Comments by "Sebastian Nolte" (@sebastiannolte1201) on "Veritasium" channel.

  1. Actually it is not that complicated and quite logical, you can even simply calculate that with the things, you learn in school :-) Or imagine a loop in a roller coaster. When you are at the top of the loop and you are slow, then you would fall down, becauase the centrifugal force is not that hight. When you are fast, the centrifugal force (that is directet away from earth) is stronger than gravity and you are pushed into the seat, so you would not fall down even if the coaster would not have restrains. And at a certain speed between those twos, the centrifugal force is equal to gravity. So you are pulled towards earth and away from earth with the same strength. So you feel wheighless.
    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
  3. If you consider Pluto a planet, then of course there is a 10th Planet: Haumea. 11th is Makemake, 12th is Eris (if you count them by the distance to the sun).
    2
  4. " Cause if Pluto has been named as planet, it status as planet should stay." So what about Ceres? "but mine nine planet was discovered in 1930" For others, Pallas was discovered as planet 9 in 1802
    2
  5.  @Majkyxz  What is your point then? It is a fact, that Ceres was discovered as the eighth planet, but later was downgraded to an asteroid (and meanwhile again upgraded to a dwarf planet). So if you think that Pluto should stay a planets just because it was called a planet when it was discovered, then the same should be for Ceres. Besides that, it is very unscientific to keep things like that. So you would be fine if biologists find a new species and categorize it into a certain family, but later found it that it is wrong, that they would keep the mistake? Although it is wrong, just for nostalgic reasons? And actually I also don't like it that they call it "planet 9" here. Because it is all very theoretical, they think that there is probably an object that affects the trajectories of other objects in the solar system. I don't know if we really have all the information that we know it is one certain planet, that fulfils the current criteria for "planet" and that there is no other planet etc.
    2
  6. "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
  7. 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
  8. "official 9th planet in our solar system." Officially from 1930 to 2006. " It is a heavenly body that orbits the sun, therefore it is a PLANET!" Oh, that is your definition of planet? OK, but then Pluto is NOT number 9. More like number 600,000 or so.
    2
  9. Why 10th? You don't count Ceres, Eris or Makemake as a planet?
    2
  10. No matter if we use Newton's model (where gravity is described as a force) or Einsteins model of "bending space time": It is not only heavy objects, it is EVERY object. But you just notice is for small objects, because gravity is so weak. But for example the Cavendish experiment (just google for it) is a tool that is so sensitive that you can measure that even between two small balls there is a force so that they attract each other (or that they bend space time...). So of course it has gravity when you pump something into orbit. But as the concrete comes from earth, earth's gravity will become weaker by the same amount.
    2
  11. 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
  12. 9th planet is Uranus (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Pallas, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus). Change my mind.
    2
  13. No, it is named Uranus (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Pallas, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus).
    2
  14. 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
  15. To me it is called Planet 16. Pallas will always be the 9th Planet whether officially recognized or not.
    1
  16. Ok, so here you say, that it has 1.2% of the density of earth's atmosphere, why do you say in the other comment that it is NO atmosphere at all? How do you know that THAT exact helicopter cannot fly? Have you calculate how high the uplift is for that certain helicopter in that exact atmosphere, and if it is high strong enough to lift the thing? And why do you think the engineers are idiots? Or you think the are liars? It just makes no sense what you say.
    1
  17. Oh, and BTW: Here on earth the air density is already only 1 % at an altitude 36 km. But still the buoyancy was strong enough that Felix Baumgartners heavy capsule with his body in it was lifted up by a helium balloon up to 39 km.
    1
  18. As the range of gravity is unlimited, there is no "Zero Gravity" in the universe. But the term is often used to describe wheightlessness. And a "G-meter" shows "Zero" in wheightlessness. And yes, in Freefall, you experience wheightlessness.
    1
  19. Not anymore.
    1
  20.  @yosefmacgruber1920  Isn't the 9th planet Pallas? But no, the liar mad-scientists can't leave at that. So take away our 9th planet in 1851 and downgraded it to an "asteroid", so they that they can give us a different one. Maybe some heresy or deception?
    1
  21. 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
  22. Well, we say "Zero G" because that is what you experience. A G-meter will show you Zero in free fall. And as the range of gravity is unlimited, there is no "zero gravity" anywhere in the universe.
    1
  23. What about Haumea, Makemake and Eris?
    1
  24. -18° celsius is -0.4° fahrenheit. Actually you don't even have to calculate: The celsius scale is based on the freezing temperature of water. That defines 0°. So in celsius, minus-temperatures are freezing, plus-temperatures are not freezing.
    1
  25. Student? He is a professor.
    1
  26. To be fair, the first car was steam powered in 1769 by Nicholas Cugnot
    1
  27. I woudl not recommend that. You would not hit the ground with the same speed as on earth, but still so fast that you die or hurt yourself brutally
    1
  28. The range of gravity is infinite, and we know the formula for centuries. The gravitational pull of the sun is the reason why the planets (and also far objects like Pluto , Eris, and everything in the Kuiper Belt) orbit around the sun. But the observation of "imperfections" in that orbit is the reason to think of other objects, that also have influence on that orbit.
    1
  29. We cannot find planets in other galaxies. But in other star systems. A typical method is that we observe that a star becomes darker periodically. And we assume from that a planet orbits that star and so gets in front of it. And when the light not just becomes weaker but changes its color, we know that the planet has an atmosphere and what gases are there in the atmosphere. So you could say we see the silhouettes of these distant planet. Imagine you are in a dark night. You cannot see a black bird that is close to you. But you actually can see a black bird that flies in front of the moon, even if it is much further away.
    1
  30. No, Pluto is the 14th planet. The others are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vesta, Astrea, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune
    1
  31. If planet 9 is Pluto, then Eris is planet 10.
    1
  32. In addition to Релёкс84 some history : When Neptune was discovered in 1846 it was the 13th planet. And then they found even more objects between Mars and Jupiter and they decided to take away the status of being planets from Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vesta and Astrea (they became asteroids). So there were only 8 planets anymore. And then in 2005 we had a similar situation: We discovered Eris, so a 10th "planet" beyond Neptune. And because there were even more out there, they decided to make a cut and make again a new definition for "Planet" to avoid that the number of planets would increase with all the objects they found. And Pluto is not in that definition anymore, it has more similarities with Eris. So Pluto was downgraded from a planet to a dwarf planet. But on the other hand Ceres was upgraded from an asteroid to a dwarf planet.
    1
  33. What do you mean, so at what moment in the video? They are weightless only for a certain time.
    1
  34.  @Oldhardy  Of couse your haven't answered to Agent 666. Who ever claimed that there is zero atmosphere on Mars? You can just look up that the atmospheric pressure on the ground is 6* 10^−3 bar. And not zero. I guess you can also look up thee data about Perseverance, the parachute etc. and calculate if it adds up. Or it is easier to just use common sense, you don't have to calculate anything: There are many people working on it, and there is nothing secret about it. The JPL is not a secret NASA labatory, instead it is part of the Caltech, a famous university with more than 2000 students. So engineering students also work on these projects, and on building other probes and space vehicles. And they are all stupid? Or all are part of the conspiracy, although everybody can study or work there?
    1
  35.  @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
  36. "but do you experience 0 gs every time you fall to the ground? " Yes. You experience weightlessness when no other force than gravity affects you. Freefall is teh definition of an Zero G enviroemtn. And it is the same in a space station. Many people have this misconception, that there is no gravity in space. But actually the gravitaional pull on the ISS is still nearly 90 %. it falls down all the time. But it is in orbit, so it moves around he earth with 17,000 mph, so it doesn't come closer to the ground. Astronauts in a launching spacecraft doesn't become weightless when they reach "space". They become weightless, when the rocket stops the engine.
    1
  37. He also plays (or used to play) in a band: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPKSiSx1f60
    1
  38. Gravity is a force between masses. The formula is: Gravitational Constant * (mass of object 1) * (mass of object 2) / (distance between the center of the objects)^2 So you see that it hass nothing to with atmosphere. And that its range is unlimited. When you calculate it you will see that at the altitude of the International Space Station, earth's gravity still has 87% of the pulling force that it has down here.
    1
  39.  @jt6mania558  Common sense says, that they were on the moon. Because the possibilty, that it was all a giant hoax, is much lower, than the possibilty that they just did it. Actually it would take more effort to fake it. You have seen that they actually built the rocket that actually works? Wuith engineering experience you know that it was capable to go to the moon. And that it all adds up.
    1
  40. What do you mean with "faceing our solar system"? So where would you put it?
    1
  41.  @clown7841  Ich habe einfach eine Frage gestellt, weil ich gerne wissen möchte, was du meinst. Aber du hast wohl gar kein Interesse an einem Dialog. OK...
    1
  42.  @clown7841  I just asked a honest question, because I actually don't know what you mean.
    1
  43. How far can you see with your naked eye? Well, it is impossible to say that. Because light rays doesn't stop at some point, they go forever. So at the end it is about resolution and photosensitivity . And so in practise it depends on the size of the object and how bright it is. You actually can see the Andromeda galaxy with your naked eye - which is 2.5 million light years away! But it is an entire galaxy, so it is huge. You can see the moon and even craters on it with the naked eye, although it is 384,000 km away. But you cannot see a mosquito that is only 10 meters away. There are pictures of Pluto by the Hubble telescope, but they are actually just a bunch of few pixels - while the Hubble has shown us wonderful detailed pictures of objects that are much further away. Take for example the beautiful "pillars of creation" that are 7000 light years away. But the big pillar in that picture is 5 light years tall! So more than the distance between earth and the next star. And this speculated planet is now even further away than Pluto. So it is definitely not "a piece of cake" for JWST.
    1
  44. Shouldn't Eris be planet 10 if Pluto is Planet 9?
    1
  45. "Btw it’s not zero g it’s zero gravity" I think it is the other way around? "it’s just that we’re so small that we experience less gravitational force compare to earth " I don't exactly know, what you mean with it. The gravitational force on the ISS is still nearly 90 % comparing to the ground. But the ISS makes a similar maneuver like the Zero G- plane (it falls down to earth, but so it has a so high sideway speed, that it doesn't got actually closer to the ground. ), so the astronauts experience wheightlessness.
    1
  46. Pluto is Planet 10. Or do you ignore Ceres?
    1
  47. I am surprised that there are several comments here about this. The Model T was the first cheap mass produced car, production started in 1908. So the Model T was not even the first Ford (that was the Model A in 1903)
    1
  48.  @SwissAvgeek  "This is simulated 0G." Well, then what is "real" 0G? The reange of gravity is unlimited, so there no 0G in the universe. And the "0G" in the International Space Station works more or less exactly like this. Would you also call it "simulated"?
    1
  49. 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
  50. 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