Comments by "Sebastian Nolte" (@sebastiannolte1201) on "Veritasium"
channel.
-
38
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"So, they invented a whole new reference category for Pluto to fit into. "
After the discovery of Eris, Makemake and Haumea. Which was the reason to make a new category. We wouldn't have done it only for Pluto.
"Prior to their declassifying Pluto as a "planet", there weren't "dwarf planets"."
Prior to the desclassifying of Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vesta and Astrea as a "planet", there weren't "asteroids".
It is funny how people react to the declassification of Pluto and seem to ignore that we had the same situation back In around 1850:
- we had seven planets around 1800 (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus)
- we found small planets (Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vesta, Astrea) between Mars and Jupiter
- we found Neptune as the officially 13th planet in 1846
- we found more and more small objects between Mars and Jupiter, we didn't want to call them all planets, so we created a new category of small/minor "planets" and created the name "asteroids" for them.
- we only had 8 planets again (until the discovery of Pluto in 1930)
"3rd grade science for me was in the mid-80s (I think) and there was no such thing."
And for somebody who was in 3rd grade science in 1846 then there was no such a thing as "asteroids" but 13 planets.
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Trojan7575 Ceres was discovered already in 1801, it is between Mars and Jupiter. Later also Pallas, Juno, Vesta, Astrea. When Neptune was discovered in 1846 it was the 13th planet. But as we found more and more objects between Mars and Jupiter, they decided to not call them all "planets" but instead introduce a new category called "asteroid", and we only had 8 planets.
What happened in 2006 with Pluto (more and more objects in an area were discovered, makes no sense to call them all planets, introducing a new category of objects and already known planets now fall in that new category) already happened in the 1850s. But I don't know if back then also nostalgic people said "In my heart, Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vesta and Astrea will always be planets!!!" as people do today with Pluto...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@malwynn5372 Have you really never considerd, that it depends on the size of an object if you can see it or not, and not only the distance? I can see a high mountain with the naked eye, that is many miles away. But I cannot see a mosqito that is only several yards away. You can see the Andromeda Galaxy with the naked eye, although it is 2.5 million light years (!)away. But Pluto was discovered only in 1930 and you still cannot see it with an amateur telescope.
And it is not only distance, but brightness. We can see objects that shine by themselves (so stars), but it become harder to nearly impossible when they don't shine by themselves but only are enlightend by stars. We easily can see the closer planets, but Pluto is already so far away from the sun that it is quite dark and hard to see with telescopes. And Planet 9 is assumed to be more then ten times further away than Pluto. The sky is full of stars that are hundreds or thousands of light years away and we can see them with the naked eye. But we found the first exoplanets (so planets that orbit around another star than the sun) not before the 1980s. The closest star is "only" 4.5 lightyears away, but we discovered a planet that orbits around it only in 2016. We cannot see it directly, but only because we could see that the star becomes darker periodically (when the planet passes the star).
Go out at night. You easily can see the moon and many stars, even without a telescope. Now somebody tells you, that there is a theory, that there is a pea somewhere in the sky about two miles away. Try to find it with binoculars or amateur telescopes. Good luck :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I don't want to say, that the new definition is good, but your arguments are not perfect either. First of all, it is not about size. The difference between "planet" and "dwarf planet" is, that the latter one hasn't clean its orbit.
And this is also a bit weird:
"If it's a dwarf planet, that's still a planet, not comet or asteroid. "
They could have come up with a name, that doesn't include "planet", would you be satisfied then? Exactly that happened in the 1850s. We had 13 planets back then. But we found more and more between Mars and Jupiter. So a new category was defined and Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vestra and Astrea were now "asteroids" and not planets anymore. And now Ceres was again changed to "dwarf planet"...
"Each planet should be Sol1 to Sol 12, and more"
The interesting question then is: How does the star fleet in Star Trek define "planet"? Which planet would be Sol 5? Would it be Ceres? Or Jupiter? Or what?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"However, on a trip to Mars you are not in freefall, you're being propelled in a specific direction and so there's an opposing force on your body which is equivalent to gravity."
It is correct, that if you are in a vehicle that is propelled all the time, that you would have an force. If your acceleration is abut 9.8 m/s^2 then it would even be like on earth.
But why do you think that we would have that on a trip to Mars? Actually we don't have the technology for that. It is complete Science Fiction to have a spacecraft where wer can just run any kind of engine all the time.
We only can "shoot" spacercafts into space - and then they are just drifting, so "falling". A rocket that brings astronauts to the ISS has to reach about 28000 km/h. At that speed things settle inot orbit around the earth, without falling down. So we have huge rockets, that are more or less only giant fuel tanks. After about 10 minutes the rocket has reached that speed - and has spent all its fuel! If you want to leave orbit you need about 40000 km/h. So when we send something to Mars, we accelerate to 40000 km/h, so we shoot it away from earth. And then it moves 40000 km/h to Mars, without any propulsion. And the astronauts in it are weightless exactly like on the ISS. Because there is no acceleration, and so no other force.
" What percentage of Earth's gravity it is depends on your velocity, but as long as you're moving it's never gonna be zero."
Wrong, it doesn't depend on your velocity, but on your acceleration. There is only a force when you change your speed, not when you move with constant speed. As explained, the ISS also moves with 28000 km/h around the earth.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@goodlight8089
Pluto was Planet 9 from 1930 to 2006. In 1846 Neptune was Planet 13. Then Ceres, Pallas, Vesta, Juno and Astrea were "kicked out" and downgraded to "asteroids". Meanwhile Ceres counts not as an asteroid anymore, but as a dwarf planet like Pluto.
So if Pluto stays a planet in your heart and you don't accept its downgrade in 2006, then I say: Ceres will always be a planet in my heart and I will not accept its downgrade to asteroid in 1850.
But if you count Pluto as planet, then they are not looking for planet ten. Because you should count Eris then counts as Planet (about the same size as Pluto, but more mass) then. And also Makemake and Haumea. You know, the other objects in the Kuiper Belt, whose discovery was one of the reason that Pluto is not a planet anymore, because they all would be planets then.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"always has been always will be."
Wrong. It was not always the 9th planet. In 1846 Neptune was discovered - as the 13 th planet. The other were Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vesta, Astrea, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus.
2
-
Well, stars emit lights, Planets don't. Imagine it is completely dark, what do you see: A car that is only 10 meters away that has its headlights off? Or a car that is 100 meters away, but has it headlights on? You can see starswithyour naked eye although they are so trillion of kilometers away - because they are shining.
Less obvious is the finding of planets. Yes, we actually have found planets in other solar systems, although they are much further away than Planet 9 would be. But we find it with indirect methods. Imagine it is totally dark and two black birds are flying through thee air, one is 5 meters away, the other is 50 meter away. But the one that is 50 m away flies in front of the moon. Which one would you see? the 50 meter one! Because you can see its sillouette in front of the moon. And in a similar way we see planets that passes their star. Not really the silloutte, that is too far away, but when we observed some stars for a while then we noticed, that they periodically become darker for a short time. That obviously means, that a planet orbits that stars and sometimes get between us and the star.
And we can even notice if the planet has an atmosphere or what elements are in theatmosphere, because its not only that the planet just blocks the light of thee star, so that there is less light, but we see that the spectrum changes. That means that the atmosphere blocks certain frequences ("colors") of the light.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
So you have been been Mars or how do you know about the details of atmosphere of Mars? It is so funny and stupid: The same people who tells you what the atmosphere of Mars is like, also built this helicopter, made for the thin atmosphere of Mars.
Why don't you just actually debunk it? So take the data they are given to you about the atmosphere of Mars, and the data you have about the helicopter and calculate if it works? Or make a simulation. Oh, you can't, because you are not an engineer? Then just shut up. It is so weird, I wonder how you even think this hoax and conspiracy should work. The JPL in Pasadena is well connected to the Caltech. So probably even engineering students from the the Caltech work on things like this.
It is the same with the Van Allen Belt: I always read "it is not possible to pass the Van Allen Belt" as an "argument" by people who don't believe in the moon landings. That just makes NO SENSE! Because these people have not been there to measure the radiation there. Instead, the same people, who tells them that there is a radiation belt in the first place, also tells, that it is possible to pass it. So how can you say that we cannot pass the Van Allen Belt? It is ridiculous.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Let's assume that people in ancient times really had the same knowledge that we have today - or even more knowlegde,so that they knew about the suppsoed planet, that this video is about.
Then it still makes no sense that you try to fit numbers here. The definition of "planet" is more or less arbitrary. It is man made. And so it changes. There are thousands of objects that orbit the sun, and we picked eight of them to put them in a certain category. Why should the old Germans also take exactly those and put them in a special category? In 1850 we had 13 planets, but then scientists decided, that we don't call Ceres, Vesta, Juno, Pallas, Astrea "planets" anymore, so we had 8. Then Pluto was discovered in 1930 and we had 9 planets. In 2006 more "planets" were discovered in the Kuiper Belt that are similar to Pluto, but instead of calling them also planets, they decied to not call Pluto a planet anymore. So we have only 8 planets again.
The number of "planets" is not the result of knowledge, but of definitions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Force = mass * acceleration.
Or
acceleration = Force/mass.
That is a fact, that has nothing to do with gravity. So a heavier car with the same engine (so same power) has a slower accerlation than a lighter car. Or: When two cars have the same mass, that one with the more powerfull engine accelerates faster. So the special thing about gravity is, that it depends on the mass. I mean, of course, you experience it by yourself: An object with high mass is pulled to the ground with a stronger force than an object with lower mass. So an object with twice the mass also is pulled down with twice the force. But as you see in the formula above: Twice the mass means, that an object also needs twice the force for the same accelration. So that means, that all objects fall down with the same speed independet from there mass. Now when you are in a condition, where the gravity is lower, then it is lower in genereal, for everything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, Pluto is the 14th planet. The others are:
Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vesta, Astrea, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Oldhardy I also want to say: Think about it. There are thousands of aerospace engineers in the people. Pople who actually build stuff like that, work in that field, have studied this. Why haven't anybody said yet, that it doesn't work? I can imagine, that at several universities in the world, professors even use this as exercises or examns for students involving this thing. And as I said, also the JPL is just a part of a big university, nobody prevents you from working there or study. You really think the people in the video are actors?
Or think about it from the other side: Even regular criminals put effort into complex plans, getting alibis etc, so that investigators don't find out, who the commiter is. And if often works. But a big federal agency, with a big budget, resources, access to intelligence agencies,... make up a hoax story about a Mars mission and present something very open and offensive (it is in every media, you can get much information about it...), that can be easily debunked by a model helicopter pilot? Really, that is what you believe? That NASA etc. are THAT stupid?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why can you see an airplane with your naked at the sky that is 10 kilometers away, but not a mosquito, that is only 10 meters away? ;-) But it is not only the size, especially not in this case. If we want to see something, then light rays from that object has to reach our eye (or a camera...). And there are two options:
- the object itself sends lights
- the objects reflects lights.
Nearly all the stars that we see are - well, stars. So they emit light. So we can see them, even if they are far away. The only objects that we can see, although they don't emit light, are the planets in our solar system. They are so close to the sun, that they reflect enough of its light so that we can see it. Yes, we have meanwhile found planets in other solar systems, so that are further away then Planet 9. But we haven't actually "seen" them. Instead we noticed them, whe they passes their star, so that the star became darker from time to time. So you can say we see the silhouette of the planet when it moves between its star and us (not really, too far away to see a clear sillouette, but you get the idea.
But planet 9
- doesn't emit light by itself
- is so far away from the sun, that it doesn't reflect much of its light
- doesn't move in front of a light background so that we could see the silouette)
1
-
Sorry, but just because YOU don't understand it, it doesn't mean that they don't know what they are talking about. "9 planets as fact"? That was never the case, it was just the state of knowledge. We talk about science, not religion. In science nobody claims "we have 9 planets and that is the ultimate truth". Instead we said "At the moment we have found nine objects, that we call planets".
In ancient times people knew about five planets: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn. Because those are the ones you can see with the naked eye. Then people realize, that earth itself is a planet, so we had six. After the telescope was invented we found Uranus, so we had seven. In the beginning of the 19th century we discovered smaller planets between Mars and Jupiter: Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vestra, Astrea. And in 1846 Neptun was discovered - and like explaineed in the video, the idea for the existing of a planet beyond Uranus came before because of the anormalies in the motion of Uranus. So we had 13 planets.
But at the time we also find more and more small objects between mars and jupiter and so they decided: We cannot call them all "planets", it would be hundreds then. So let's define a new category "asteroids" for all these objects. So Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vestra and Astrea were no planets anymore, so there were only eight planets.
Then in 1930 Pluto was discovered, so we had nine planets. In 2005 Eris was discovered, and the same discussion started as back in the 1850s: There are obviously much more objects in a belt beyond Neptune. Should they all be planets? And so the International Astronomers Union made a ne definition for planet, and Pluto didn't fullfill it. So we had again eight planets.
And like back then with Uranus, the motion of the known planets indicates that there is another big object out there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"There are very clever people on the Earth who assert that the solar system consists of twelve planets, whereby the Sun and the Earth's Moon are also counted as planets. "
What does that has to do with "clever"? It is just a question of defition what you call a planet and what not. And such definitions are man made, and cannot be right or wrong. Bur I don't see any definition where only earth's moon is a planet, but not the other moons.
"And since until now only the nine planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are known"
Wrong. Much more are known. In 1850 we had 13 planets. But as more and more objects were found between Mars and Jupiter, Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vesta and Astrea were downgraded to "asteroids". And in 2005 Eris as Makemake were discovered, so more planets beyond Neptune. That was the reason why Pluto was downgraded. Again, we know thousands of objects in the solar system. We just don't call all of them "planets".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thebird4668
Oh, nice to learn that I was raised Pagan. When did catholics become Pagan? So you think before Luther and other reformists in the 16th century there were no Christian people at all? Because they were all Catholic back then. However, it is just weird to hear that people think believing in big bang and believing in a creation is a contradiction. What if that guy was not a catholic priest, but a protestant priest (who also believe in big bang, at least here in Europe people believe in science)? Or just a guy who believes in God who created the universe?
So if a scientists discovered something that can be testified by everybody else (that is how science work), you would suddenly start to be sceptic about it, after you learn that the scientists was a catholic? Oh, BTW, it actually would not even matter if that scientist was a free mason, satanists, murderer, notoric liar,... It doesn't change the observation he made.
We can observe that the universe is expanding. We assume that physical laws were and are always the same. It makes sense that the universe always was expanding. But that means there was a moment in the past, when the entire universe (and don't think of the matter of the universe, but the universe itself) was all together in one point. "Big Bang" does NOT describe an explosion of matter inside of time and space. Instead it just describes the beginning of the expanding of the universe. The beginning of time and space. The moment of creation. Because also scientists don't know what was "before". Actually the question is wrong, because "before" doesn't make much sense. Because it was also the beginning of time.
It is interesting that you say you love science, but then in some points you suddenly ignore the scientific method. So you love to explore nature, but at one point you stop to exploring it? I wonder if you even have looked into the Big Bang theory, so for example read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
It doesn't really matter what I say because I haven't make those observations and calculations. But I believe in common sense and in the scientific method. I haven't measured the altitude of the Mount Everest. So it does not make sense to ask me "What do you think how high Mount Everest is?" I believe the scientists in that case who say, that it is 8848 meters high. So why should my opinion matters when it comes to the age, development or origin of the universe, if I haven't made any more deeper observations, calculations etc.? Science is not about opinions.
1