Jupiter - Sixty Symbols

[93130chris]

UFO outside the window at 1:50

[MiniclipAddict]

@93130chris that would be a car

[esbendit]

Actually it was not Cassini that discoverd the speed of light, but another astronomer named Ole Rømer, he proved this by predicting that cassini's precittion of the position of the jovian moons would be 10 minutes of half a year into the future. he sucseded in both the prediction, and in insultin cassini

[stardude692001]

the center is actually metallic hydrogen then liquid hydrogen then gas.

[samhell4]

its liquid inside due to the imance presure on the gas

[conversebuddy93]

Press 1 for nut shot.

[soberek]

"All These Worlds Are Yours Except Europa. Attempt No Landing There. Use Them Together. Use Them in Peace"

[JosiePika]

There might be life on Europa...? o.o

[ytmoog]

@JosiePika

Possibly, it is thought it may have liquid water under all that ice.

And if there is some form of geothermal energy similar to the deep sea geothermal vents on earth then there could potentially be some form of life down there.

Be nice to know for sure.

[whiterottenrabbit]

Dammit... Brady, why didn't you correct the aspect ratio @ around 3:17?

[HalobravoJJ]

She sure likes big things eh ;3

[1KevinsFamousChili1]

@HalobravoJJ not what i expect on a science video :P but funny none the less

[76special]

this stuff is fascinating.

[Trapmaker677]

jupiter got skin cancer

[andersvj]

It was Roemer who calculated the speed of light from Jupiter's moons.

[DomIstKrieg]

jupiter sounds like hell. Not a good place to live.

[isop9021]

cassini? it was definately roemer who thought this concept up and indeed the one who "measured" the speed of light

i think i recall that cassini didn't believe light was finitely fast......then again i could be wrong, not too sure about that one :S

[xan778]

I saw Jupiter the other night with my telescope with its 4 moons, its was the only thing visible in the sky with the naked eye at that time. It was amazing

[Nyphur]

@xan778 Those would probably have been the galilean moons, which are the four biggest and so easiest to see with a normal telescope. There are 59 smaller moons orbitting Jupiter :o

[RareNoiseUploads]

Would these gas stripes on Jupiter be a kind of massive "Brazil Nut Effect"?

[Serostern]

2:56

Damn.

Her eyes are awesome.

I kind of forgot about the rest of the video =P

[NoctisEreptor]

0: 20 Most massive? Why can't yanks say biggest?

[Spudtion]

@NoctisEreptor

There is a difference between size (volume) and mass (amount of matter). 'Bigness' is ambiguous.

Interesting to note, adding more mass to Jupiter could actually make it smaller, due to increased compression.

[NoctisEreptor]

@Spudtion Incorrect Biggest refers to volume. Most massive can replaced by one word, biggest. A cardboard box can be bigger than a mass of lead but it has less mass thus weighs less. The Box is bigger than the lead which weighs more, due to gravity at 9.81m/s2.

[Spudtion]

@NoctisEreptor You contradicted yourself there.

If the box is bigger but has less mass, then 'most massive' cannot be replaced by 'biggest'.

After digging a bit more, it does seem that 'big' mostly refers to spatial dimensions, but that doesn't change the difference between volume and mass.

Case in point, Jupiter is 1.5 times 'bigger', in volume, whereas it has 2.5 times as much mass as the rest of the planets added up.

[NoctisEreptor]

@Spudtion So you argee that most massive is more easily replaced with the word biggest.

[Spudtion]

@NoctisEreptor No.

Biggest refers to volume, whereas massive (at least in this context) refers to mass.

[NoctisEreptor]

@Spudtion I think we'll have to agree to disagree there.

[Spudtion]

@NoctisEreptor

I will not agree that your point of view is valid (if it were, the video would be in error), though I am willing to drop the subject.

[NoctisEreptor]

@Spudtion Yes there's never been an incoeerct video on You Tube has there, that's the law isn't it? So yes you are correct.

[Juxtaroberto]

@NoctisEreptor Well considering they're asking university professors, I doubt this video contains misinformation.

[NoctisEreptor]

@Juxtaroberto Yes they're NEVER wrong are they? You are not a city banker are you?

[Juxtaroberto]

@NoctisEreptor They're not discussing economics, or some other complex system. This is a matter of simply physics. It's either true, or it isn't. And you ARE wrong. Volume refers to the amount of space something takes up, or the dimensions it occupies. You look how far it goes into the x, y, and z axes. It doesn't matter if you put a compact solid inside, or a diffuse gas, the volume is the same. The mass depends on the actual amount of atoms in there.

[Skaarjguy]

@NoctisEreptor You can't really tell what profession someone is through their comments.

But you CAN tell how intelligent they are, and right now you're looking like a complete idiot.

What is it with science videos that attracts people like you, anyway?

[Skaarjguy]

@NoctisEreptor But really, with physics you always have a very slim chance of being right about a lot of things. We are extremely limited by human brain capacity, after all.

Even most of Einstein's theories haven't really been completely proven, hence why they're called "theories." The only reason so many people happen to use them because they just work with most things that relate to them. It's not really misinformation if even the full-time guys don't know if our theories of physics are true.

[moonasha]

@Skaarjguy are you saying that general and special relativity aren't proven? You are sadly mistaken.

[Skaarjguy]

@moonasha Did you know Einstein came up with Special Relativity because it can explain some things that General Relativity fails to explain? Why did he need two versions of relativity, then, if General Relativity wasn't able to explain everything on its own?

[moonasha]

@Skaarjguy You are so misinformed. First of all, Einstein came up with special relativity first. Special relativity has to do with time dilation, reference frames, the speed of light and other shit like e=mc^2.

General relativity, which came over a decade later, has to do with gravity, basically saying gravity results from the interaction of matter with spacetime.

You want proof of general relativity, look at mercury's orbit, or how stars are "moved" in the sky during a total solar eclipse.

[Skaarjguy]

@moonasha Wait, what? I've never heard of that solar eclipse thing. I was probably reading off of Wikipedia again. That's some interesting stuff.

[gamesbok]

@Skaarjguy That's utter crap. Special relativity is just a generalisation on the implications of Maxwell's equasions. General relativity, which is way deeper, mathematically far more complex, involves shit loads more hard work, but accounts for space-time interactions with gravity.

[NoctisEreptor]

@Skaarjguy True but I still think heavier IS a BETTER word than most massive.

[Skaarjguy]

@NoctisEreptor Is that what you were arguing about? I didn't bother to read the entire argument, it took up more than a whole page.

[NoctisEreptor]

@Skaarjguy There's the crux of the problem right there " I didn't bother to read the entire argument" sounds like a typical Yank!

[Skaarjguy]

@NoctisEreptor Your attempt to turn this into a "Americans are stupid" argument has caused me to want to stop talking to you.

[NoctisEreptor]

@Skaarjguy Well that has cheered me up no end!

[puncheex]

@Skaarjguy: (Here we go again). A theory is a provisional explanation for a body of facts (observations). The theory must delineate which facts it covers and which it doesn't. It is always provisional because there is always the chance that a new observation which should be covered by the theory is not; for example, Newton's Theory of Gravity was completely true for all known cases until Mercury's orbit was found to deviate. This led Einstein to SR, which explained the discrepancy.

[puncheex]

... To the best of my knowledge, Einstein's Sr and GR have, so far, passed all test thrown against it, met all predictions. GR has some competition, but so far it is ahead of it. But they are still theories, and will be until we can state that we know everything in the universe. What are the chances?

[Nyphur]

@NoctisEreptor "Most massive" means "has the greatest mass". "Biggest" means "has the greatest volume". Mass and volume are two separate quantities, so the phrases are not equivalent. In physics, you have to use the right word so people know what you mean. For example, two theoretical planets can exist where one is the biggest (greatest volume in m3) but the other is the most massive (greatest mass in kg). The former would have a low density while the latter would have a much higher density.

[NoctisEreptor]

@Nyphur so what you’re saying is that the statement “Jupiter is the biggest planet in our solar system" is an inaccurate statement? What your saying is that Jupiter is NOT the biggest planet in our solar system, if so which one is?

[Nyphur]

@NoctisEreptor No, that's not what I'm saying. Jupiter is both the biggest (greatest volume) planet in our solar system and the most massive (greatest mass). I'm simply pointing out that the two phrases refer to completely separate quantities and cannot be interchanged. They mean two completely different things. The biggest planet in a given solar system is not necessarily going to be the most massive and vice versa. That just happens to be true for our particular solar system.

[NoctisEreptor]

@Nyphur Right OK I think what we're going to have to do here is agree to disagree.

[Nyphur]

@NoctisEreptor You can agree to disagree all you like, you're provably wrong. These are definable facts. The terms mean two different very specific things in a scientific context.

[NoctisEreptor]

@Nyphur Yes yes i'm sure.

[ferrett78]

@Nyphur If you want an example where biggest and most massive are different, you could always use stars. Currently the biggest (largest volume) known star is VY Canis Majoris, with a radius of 1800-2100 solar radii... While the most massive is the recently measured R136a1 which weighs in around 265-320 Solar masses (VY Canis Majoris is estimated at 30-40).

[puncheex]

@NoctisEreptor: No, it isn't. In Jupiter's case it happens to be true, but it would be easy to construct cases where the most voluminous is not the most massive and vice-versa. Precision in science is important, and if you get sloppy with Jupiter your bad habit could be embarrassing in another context.

[NoctisEreptor]

@puncheex Yes yes I'm sure.

[rhn94]

failed star ...

[Planetary0]

And the very next month after this video was released, Jupiter got hit again!

[G3org3Master]

subscribed.

[robotwarsfan03]

Jupiter's the ultimate planet :D

my fav planet with Uranus and Venus :3

[SoadBYOB9]

she looks like the girl from the office

[flutist218]

You folks ROCK!! Thanks for teaching me.

[desiredusername]

Cassini figured out that the moons' time error was due to the speed of light? I thought it was Ole Roemer. I know Roemer is the one who used that to *calculate* c.

[harshm2u]

Yeah, it WAS Roemer who suggested the same. It was mentioned in one of Feynman's books (I guess).

[rufusqaz]

would they come out the otherside of jupiter or would they form a solid core??

[Ralajer]

@rufusqaz: From what I understand Jupiter has a metallic hydrogen core. The theory is that the hydrogen is so gravitationally compressed that it becomes solid. So you sure probably stay in the outer atmosphere when you go to visit.

[Ralajer]

*sure ~ should

[robertwc82]

is this metallic hydrogen something that can be observed on earth?

genuinely curious, not trying to be smart

[Ralajer]

@robertwc82

Not an expert on the subject but the wiki article says that it has been created experimentally on the earth.

[harshm2u]

Due to VERY intense pressure, it will be annihilated. Think about it this way: a laptop, which penetrates Jupiter's atmosphere and falls towards its center, will get squelched MERCILESSLY! Of course, its atoms will survive. The pressure inside the core of the Jupiter is intense enough to even tear apart Hydrogen atom's electrons and protons. (Who says gravity can't overcome electromagnetic force? lol!) That's also the reason why Hydrogen (which is now "electronless") becomes metallic.

[puncheex]

@harshm2u: Yes, the hydrogen is ionized to an extent. The nuclei for a crystal lattice, held in place by their mutually repulsing charges. The freed electrons give the hydrogen the characteristics of a metal - crystal structure, high electrical and thermal conductivity and so on. But gravity doesn't overcome electromag force completely, not until it compresses it so tight that the electrons are forced to combine with the protons to make neutrons, changing the material to neutronium.

[NAMLegolas]

I <3 astronomy... I'm still hoping to master in astronomy :3

[2882890]

Maybe he's just taking the piss, in which case your hilarious!

[TorgeirFausken]

The speed of dark matter would be fairly interestilng =D

[prynja]

Great video, great explanations. I learn something new every day ^__^

Oh, and that girl is great! She explains everything very clearly. :) (Put her in more vids! ^__^)

[wassahilden]

Science FTW

[sniperofbuffalo]

if the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/sec, then what is the speed of darkness? is it the same? or is it -299,792,458 m/sec? or is it something else?

[heineisallmighty]

Darkness is abscence of light. A dark room will be lit at the speed of light if you illuminate it.

[gamesbok]

@heineisallmighty When you turn the light off, of course, the room becomes gloomy at the speed of dark.

[danthemango]

lol, there is no darkness, there is just lack of light, so I guess it's just as fast as light.?

[cagedkiller360]

If there is no light at all, then there are no light quanta, and therefore there is nothing to have a speed.

Also, you can't have a negative speed but you can have a negative velocity.

[cmxcmx]

There is no speed of darkness. The next fastest speed after the speed of light is the speed of heavy.

[Daftfreak123]

darkness is just the absence of light so it has no speed

[jaymac9456]

ur retarded

[robertwc82]

brightness darkness, coulours and shades are nothing but thoughts in your head invented by your mind. in reality there is only diferent frequencies in electromagnetic radiation.

darkness does not exist in reality

[K2Tanner]

I am second. darn.

[akkuyuki]

first to vitness the awomseness of jupiter and comment about it.

[gayglue]

lol atleast your creative about it