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

  1. No, we came from Pandora
    6
  2. "So we loose cell phone signal here on Earth but we have enough signal to go all the way to another planet " Long before Cell phones were invented people listend to radio from the other side of the earth. And people communicate with CB radio over longer distances than Cell phones need between phone and tower. It is really funny how people use cell phones (which is really a short range technology) as a reference and have no idea about radio signals in general. "We have to fill the fuel to travel to another country but there's enough to travel to another planet" Wow, it even becomes more ridiculous. You have heard of airplanes? They can travel to another continent without fuel. In Space you don't have drag, so once you reach a certain speed, you keep that speed and don't need more fuel. You only need fuel to change your speed or direction. You can calculate the escape velocity you need to Mars. You can calculate the amount of fuel that need to accelerate to that velocity with a certain payloard, when you have the data of the engines. It is just engineering. There is a famous computer simulation game called "Kerbal Space Program" (that works physically correct), where people do that for fun. " our cars and electric items get over heated or freeze with temperature but nothing happens to this robot outside the atmosphere" Because they are not made for those temperatures. usuallyy engineers are so smart to build stuff for certain conditions... "we don't even know what's at the bottom of the ocean but we seen land on other planet and we knew it had water " So? I am afraid you suffer from the "I don't understand it, so it must be fake" syndrome...
    4
  3. What about Ceres? That losts is "planet" status in the middle of the 19 th century. We had a similar situation like now back then: Pluto was not even discovered yet, but we already had 12 Planets back then. But after finding more and more objects between Mars and Jupiter, Ceres and all the others were downgraded to "asteroids". So we had only 8 Planets. Then we discorvered Pluto in 1930. and in the 2000s we discovered more and more objects out there where Pluto is. And instead of all calling them Planets, we call them (including Pluto) now dwarf planet.
    2
  4. What is your definition for "planet"?
    2
  5. What is your definition for "Planet"?
    2
  6.  @KitsuneyokaiNinetales  "something that orbits the sun.." OK, that is the case for thousands of objects "has moons" So Mercury and Venus are not planets? And there are more than 500 Asteroids that have moons. "and has strong gravity to push debris away from its orbit" I am not sure how gravity push away things. However, that actually sounds a bit like the "Clearing the neighbourhood" criterion, that was introduced in 2006 - and the reason why Pluto is NOT a planet anymore.
    2
  7. ", by virtue of Pluto HAV8NG AN ATMOSPHERE it is a true planet. " Why should that be an argument? Mercury doesn't have an atmosphere, but it is still a planet. Titan has an atmosphere that is even denser than the one on earth, but it is still not a planet but a moon. " The only reason some scientists created can new classification is because they weren't smart enough to win a n9bel prize." Do you say the same about the scientists who created the new classification "asteroid" in the 1850s, and so Ceres was not a planet anymore(although it used to be a planet since its discovery in 1801)? "When I was a k8d in 1978, Pluto was a planet. " And for kids in 1846 Ceres, Juno, Vesta, Pallas and Astrea were planets. And the new discovered Neptune was the 13th planet. "Due to scientific Marxism, somebody wants to go out of their way yo redefine it." BS. I don't want so say that the new Planet definition of 2006 is good. But what is your definition?
    1
  8. "Once a planet, always a planet," So Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vesta and Astraea should still be count as planets? "no matter what scientists say." That is weird. Who else than scientists should define what a planet is in the first place?
    1
  9. Wow, so we have thousands of planets in our solar system?
    1
  10. What about Ceres and Eris?
    1
  11. Not Eris?
    1
  12. Why? How does it matter? He is still there, he is still as interesting (or not) than before. Instead of complaining about the downgrade of Pluto, we better should question why we focus so much only on the planets. So the problem is NOT that Pluto isn't a planet anymore, instead the problem is that people think planets would be more important than other objects in the solar system. Every kid knows Mercury - but not many know Titan, Ganymed or Europa. Although Titan and Ganymed are bigger than Mercury. Although they have an atmosphere - unlike Mercury. Although they all could have liquid water - unlike Mercury. They could have live on it - unlike Mercury. So these moons are much more interesting than Mercury, so it is much more interesting to send probes to them etc. (which is what we do). But still kids have to learn just our planets.
    1
  13. And add Eris, Haumea and Makemake? What about Ceres? Ceres was a planet from 1801 to 1850, and then was downgraded to "asteroid", and in 2006 upgraded to "dwarf planet"?
    1
  14. "A planet is any body that orbits a star that is massive enough to crush itself into a sphere. " That is your definition. But the IUA decided in 2006 that is not a sufficent condition for a planet. However, so you you think that Ceres is a planet?
    1
  15. What is your definition of "planet"?
    1
  16. What is your definition for "planet"?
    1