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