid materials.
So I really don't think it can "ignite" into a star. I think stars form themselves strictly in nebulae, but I wouldn't be sure !
U should also have the students mention the cost per mission and the pennies it cost the avg american tax payer--example when MARINER 10 went to Venus and then to Mercury it cost the American Taxpayer about once cent (.01) to do a flyby of Mercury with MARINER 10 in the late 1970s.
are you really being serious, or are you just trying to start some petty argument.
really... there is millions of pieces of sound and definitive scientific evidence proving that the earth rotates around the sun.. the exact axis, speed, angle and everything else you may need to know to prove this can be found all over the internet, in books and lectures, just like this one.
yes i am being serious i just cant find any proof just mathematics hundreds of years old..surely we have proof now? please give me link just cant find any at all
The Earth, Sun, and all the other planets and rocks out there go around the center of gravity of the solar system, called the barycenter. The reason it appears that everything revolves around the Sun is because the Sun is by far the most massive thing in the Solar System. Look up the Center of mass article on Wikipedia for more detail.
@ Magiman2011: Another way to look at it is that the sun is a huge mass which causes gravitational pull on the planets causing them to revolve around it. Just like we have a moon which revolves around us.
The lecturer in the video says that we can see other planets beyond our solar system that also have stars which they revolve around. It's just simple relative mass and gravity.
I think that the gas giants may have formed similar to how the sun formed but with less matter (maybe a failed brown dwarf?) that formed near the sun, caught in the suns gravity so they orbit. Brown dwarfs both exist alone and orbiting a star. The terrestrial may have formed the same way gas the moons of gas giants formed. This is just my theory but this would explain why the gas giants are further out (although other solar systems has hot jupiters - gas giants near their suns)
Guys, don't give people thumbs down just for not knowing something. If someone has a question or in this case, assumes Europa is a planet rather than a moon, it's no reason to smite them. Save it for the Jesus freaks and trolls.
This should be a answer to maxwelldaemon7 question. And thedove67 you are of course right, but in your example the distance will have doubled, we do not change unit of measurement because of that fact. From one light year and up that is.
Every living person should watch Nassim Haramein "Crossing The Event Horizon" in it`s entirety, not just the clips and bits here on Youtube, because of it`s building quality from a-z (å)
@mastersduhgree When I was a child pluto used to be a planet like the rest of them recently they removed pluto from the category now pluto is a dwarf planet, is not fair it should stay in the same category that it was, poor pluto.
@WICKEDMAN9MM The astronomical symbol for Pluto is PL. Some think it stands for Pluto, some think it stands for Percival Lovell. It doesn't, it stands for PLANET, and nothing will ever change that......the bastards......the bastards..............
Ganymede is the biggest moon in the Solar System (which is bigger than Mercury).
With regards to the Earth revolving around the Sun or vice versa, I think I recall my Mechanics lecturer telling us that it is actually impossible to prove mathematically that one goes round the other based on some sort of rotational mechanics and frame of references. I cannot remember exactly what his argument was, but he seemed to know what he was talking about.
I have a question. An often quoted analogy to describe the expansion of the universe is that of an expanding balloon, with points on the balloon representing galaxies. As the balloon expands, the points recede from each other, but doesn't the 'unit' of distance also expand with the balloon, so that the 'distance' between points remain the same? Can anyone care to enlighten me?
The 'unit' remains constant - if your two points on a balloon are say 1cm apart then you blow more air in they might now be 2cm apart, you haven't changed the size of a centimetre just the number of them.
Merci beaucoup, J'adore l'astronomie, et j'ai une recherche réussie n'a pas trouvé d'aide pour enregistrer la découverte, puis je l'ai mis sur le monde
From Santa Claus This year,I asked for a Telescope...I got It and he left a 'Planet and star' book and I find it very interesting.You guys have to get one.Its PERFECT for Science lovers(like me).
I dont think the world is going to end 2012. Yeah, I think that is b.s. But, I do believe there is a Nibiru planet though. Wow, I got 4 negatives for my last comment, thats b.s. too.
@YellowBricks1234 yeah their aint no mathematical chance that their is another planet up their in that vast ,vast outter space,where their may be other organic ,spontaneous combustion creating life ,even
that's because the Earth Spins are a different rate than the moon orbits is, so some nights there isn't a moon visible at all since it's closer to the sun at that time and visible to people how live in a daytimezone. It's also the reason for solar eclipses over now and then,
Ha ha... my wife and I just had a big discussion on this, over earth vs. moon spin and moon orbit vs. moon-earth system orbit... search YouTube for "moon orbit" videos. Short of it is... the moon takes about a month to circle Earth, while Earth rotates each 24 hours. So each night, we get darkness... but some nights, no moon because it's on the sun-side of earth. When it's "waxing" or "waning" into or out of the shadow side, we start seeing part of the moon even in daylight. Google "moonrise."
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I don't what to say except you all have some great imagination, which is a good thing. I bet Albert Einstein had to have had a really good imagination to come up with his theories. Either that or some really good shrooms.
Boy you guys/girls are touchy. My comment was tongue in cheek, thus the winking smiley. And I stand by my comment that in addition to Einstein having a brilliant mind I bet he had a vivid imagination. Most geniuses have both. The vivid imagination allows them to think outside of the box and the brilliant mind allows them to take that idea and possibly come up with a revolutionary theory.
Why does the water freeze on Mars when he said it would evaporate due to the very small atmosphere?
dman68854 2 months ago
@dman68854 Maybe that wasn't clear - I think what I meant to say was that EVEN IF Mars was say 50ºF, the water would quickly evaporate b/c of the very low atmospheric pressure.
doctordave 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Carl Sagan - "Our collective free time needs to shift as much as possible to education. Whether you're a young student or finished school long ago, get out to the library whenever you can and work hard to learn everything you can about this world. Each individual and society will benefit from being able to solve more problems and make better decisions. Education is an amazing discovery process that repays you endlessly."
TheLogicalBrain 3 months ago
Don't forget our other dwarf planets either, if you're including Pluto - Ceres, Haumea, Makemake and Eris (not to mention Orcus, Quauar, etc).
Nice video though, and my comment isn't too relevant, I'm just saying :)
DrMadolite 3 months ago
@DrMadolite I think I talk about all the dwarfs/TNOs in a later lecture... the one where I do asteroids, comets, and the Kupier belt!
doctordave 3 months ago
@doctordave Cool. Well, thanks for the video though, great information. :) Only beef is that it seemed to stop at the middle of Saturn and I didn't see any link to any "part 2".
DrMadolite 3 months ago
Billy Meier - Regarding Nibiru And Other Planets In Our Solar System
rubyilg 1 month ago
@DrMadolite Dear me. He didn't mention Mercury's magnetic field. Could that be an Inconvenient Truth?
tomwduda 2 months ago
@tomwduda What's your point? He included Pluto in "The Planets" of our solar system. That's factually wrong, because Pluto is not a planet, it's a dwarf planet. If he's gonna talk about just the main planets, then there's 8. If he's gonna talk about ALL planets, then there's 8 + 12 or so.
It's not a big deal, but he's being factually wrong. Wouldn't you question someone who told us that the world was flat? Besides, he replied to my comment so it's case closed.
DrMadolite 2 months ago
@DrMadolite My point is that he was describing interesting items about each planet. To have a magnetic field, a planet should have a liquid core. Mercury has a magnetic field but does nave a liquid core.I think that's an interesting item.
tomwduda 2 months ago
@tomwduda "does nave" = "doesn't have" I assume. Ok nvm then, thought you were being sarcastic. But yeah, these contradictions are interesting, they make us rethink how the universe works. For instance, I read somewhere that the Canis Majoris star defies all natural laws, it's simply too large t be a star. And yet it is.
DrMadolite 2 months ago
@tomwduda correction: "...does have a liquid core" should be "... does NOT have a liquid core." My thanks to sharp-eyed DrMadolite for catching my goof. Peer-reviewed comments. Who woulda thunk? :-D
tomwduda 2 months ago
:) Hello in your channel
Lion911199 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fred Bailey has discovered the underlying nataural mechanism that regulates Sunspot production and Climate Change, there is a connection between them but Sunspots have nothing to do with Climate Change, Google solarchords and you will see for yourself
howardsway782 6 months ago
Has anyone worked up a computer visualization of what Earth would resemble if it lost most of its atmosphere and all surface water?
Maybe that would shock us into learning more and taking better care of the planet.
audreyfischer 6 months ago
@doctordave, Can we approximately date WHEN Mars lost the majority of its atmosphere? Could it correlate (coincidentally ; ) with the appearance of even single-celled life on this planet? ...not that i'm suggesting anything (that hasn't been suggested before ; )
audreyfischer 6 months ago
@audreyfischer Mars lost its magnetosphere about 4 billion years ago, which effectively means the atmosphere as a whole, due to the Sun subsequently chipping away the ionosphere etc.
DrMadolite 3 months ago
@doctordave, Can we approximately date WHEN Mars lost the majority of its atmosphere? Could it correlate (coincidentally ; ) with the appearance of even single-celled life on this planet? ...not that i'm suggesting anything.
audreyfischer 6 months ago
teehee ! =D
i luv the obligatory end-of-lecture yawn u could hear in the background as soon as the professor announced he was done .
anywayz , i liked this video . most of the stuff is still very relevant today and some r more so now than they were back when this was made .
pry080513 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"UFO Disclosure A Global Deception Conspiracy" A
YOUTUBE video is a compilation of information revealed
by military politicians, personnel, presidents & astronauts.
I've compiled credible aired news footage, + revealations about
life beyond Earth & the ongoing presence + E.T. contact which has
been hidden from the public for over 50 years + more.
Futurecop2012B 7 months ago
Thank you for sharing doctordave. This video give infomation about planet.
saijai587 7 months ago
This video is very informative about planet
kopi5896 7 months ago
Good video.
minami935 7 months ago
@doctordave I've heard that a newborn star w/it's already formed planets are ejected together from its nebula. Could it be that all our solar system's planets started out w/the same atmosphere and then adjusted (in part) according to their orbit w/the sun (for example hydrogen and helium boiled off terrestrial planets), and then evolved independently with their own unique planetary events? i very much enjoy your lectures!
audreyfischer 7 months ago
WTF
Tenic33 8 months ago
@Searcher4Heaven We see the sun's position relative to the other planets. The sun is always at one of the foci of the ellipse of all solar orbits. I have read the entire Koran and its knowledge of astronomy is primitive and ancient- it was obviously not written by any all-knowing god. I study ancient astronomy at my university, and I can tell you, modern astronomers know far more about the universe than the koran lol
BlueSpirals 8 months ago
@Searcher4Heaven False. We do see the sun's position. The light we receive from it is 8 minutes old, but the sun still emits light and it remains in its position relative to our orbit. The stars we see are actually as they existed thousands to millions of light years ago. Some still exist. Some do not. And the Quran is a very bad source for astronomical information.
BlueSpirals 8 months ago
i love space, so much information, it's never ending, considered that the universe has no boundries :) , nice video man
matthewgroen 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi i like your channel and your videos I just want a little favour from you guys.I am a fourth generation musician. I play an instrument which is called rudraveena. its a dying indian classical instrument. it has a 5000 thousand years old musical history. its a rare indian classical music instrument. it is oldest . Only few people are playing this instrument. So please subscribe and add your comment. It will be a great help for this instrument to survive in hi-tech world. go on binsitar
binsitar 10 months ago
jupiter looks cool
jamilsuriel 11 months ago
yes i think they is life in space
martyboyish 11 months ago
vf=vf-vi (aduetogravity09)(changentime)
junior1984able 11 months ago
Uranus hahaha
jimmy69691000 1 year ago 2
@wavepsychic The small tilts of the Sun and planets' rotational axes relative to the average plane of the SS by no means "disprove" the theories of SS formation. Do you really think you are the first person to have noticed this? Do you really think there aren't astrophysicists who spend their whole careers working on the dynamics of the SS who probably understand the details of the physics involved a little bit better than you do based on the handful of internet videos you've watched?
doctordave 1 year ago
@doctordave I have an idea for wavepsychic, that I would like to submit to the group for peer review. I assert that we deal with him, in much the same manner as Newton dealt with why gravity works as it does...siomply ignore it, him, her.
Show of hands?
painxtreme 6 months ago
What is it with the idiots arguing with this guy? @_@
pokerguy17 1 year ago
If Jupiter is Hydrogen and Helium and that's why it can't be close too the sun then how come every extra solar planet we find is a Jupiter sized star/planet orbiting very close too it's star or sun? So he just said they can't be close and they are close. He also said we don't have any examples of other solar systems but we do have examples of this.
wavepsychic 1 year ago
@wavepsychic That's a good point - this lecture is kind of showing its age. We have many more examples now of what are called "Hot jupiters" - and these close-to-their-star Jovian-type planets posed a big problem for our theories of solar system formation. As I understand it, the latest thinking on "Hot Jupiters" is that they FORM way out where OUR Jupiter is, and for various complicated reasons, migrate inward towards their star during the history of the system.
doctordave 1 year ago
@doctordave I don't know if you are the dude in the video or not but I seriously can't watch this whole video. The standard model doesn't explain anything. There are lots of problems what this lecture. I am wondering what the students are thinking listening too this. It's like they are just sucking it all in and not really thinking about how wrong it sounds.
Why isn't Jupiter or Saturn wondering into the inner solar system? The sun is titled 5 degrees and the planets don't line up with the sun.
wavepsychic 1 year ago
@wavepsychic I am the "dude in the video" and I have a PhD in physics. What, pray tell, are your qualifications to critique the dominant theories of modern astrophysics because you think they "sound wrong"?
doctordave 1 year ago
@doctordave Hello PhD in Physics. Everything you know about the planets in the solar system I have easily learned by looking them up on the internet. I have been too NASA's web site and if you ask me all your PhD means is that you have been brain washed by older men with older views about the Universe. I am not prone too such brain washing. Just because they sound wrong? Do not belittle Philosophy. Your dominate theories make no sense and fail too explain EVERY FACT ABOUT THE PLANETS.
wavepsychic 1 year ago
@wavepsychic First of all, science never claims to explain every fact about anything. That's not how science works. Second of all - philosophy? Philosophy is not how you determine facts about the natural world. Don't agree? Read what Aristotle and Descartes had to say about the reasons planets orbit the Sun.
doctordave 1 year ago
@doctordave He should also read what Feynman said about it "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds." or another one I love. "You need to learn there is a huge difference between knowing the name of something, and knowing it." I paraphrased the 2nd one, cuz its simple enough that I mix up the exact wording, but the first one I know like my name.
Even in death Dr. Feynman is still letting all the air out of the pseudo, and wannabe scientists balloons.
painxtreme 6 months ago
@doctordave Hey! Me too! I totally agree with this wavepsychic dude. I too, know everything you know about physics, just by looking at NASAs website (just like wavepsychic). Can we both get... like.. you know... honorary PhDs in physics and stuff? I surf the net a lot and have a lot of oppinions about stuff. Ive looked up some stuff on existentialism on wikipedia as well, so maybe I can get like a bachelors in philosophy. Like a minor degree and stuff...
(thanks for posting your lecture)
AegisDK 1 year ago
@AegisDK Nicely put, Aegis. I like to think of it this way: I watch a lot of football on TV... Do you think the Jets will let me play in their game against the Colts this weekend? NO?! Why not? What makes them so special? Could it be perhaps that the act of playing football is somewhat more demanding than the process of watching it? I wonder, then, if participating in the act of constructing & evaluating scientific theories might also be somewhat more complicated than reading New Scientist?
doctordave 1 year ago
@doctordave Excuse me Dr., I was under the impression that astronomers had found Jupiter-mass planets, not Jupiter-like planets. Have I missed something in the popular journals, or on the web? Have we been able to get spectra on their atmospheres?
washmlakid 1 year ago
@washmlakid not that I know of... I think I was just using "jupiterlike" as short hand for similar size/mass/orbit. Although I can't think of too many reasons we would expect the composition of jupiter-sized exoplanets to be too terribly different from Jupiter!
doctordave 1 year ago
@doctordave Just speculating, why necessarily similar? Could there not be Jupiter- mass terrestrial planets? I haven't seen the studies, I have a B.S. in Physics not in Astronomy, but I don't know of a reason. It would go far towards explaining why the ones we've found are so massive and so close to the star. Could it possibly be a 'failed' binary falling into its twin? If possible, could you direct me to where I might find the info? Thank you.
washmlakid 1 year ago
@doctordave It would be rather difficult for a terrestrial planet to survive at Jupiter's size, no? Then again, Ive mentioned before, Science for a long time figured our Solar System to be the model for any others that may exist, so until confirmed otherwise, Id say there likely isnt a precise model of a standard planetary system, yet there may and will likely be marked similarities in some ways.
painxtreme 6 months ago
I dont think we can get enough light from them to do a spectral analysis. First, its star, in addition to being bright to the point of obscuring the planet in light, by that same token would also influence/contaminate the spectrum of a body near it...again if you can get it. Perhaps in the newest gen of space scopes or the giant mirror in Chilé will get us closer, or even to that, but as of now, I do not believe they can get that data on such a dim body next to a high magnitude body.
painxtreme 6 months ago
@doctordave I also might add there's a lot in astronomy that isn't necessarily spelled out on the internet. The in depth mathematics, what equations to use, or how to interpret those equations. There's way more to astronomy than classifying stars and planets. I'd like to see that clown deal with the math on a simple 3 body problem or deal with the statistics of light reflection from within a nebula. It seems simple but gets really complicated really quick.
Ripley747 11 months ago
@Ripley747 Ripley, if you wish to know the maths in as in-depth a way you'd like to find, the search term "Astrophysics" will yield better results. It is full of lectures by Leonard Susskind and other very heavy hitters, so If you wish to delve deep into the numbers on YouTube, that's a pretty good start. A regular Astronomy class will go thru some of the maths, but certainly not in the introductory lecture, so my best recommendation is the search term I mentioned. Best of luck, and cheers!
painxtreme 9 months ago
@painxtreme This was more of a response to wavephysics who thinks you can learn everything some of those heavy hitters know simply by searching on the internet. I agree the internet is a start and to learn as much as professionals like Dr Dave, you really must study in depth at an undergraduate and post graduate level. The math equations are horrendous. As Dr. Krauss explained, he has to lie a little each time he does a lecture because the real explanation is in the mathematics.
Ripley747 9 months ago
@Ripley747 Im familiar. My best friend is the Director of Graduate studies in Astrophysics at the University, where disability has placed me in a really limited Emeritus role, and thats fine. Im having an argument with him at lunch tomorrow about Guth.
Anyway, as far as I could tell the poster, other than enrolling, is to use the internet as a starting point. Maybe Susskind's maths will fly right over him, but the concept may grab him, but yes, his intro Astronomy class and others are all here.
painxtreme 6 months ago
@wavepsychic You obviously need a better understanding of Gravity and Physics. Both Jupiter and Saturn are also pulling on the sun with their own gravity. They are locked in their place by gravity and are spinning around it in perfect unison. As long as nothing ruins that, the gravitational forces keep them in place. The tilt of the sun has nothing to do with it. The earth is tilted and the moon doesn't line up with it. Even so space isn't flat, so tilt would effect nothing.
gangstacrak2 1 year ago
@gangstacrak2 No you misunderstand. The accepted theory has a dust cloud forming into our sun and the planets from a dusty disk. The tilt of the sun disproves this. I'm not the one who claims space is flat. The Einstein cult with there trampoline model claims space is flat and curved by weight. I understand enough about gravity and angular momentum but that doesn't prove the nebula disk model.
wavepsychic 1 year ago
@wavepsychic write a scientific paper on your finding, get it peer reviewed, suggest a more plausible model and provide evidence for it, then come back and say the current theory isn't correct.
Simply stating an arbitrary fact and claiming it means something it doesn't is in no way proof that you are right.
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago
hey, your lectures are great, you explain things with such ease, i've been watching a lot of them and understood a whole lot, thanks!
vladamirrrr 1 year ago
Wow at 52:14 is a bum !
jacqueslewandowski 1 year ago
IS THERE ANOTHER PLANET IN THE INFRA RED THAT THEY CALL THE DOOMS DAY PLANET IT IS SUPPOSE TO GET TO EARTH I N THE YEAT 2012
1bolderman1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I can meet naughty women tonight mworld5.info
LorettaBiggs 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do not depurate be happy with naughty women mworld5.info
drhfhfvxdvx 1 year ago
American's gotta switch to metric when it comes to science. When your talking about anything in space, it's much better to talk in kelvin, as three different scales for the same thing is a bitch much.
MikDonsen 1 year ago
One more note on facts - always problematic when mixing Degrees F and Degrees C - Mercury reaches 430C on the sun side, whereas Venus reaches 465C - both about the same temp. However, you mention one degrees F and the other in degrees C and ask why the temperatures are son different. Still a great seminar though.
TheAlepulp 1 year ago
Nice seminar - just a factual mistake: "Until the mid-1960's, astronomers believed that Mercury rotated once every 88 Earth days, the same time the planet takes to go around the sun. If Mercury did this, one side of the planet would always face the sun, and the other side would always be dark. However, radar studies conducted in 1965 showed that the planet rotates once in about 59 days."
TheAlepulp 1 year ago
@Topmostpop Your absolutly fucking insane. Could you please explain to me where you stumbled across this information about angles, satans planet and the earth being recreated. What is your source?
Factsnotfaith 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Topmostpop
HOLY SHIT PEOPLE , NEW AMAZING FUCKING DISCOVERY
GO TO YOUTUBE USER : XKUNX
NEW PLANET FOUND SEPTEMBER 29 2010 THAT SCIENTISTS SAY IS NEAR 100% CHANCE TO SUPPORT LIFE
WATER FOUND, TEMPERATURES THE SAME AS EARTH
THUMBS UP TO SUPPORT AND GET AWARENESS OUT THERE
THIS IS HOT STUFF
XaosKunKillYourself 1 year ago
@Topmostpop Wow. Just... wow. Angels huh? Are you posting this mesasge from the 13th century??
doctordave 1 year ago 10
@doctordave haha good response even though that woo woo doesn't deserve one
WalterWalkie 1 year ago
Allah is our Creator and I'm sure that modern science will discover all the facts that are in Quran!
sweetgona91 1 year ago
Who said mercury is tidally lucked to the sun, what the hell he is talking about????? it takes 58.646 days for mercury to rotate on it's axis and it take 87.969 days for mercury to rotate the sun, as a result it takes 176 days for mercury to change from night to day and that's very slow but it's not tidally lucked .
mobinmahmoudi 1 year ago
@mobinmahmoudi It's not tidally locked to a 1:1 ratio like the Earth's moon, but it is locked in a 3:2 orbital resonance which is result of a similar sort of tidal/orbital interaction
doctordave 1 year ago
@doctordave Does the sun even have tides?
wavepsychic 1 year ago
I wish I could find a video of the solar system to scale in orbit? I heard Pluto isn't in line with the other planets and it even crosses the path of other planets. I can't find a single video that shows it. Why are there so many rubbish junior school videos?
SuzLa1 1 year ago
@SuzLa1 Even if you cant find a video, you could probably download a free piece of software like Celestia, (or other planetarium/virtual solar system software) and explore for yourself :-) These usually have the orbits of all the planets, as well as a LOT of other useful information.
You are correct though - Pluto's orbit is highly inlined to the plane of the other planets (called the ecliptic), and at times is closer to the sun than Neptune. It doesnt actually "cross paths" though.
ferrett78 1 year ago
sir did y take and make all the measurements yr self ??? if the Earth is orbiting and circling around it self around the sun around the gala, and within the gala etc so how any body make or made any measurements impossible
ejasem1 1 year ago
@ejasem1 I'm not sure I understand. You mean how do we know how fast the Sun is circling the center of the galaxy? Using redshift/blueshift measurements of stars within the galaxy, it's fairly easy to determine our proper motion relative to them, and figure out our speed around the center.
doctordave 1 year ago
@TheSnowboardbunny Yeah. There's a plan that always works. Look how good it was for Galileo. We haven't learned anything at all since 1632, have we?
doctordave 1 year ago 11
@doctordave Thanks doctordave for your reply. I knew you have a PhD, however, i had to inform Kevin1278, from another site, as he said you were "not even a doctor". Just wanted him to know. And yes, i know i am being small minded.
nextbid 1 year ago
gravity
yeahdoworkson 1 year ago
Can someone explain to me how any kind of explosion produces spheres? All the planets we are aware of are nearly perfect spheres and no big bang can account for this. And why are all stars spheres? Spheres are not randomly naturally occurring shapes any more than cubes are. There shouldn't be one sphere in the universe if all matter came from some gargantuan explosion.
wbvvmd1234 1 year ago
@wbvvmd1234 You are very confused about the Big Bang theory and what it's about. It's about the expansion of the universe as a whole, not the formation of the Solar System and the planets, and event which occurred TEN BILLION YEARS after the initial big bang expansion.
Spheres are not naturally occurring shapes? I reccmend you head to Toys 'R Us and buy a bottle of bubble solution and rethink that comment.
doctordave 1 year ago
Comment removed
bbvproductions 1 year ago
@wbvvmd1234 He briefly mentioned the formation of solar systems at the beggining. Lets just use stars for the example. Simply put, gas from nebulae after a certain point is pushed together by gravity to form an object (bigger object, bigger gravity) and the reason it's a sphere is because if an object was a cube or anything else, it wouldn't be able to hold it self for it is not a good foundation and gravity will push it down until the object is evened out, a sphere. and for the record i'm 13.
bbvproductions 1 year ago
@bbvproductions Ha! Nice answer for 13... rock on, bbv!
doctordave 1 year ago
@wbvvmd1234 The planets are spheres because they spin on an axis. If they didn't spin, they might not be so spherical.
ThyHolySpork 1 year ago
@ThyHolySpork Not quite, Spork... planets are round because gravity pulls symmetrically towards the center. It's the same reason that bubbles are round - because the force of air pressure is similarly symmetric. The rotation of the planets makes them NON-spherical!!! (All rotating planets are slightly oblate ellipsoids.)
doctordave 1 year ago
so when did the asstronauts discover uranus
jayguy173 1 year ago
could the pull of jupiter on the sun be the cause of the earths ice ages?
RemnantsOfBeauty 1 year ago
Put legends, man. and than, we can translate to my language, portuguese.
vinnytche 1 year ago
I can't watch this. I wish I were physically in this class. What a bunch of lucky nerds. I wish I were a nerd.
megamunchit2008 1 year ago
nibiru, crazy star uk feb 4 , 2010
maglectric 1 year ago
@doctordave could you direct me to your profile page please? someone on the ashatur (size of planets and stars) site, said you were'nt a doctor. I think he believes there are only doctors of medicine. nextbid.
nextbid 1 year ago
@nextbid I have a PhD in physics... doctor of philosophy, not doctor of medicine!
doctordave 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
nextbid 1 year ago
Is it possible that Jupiter has pulled Mars away from the sun?
tronthor91 1 year ago
@tronthor91 Every planet pulls on every other planet, so none of the orbits are precise ellipses. But the perturbations are small.
doctordave 1 year ago
@tronthor91 sure, if the pull from the sun weren't 6000some times more than the pull of Jupiter.
slayerkid0196 1 year ago
@doctordave thank you. i think i understand now. i was confused because of TV. however, you and "recoveredperv", who has a degree in geology, and your common sense replies, have cleared me up on the subject. sorry for wasting your time. I did enjoy the subject matter though. yours, nextbid
nextbid 1 year ago
@recoveredperv sorryy cob. I thought that was from doctordave. As i now apoligise to doctordave as i thought it was him. SO, can you agree with me on the 10,000 metre uplift , at least? P.S Sorry doctordave. (i think you are both wrong) nextbid
nextbid 1 year ago
@nextbid Yeah - glad someone cleared that up. Anyway, I think you are confusing the geological forces responsible for raising the Colorado Plateau and the erosive forces responsible for digging out the canyon. YouTube doesn't let one post links but u can Google... "The uplift was caused by pressures deep with the Earth and may have been caused by additional conflict between the North American Plates and the Pacific Plates."
... for a page with a detailed account of the geological history.
doctordave 1 year ago
Comment removed
nextbid 1 year ago
:O 1h 19mins long vid O.o
Minilantz1 1 year ago
You wouldn't make it in college if you use Wikipedia. :(
WGBraves24 1 year ago
@WGBraves24 You won't make it in college if you use Wikipedia and try to pass it off as a primary source in a RESEARCH PAPER, but if you want to know what the mass of Jupiter is or what year Einstein died, it's absolutely fine.
doctordave 1 year ago
@doctordave. ok, i don't want to waste your time because geology isn't your thing, however, if you had have scrolled down on the wikipedia grand canyon page you would have found info on the 'colorado plateau' which uplifted, and steepened the "stream gradient". It goes on.... anyhow, back to space. nextbid
nextbid 1 year ago
@nextbid exactly - it goes on to say "This uplift has steepened the stream gradient of the Colorado River and its tributaries, which in turn has increased their speed and thus their ability to cut through rock." So geology lifted the surrounding plateau, but the CANYON was cut entirely by the river.
doctordave 1 year ago
@doctordave. Ok, I'll try and find the doco and the scientists involved. you can argue it out with them. nextbid.
nextbid 1 year ago
@nextbid Sorry bro, but I have a degree in Geology and the Grand Canyon WAS carved out by the river. The Colorado river carries five times as much sediment as any other river and is basically liquid sandpaper. Also, there is no way NatGeo would support a theory saying the GC is the edge of two continents.
recoveredperv 1 year ago
@doctordave. I watched a geography doco on the Grand canyon on Nat Geo. It made sense. Think about it. We would have Grand Canyons everywhere. Please check Nat Geo. nextbid.
nextbid 1 year ago
you said in your lecture on our solar system ( which i loved ) that the grand canyon was formed by the Colorado river. not true. It was formed by either two continents, or two tectonic plates colliding,pushing up a mountain range, then retracting to leave a vast canyon. Much like when two forces of water meet together, then retreat. No river has, or can leave a canyon that deep.Erosion doesn't take that big apart. Still, i am a fan. Thank you.
nextbid 1 year ago
@nextbid -First sentence on the Wikipedia entry for Grand Canyon - "The Grand Canyon is a steep-sided gorge carved by the Colorado River in the United States in the state of Arizona."
Care to provide a reference for your alternative claim??
doctordave 1 year ago
@doctordave u use wikipedia?
2SKARX 1 year ago
@2SKARX Absolutely. Wikipedia is an EXCELLENT source for basic science information. The articles are usually well sourced, and there is good oversight. Don't believe me? Try to change one!!
It's not an appropriate scholarly source, but it's a great place for basic, widely accepted info.
doctordave 1 year ago
@doctordave thanks il keep that in mind
2SKARX 1 year ago
is it possible that one of the gas giants could ignite and maybe become a star of sorts???
koolkatdjsonic21 1 year ago
@koolkatdjsonic21 A gass planet has the same lava, magmatic core that Earth has. In other words, it's already ignited at its core. The only reason it is a "gas" planet, is because it is too big. In other words, in its outter surface, the gravity is much less stronger,because it's much farther away from its center, and so gases form, rather than solid materials.
So I really don't think it can "ignite" into a star. I think stars form themselves strictly in nebulae, but I wouldn't be sure !
nunoooooooooo 1 year ago
nibiru is a scare tactic to make you shop at asda according to obama l0l
seriouslyhatecampers 1 year ago
@carterfamily8903 Agree
mastersduhgree 1 year ago
@goldangel100 u have to be a YT partner to post oer 10:00 vids
Awesub 1 year ago
What a cool assignment, I wish my physics/astro prof had given us a project like that.
oo1cookie 1 year ago
is this a college class???????????????????????
LilxYoungsta 1 year ago
i thought the temp of mercury facing the sun was much hoter than 450 degrees farenhiet
missionblank1 1 year ago
U should also have the students mention the cost per mission and the pennies it cost the avg american tax payer--example when MARINER 10 went to Venus and then to Mercury it cost the American Taxpayer about once cent (.01) to do a flyby of Mercury with MARINER 10 in the late 1970s.
rangeclerk 1 year ago
lol
ashleyambush1999 1 year ago
google Does Account, mindblowing.
travismalk 1 year ago
I have question cant find answer to
In this age of high tech i would have thought there would definitive proof but cant find any
Is there any absolute evidence /proof the earth goes round the sun and not the sun goes round the earth?
Magiman2011 1 year ago
are you really being serious, or are you just trying to start some petty argument.
really... there is millions of pieces of sound and definitive scientific evidence proving that the earth rotates around the sun.. the exact axis, speed, angle and everything else you may need to know to prove this can be found all over the internet, in books and lectures, just like this one.
buki0o 1 year ago
yes i am being serious i just cant find any proof just mathematics hundreds of years old..surely we have proof now? please give me link just cant find any at all
Magiman2011 1 year ago
@Magiman2011
The Earth, Sun, and all the other planets and rocks out there go around the center of gravity of the solar system, called the barycenter. The reason it appears that everything revolves around the Sun is because the Sun is by far the most massive thing in the Solar System. Look up the Center of mass article on Wikipedia for more detail.
ZeroRed78 1 year ago
@ Magiman2011: Another way to look at it is that the sun is a huge mass which causes gravitational pull on the planets causing them to revolve around it. Just like we have a moon which revolves around us.
alexandradeufemia 1 year ago
The lecturer in the video says that we can see other planets beyond our solar system that also have stars which they revolve around. It's just simple relative mass and gravity.
leolibrizzi 1 year ago
iMmmmmm
abson1234 1 year ago
I think that the gas giants may have formed similar to how the sun formed but with less matter (maybe a failed brown dwarf?) that formed near the sun, caught in the suns gravity so they orbit. Brown dwarfs both exist alone and orbiting a star. The terrestrial may have formed the same way gas the moons of gas giants formed. This is just my theory but this would explain why the gas giants are further out (although other solar systems has hot jupiters - gas giants near their suns)
bandet888 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
my dick is a sun that you want to see everyday
ninyo213 1 year ago
Guys, don't give people thumbs down just for not knowing something. If someone has a question or in this case, assumes Europa is a planet rather than a moon, it's no reason to smite them. Save it for the Jesus freaks and trolls.
VanKlaunch 1 year ago
This should be a answer to maxwelldaemon7 question. And thedove67 you are of course right, but in your example the distance will have doubled, we do not change unit of measurement because of that fact. From one light year and up that is.
Every living person should watch Nassim Haramein "Crossing The Event Horizon" in it`s entirety, not just the clips and bits here on Youtube, because of it`s building quality from a-z (å)
KrapylN 1 year ago
poor pluto it gets no respect
HappyBirthdaySANTA 1 year ago 28
@HappyBirthdaySANTA Was pluto removed from the planet catagory here recently?
mastersduhgree 1 year ago
@mastersduhgree When I was a child pluto used to be a planet like the rest of them recently they removed pluto from the category now pluto is a dwarf planet, is not fair it should stay in the same category that it was, poor pluto.
WICKEDMAN9MM 1 year ago
@WICKEDMAN9MM Yeah....mickey really misses him.
mastersduhgree 1 year ago
@WICKEDMAN9MM The astronomical symbol for Pluto is PL. Some think it stands for Pluto, some think it stands for Percival Lovell. It doesn't, it stands for PLANET, and nothing will ever change that......the bastards......the bastards..............
gamesbok 1 year ago
@HappyBirthdaySANTA It deserves no respect, it has fleas
yatter1 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
mm europa thats a planet that i not now
ashiq2800 2 years ago
@ashiq2800 Europa is a Moon
CDSUCHI 1 year ago
No i´m afraid you are Wrong:
(no offense ;-)
Europa is the second Moon of Jupiter.
The others are: Io, Ganymede and Kallisto (which is the biggest moon in our Solar System.)
Actually, Kallisto is even bigger than Mercury.
I hope I could help :-)
sasquatsch9 1 year ago
Ganymede is the biggest moon in the Solar System (which is bigger than Mercury).
With regards to the Earth revolving around the Sun or vice versa, I think I recall my Mechanics lecturer telling us that it is actually impossible to prove mathematically that one goes round the other based on some sort of rotational mechanics and frame of references. I cannot remember exactly what his argument was, but he seemed to know what he was talking about.
However we all know Earth rotates around the sun.
244289 1 year ago
@244289
Actually it can not rotate in a cicrcle.
Maybe he was referrimng to that.
Planet do not move in circles.
schusterlehrling 1 year ago
I have a question. An often quoted analogy to describe the expansion of the universe is that of an expanding balloon, with points on the balloon representing galaxies. As the balloon expands, the points recede from each other, but doesn't the 'unit' of distance also expand with the balloon, so that the 'distance' between points remain the same? Can anyone care to enlighten me?
maxwellsdaemon7 2 years ago
The 'unit' remains constant - if your two points on a balloon are say 1cm apart then you blow more air in they might now be 2cm apart, you haven't changed the size of a centimetre just the number of them.
thedove67 2 years ago 3
Merci beaucoup, J'adore l'astronomie, et j'ai une recherche réussie n'a pas trouvé d'aide pour enregistrer la découverte, puis je l'ai mis sur le monde
mekrez26000 2 years ago
From Santa Claus This year,I asked for a Telescope...I got It and he left a 'Planet and star' book and I find it very interesting.You guys have to get one.Its PERFECT for Science lovers(like me).
LadyGagaPopstar 2 years ago 3
I asked for Mars but I didn't get it :( Ah well maybe next year. Then again he'd have a bit of trouble getting Mars down the chimney.
BogMonkey53 2 years ago
Mercury is not "melty" inside. Nice and scientific! Just kidding, nice intro lecture.
ikedasquid 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
رغم كل العلوم والبحوث والإكتشافات، يبقى الثابت الذي يتغير ولا يزول هو(لايعلم الغيب إلاّ الله)والسّاعة علمها عند الله.
mekrez26000 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Where is Nibiru? I thought there was 12 planets?
schang39 2 years ago
Nibru is a fake planet made for people to believe the world would end in 2012. Clearly an utter lie.
YellowBricks1234 2 years ago 42
I dont think the world is going to end 2012. Yeah, I think that is b.s. But, I do believe there is a Nibiru planet though. Wow, I got 4 negatives for my last comment, thats b.s. too.
schang39 2 years ago
@YellowBricks1234 yeah their aint no mathematical chance that their is another planet up their in that vast ,vast outter space,where their may be other organic ,spontaneous combustion creating life ,even
Ibalon2012 1 year ago
Why is it I see the Moon at night and when I wake up in the morning its still there?
HabboJustinSkate 2 years ago
Notice it changed position, to our perspective, its orbit around the earth follows our orbit around the sun.
ocean514 2 years ago
that's because the Earth Spins are a different rate than the moon orbits is, so some nights there isn't a moon visible at all since it's closer to the sun at that time and visible to people how live in a daytimezone. It's also the reason for solar eclipses over now and then,
Defhrone 2 years ago
Ha ha... my wife and I just had a big discussion on this, over earth vs. moon spin and moon orbit vs. moon-earth system orbit... search YouTube for "moon orbit" videos. Short of it is... the moon takes about a month to circle Earth, while Earth rotates each 24 hours. So each night, we get darkness... but some nights, no moon because it's on the sun-side of earth. When it's "waxing" or "waning" into or out of the shadow side, we start seeing part of the moon even in daylight. Google "moonrise."
jackster1212 2 years ago
Because it's probably not 9am when you wake up.
YellowBricks1234 2 years ago
to ZombieCobain my teacher said Neptune was the 8th planet
YukiXia55 2 years ago
Aw man, where's Neptune and the 7th planet? (I am not typing it's name to avoid the sub-moron making a joke about it's name).
ZombieCobain 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Total waste of my life!!!!!!!
beanieostrich 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I don't what to say except you all have some great imagination, which is a good thing. I bet Albert Einstein had to have had a really good imagination to come up with his theories. Either that or some really good shrooms.
;-)
000grungehead000 2 years ago
Boy you guys/girls are touchy. My comment was tongue in cheek, thus the winking smiley. And I stand by my comment that in addition to Einstein having a brilliant mind I bet he had a vivid imagination. Most geniuses have both. The vivid imagination allows them to think outside of the box and the brilliant mind allows them to take that idea and possibly come up with a revolutionary theory.
000grungehead000 2 years ago 9
I'm sure of one thing, Earth is not my home, still looking for my pathway to go back home; unless someone takes me there. (Wish.)
sakidata 2 years ago 2
Supercoooll
CrucifixtionPain 2 years ago
Damn I didn't think I would have to put together a powerpoint presentation!
bustermk2 2 years ago
i allways loved astronomu for some reason its just so great
maruse55 2 years ago