Hey Insane Curiosity Squad! If you liked the video, we would love for you to share it with your friends or on other social networks like Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, TikTok and Twitter, etc... (Since the algorithm is not cooperating in showing us to the public 😅). In just 30 seconds, you will greatly help our Channel to grow and improve future contents. A big thank you from all of us.
Update: DART did work, and it worked so much better than scientists ever expected. It changed its orbit by like 35 minutes, and it was only expected to change it by 10-11. That’s over 3x the amount predicted. That bodes really well for us with moving large asteroids out of the way of the Earth.
Having a 3 times effect is actually a fail, because it means the math is totally wrong. Meaning future projects IE saving Earth might fail because the guestimate the figures.
@@ntal5859 A three times effect is a success, because it proved the technique worked. Calculating how to do it accurately is not important right now, and the data collected will be our first burst of data regarding how to do just that. If DART had done nothing at all, or even very little, that would have been the worst-case scenario.
@@DarthMeteos Measuring success depends on what your goals are. If you want to affect an asteroid by at least a certain amount and get three times that then you succeeded. I think N Tal is looking st it in a different way than that that I also agree with. Engineers and scientists and have the goal of understanding and having predictive power. For the DART they no doubt used simulations of mathematical models to design the device and its path to the asteroid in order to have a certain effect on its trajectory. They may have also run many cases to get a probabilistic prediction of the result based on the final design. For the outcome of be three time greater would suggest that either 1) the models were not as accurate as they should be, which is a pretty big problem when it comes to saving the planet because it just as easily could have gone the other way or 2) the specific event was so well executed that or that it was such a freak event, statistically, that it fell outside the confidence interval established by the all of the different cases run to establish probabilities, in which case the assumptions about the probabilities that went into selecting cases weren't that great or we can't necessarily rely on it always being three times as good as expected and flocks are just touting the three time as good outcome to give a good headline. It would have been a much more promising outcome if the engineers and scientists involved nailed the estimate because it actually demonstrates a high degree of proficiency.
Missed an important point: initially matter circulates at All Planes and orientations. If there is a stistically dominant oritation then ALL THE OTHER ORIENTATIONS ARE ELIMINATED BY COLLISIONS as they pass through the y plane. Leaving only the orbits not subject to collisions.
Sun's rotating magnetic field mostly forces planets to orbit in same plane, without which the orbits of planets will be all over the place. Every planet is highly charged which causes planets to move right angles to Sun's magnetic field, creating an orbit. Gravity and centrifugal force are not the only players in the field. Also mutual repulsion between Sun and planets keeps them from readily colliding.
@@migranthawker2952 Then you'll have to explain why a religious text recorded thousands of years ago correctly described the earth as having the appearance of a circle as well as it hanging in space by nothingness?
I was under the impression that our solar system behaved similarly to a projectile. Our sun being the leading object with all the plants and moons in our solar system locked into gravitational equilibrium constantly trying to fall into the suns gravitational mass, but constantly missing it due to the suns velocity. Somewhat similar to how our space stations are perpetually falling onto the planet, but the speed maintained that’s parallel to the surface is fast enough to consistently miss the planets surface. I literally thought this was the basic idea as to how the solar system as a whole moves through space just more complex like the precise gears in a clock.
But I didn’t imagine our planets and moons literally existing on the same solar plane, but I guess it makes sense considering it would probably be chaotic without some form of equilibrium. I remember the whole “Planet X” theory that basically makes the argument that some bodies in our solar system could orbit on a plain, only to intersect the normal orbital patterns over tremendous lengths of time. I think the evidence they used is the strange behavior of small rocky bodies being flung into the inner solar system on occasion, or maybe it was an observing an odd gravitational anomaly that could only be explained by fault in classical physics, or a planet orbiting our sun in a drastically different orbit
Nope from a certain point of view everything is moving in a perfectly straight line. Space and time are bent. Things follow their path through space time. Even a motionless sun would create orbits. Yes things fall towards the sun but they wouldn't intersect with the sun unless something reduces the objects speed or direction.
@@samtheweebo a motionless sun would NOT create orbits. If fact as far as we know a motionless sun is impossible in our universe although I hate to use the term impossible.
@@ynkybomber mass bends spacetime so a relatively motionless sun would still have enough of a gravity well to have objects orbit it. Things orbiting are not chasing the item they are orbiting. I know nothing can ever be considered truly motionless. I also know that the motion does affect and contribute to gravity, but the sun is definitely not a projectile with all the planets trailing behind trying to fall into where the sun has been. The motion of the solar system as a whole is kind of edge on. I'm not finding the best words to express the idea at the moment but I hope it's clear enough
@@lunam7249 You’re apparently unaware that you are responding to two different people yet you want to lecture them on points they weren’t making in the first place. Does that satisfy your need to feel superior?
@@negativeindustrial your correct...however apparently it lorenzo jumping in inapproprietly.... but that ok..thats what comment freedom is all about...salvatore really made no point...it frustrated me, actually...you..correctly noted my error...
TLDW: Stars are believed to form as the result of a collapse of a low-temperature cloud of gas and dust. As the cloud collapses, conservation of angular momentum causes any small net rotation of the cloud to increase, forcing the material into a rotating disk. All of the angular momentum of that disk is retained in the star and the planets that formed from it.
@@AkshatSharma1505 imagine spinning on skates with your arms out. If you bring your arms in, you will spin faster (because all of your mass is closer to your axis of rotation) The same thing happens with star formation, except on a much larger scale. Even a tiny amount of net rotation will be magnified into a tremendous speed of rotation once the majority of the mass has been pulled in to form a star at the center
At the risk of sounding like a smarty pants or a dummy, the washing machine is a bad example. Explain why: The clothes are enclosed and therefore restricted in a disk shaped enclosure.
For the same reason that rings on a planet rotate on the same plane (gravitational forces). When you rotate something from a rope, for instance, it always moves to the same plane perpendicular to it's axis of rotation no matter in what other plane it starts rotating. Ignore effects due to atmospheric conditions.
That's an insufficient explanation. While the orbital plane for an object is orthogonal to the axis of rotation, that doesn't explain why different orbiting bodies have to share the same orbital plane and same axis of rotation. If there are n orbiting bodies, why don't we see n different orbital planes, with each body moving around its own axis of rotation? That's the question behind the video. The explanation needs to address a system of multiple orbiting bodies and not just a single body.
@@montypython5521 An explanation of "gravitational forces" is about as helpful as saying the reason is "physics". While literally true, it doesn't really illuminate anything. In particular, the analogy to spinning an object on a string doesn't really help: yes, an orbiting object travels in plane. But that doesn't address why different objects can't "spin" around different axes and along different planes.
@@jkbeatty1 they do. Remember that thing about earth's rotational axis being tilted in relation to the sun causing the seasons? It is because of that tilt that the moon's orbit around the earth is also tilted by 5° in relation to the earths orbit around the sun. The influence by the gravity of the sun and other planets is pulling it slightly out of what would have otherwise been an orbit perpendicular to it spin axis.
@@antoniokambire2271 not as close as you might think though… The smallest stars have about 70 times the mass of Jupiter (The largest known exoplanet has about 30 Jupiter masses!)
I’ve always wondered this. I also wonder why galaxies are nearly the same plane too. And how are we estimating the amount of planets in a galaxy when we can only ever see the planets that pass between us and their star? What if half of them have planets that orbit north to south in relation to the direction were observing them from?
@Banter Maestro2 oh neat. I had no idea people also made calculations and educated estimates based on that. Makes sense tho. The planets and likely Jupiter is part of the cause for our stars little wobble right?
The sun travels the galaxy at 230 km/s , so when it comes to movement of planets and their orbits . To not consider this and think of the solar system like in min 0:01 is the same as to think earth is flat, so that being said ... the sun travels the galaxy like a comet and it's "satellites" the planets follow him in a vortex like form . Do you recall that simple representation of relativity with a black sheet and balls thrown in the sheet so it curves representing it's mass ... ok now pintch the very end of the sheet at any center of mass ,now i want you to twist it and see how it really is , vortex like . As for the sun journey the galaxy around the massive black hole from the center of the galaxy ... you gotta think of hierarchy here , as the sun takes 230 million years to complete a cicle also know that our sun is bound to other celestials bodies before being bound to the center of the galaxy . The world famous ancient mathematicians the mayans calculated several sun cicles , something very interesting isn't it ?
@@donaldham308 well that is precisely the thing . if you understand the movement like that you have to know that it is very rare to see planets crossing their star . so they estimate it by equations and i really don't know much about that.
@@dudulaselva1549 oh. I was under the impression that they’ve estimated most of the planets out there by observing their impact on the brightness of the host star. Because that movement is all relative considering it’s all moving around in space like that. It’s not as drastic as it all sounds considering the stars in the night sky have barely moved from their position hundreds of years ago. I know the first exo planet they found was because of the dimming of a star.
It's not really an answer though - because the dust was in a disc format already. Great - so what caused THAT dust to be in a disc like shape? All I got from this is a wheel is round because its constituent components are formed into a round shape.
@@fjb4932 Well, no, I wasn’t hinting at anything of a religious nature. But my religious mother would have said something like, “The planets orbit in a plane because God wanted it that way...there’s your answer.” She had very little scientific curiosity.
Steller systems, galaxies, etc all form a disk because mass pulls to the center. So that means in the very beginning all mass rushes to the center and then blows by on all planes. As time goes on as mass starts to group, mass on one plane eventually over takes mass on another planing making chaos into a pattern that follows suit. Eventually the finally plane dominates leaving a simple disk like pattern.
I think you are correct in that assumption. Eventually all a stars planet would eventually push and pull one another all into the same plane over time.
If the material in the disc was uniform and all the same, why do the planets each have different chemical composition especially from the sun which contained the majority of the matter?
The material started out uniform, but as the proto-sun in the center started heating up, it started naturally dividing up the rest of the material into rough exclusion zones Light gases like H and He were easily blown away by the Sun’s stellar wind, so the inner planets are mostly devoid of these elements as they could only exist further out. No surprise then that instead, these planets are mainly heavier silicates and metals with relatively little gas. The frost line is also significant, as this defines whether a substance can remain solidified as an ice, or becomes sublimated and transformed into different elements. This line is between Mars and Jupiter, so again the inner planets have little ice while the giant planets (particularly Uranus and Neptune) have substantial reserves. The frost line is why comets develop tails as they near the sun, the heat vaporizes it off the surface in awesome fashion. NEOs don’t develop tails because they’re mainly rock and remain solid in their orbits Of course, this isn’t a hard rule because the presence of even a modest atmosphere can insulate the more finicky elements, asteroid impacts can transfer volatile substances to what would be barren worlds, and the subtle effects of migration can eventually move an entire planet out of the environment in which it formed. Additionally each planet will experience various changes in its climate as the sun evolves, once again with the possibly of bringing stable elements outside of an area they could have formed in
¡Muy interesante¡, aparte de mis problemas con el idioma quiero entender que los planetas giran en torno al sol en el mismo plano que el que el sol gira en torno a la vía láctea.
Solar system surrounded by extremely cold particles. An in the middle there's a hug glowing ball of heat . Then all these less than equal sized planets orbiting in a flat plain . Yet one Pluto has a distinctive different orbiting pattern . Yet the heat from the sun is constantly being mixed up by the orbits of the planets strangely enough . Then you also have the asteroids soaking up the sun heat as well. The flat plain orbits mean most the heat the sun emits is going above it. An below it an most likely being redirected back into the orbits of the planets from what I believe is the furthest edges like past Pluto orbit. An all trapped by those super cold particles that surrounds the entirety of or solar system.
My perspective is simply that, perspective FROM me / where i'm at, To what i see. As Humans, our perspective is from inside us to / out towards everything else. We Each are the center of everything. Everything is relative to each of us. . . .
Pluto is probably a great example of our solar system grabbing Pluto as it was part of a gigantic astronomical body coming in at an oblique angle to our solar system.
Interesting subject!! In classic astronomy, the etimological meaning of the word planet is directly related with the fact that they are in the same plane!!
Afaik the etymology comes from ancient greek and it is a declension of the greek word for "wandering", as they were objects that seemed to wander in the sky since they were moving unlike stars and didn't follow a simple path in the sky unlike the sun or the moon.
It's because the sun is moving through space and dragging the planets behind and around itself. You literally "can't" go "down" unless you outpace the sun itself.
Our short life compared to the cosmos? We are just as infinite. An astounding video and easy to understand. You have outlined the basics of constructing a free energy device without it being called, perpetual motion,' Simplicity says to construct a hollow disk from a conducting metal. Start with a copper (motor) ring with a removable top plate and bottom plate (generating disks). Make a loose-fitting armature out of the same material, but in the shape of a spiral galaxy put it inside the disk and seal it shut. Now hit the assembled unit with a bolt of lightning. The electromagnetic field will protect the disk from heat as well as provide energy to create electromaglev bearings. When lightning saturates the disk, the armature will repel off the bottom, top and sides and start spinning in the direction of the shape of the arms. The outer ring pushes the armature which generates electricityn in the top & bottom platesm which feed the motor ring, etc.,etc.,..........................................................................................................
I'm assuming the gravity of an object within the asteroid belt increases exponentially as it increases in size...? As Vesta is already showing signs there's been impacts on its surface, will it potentially end up growing large enough to become a planet (even though it missed the initial 'construction' stage)?
Gravity is actually directly proportional to the mass of an object. If you consider 'size' as in the mass of a spherical object, then that roughly increases in relation to r^3, therefore increasing its gravity along the same lines, if we ignore materials of varying density that make up the object.
The problem with impacts is you don't always gain mass from them, the smaller the object being hit the more material will be flung away outside of the gravitational influence. So gaining mass from impacts of other asteroids really depends on luck that it will get hit with enough other asteroids that are small enough and at a slow enough speed to actually increase its mass. The planet formation stage was so important because there was a lot of mass out there in the early solar system. Didn't need big impacts of mass to gain, just collecting small bits of matter constantly. There's not much floating around out there anymore but hydrogen which is notoriously hard to hold onto. Unlike Iron for example which is very easy for a relatively small amount of gravity to capture, it tends not to fly away. Why the planets were able to form when they did there was a lot of heavier elements scattered around. The ability to grow from your own gravity is exponential, if that's what you were refering to that is correct. But at this stage of the solar system there really isn't much mass out there to collect, and what is there is mostly hydrogen.
Take the Earth for example. When we got hit with something very big, we didn't really gain mass, we even lost it- but we gained a friend. Hi, Moon! So no, I don't think that's very likely to happen.
I have a question regarding gas cloud collapse triggering the formation of a star. That seems to be a reasonable explanation. One cause mentioned was the collapse of a near by (in space distances) of an older star. This implies an older star. Obvious that is a reaction type event. What other events are believed, with supporting evidence, to trigger gas cloud collapse and star formation? Or we run into that 'What started the oldest star?' question.
Do they? The sun is circling around the galaxy and the planets are being drug along by the sun with the planets being in a helical spiral around the path of the sun. I’m not sure you are right at all. Your view is a simplistic view that assumes the sun is not moving.
It’s overwhelming to me because the universe is certainly teaming with life. I wonder what will be. Human being seeing stars, all things reeling in all directions, strewn by innumerable celestial collisions of unimaginable scale, and then continuously the way down to the meeting of strangers. Later our cells greet death,, decades pass as a heartbeat. Unknowingly you and I have already collided and now shared is the future. Now you and I are become infinite. And the pondering mind’s why will absolutely made clear, for that set in motion is expressed energy. The expression of energy does collide and will collide. Simple things, to let fear be fear.
Yes as well as the retrograde spin of Venus and Triton the large moon of Neptune with a retrograde orbit. It was what knocked pluto into its odd orbit and put uranus on its side before being captured by Neptune.
@@denver606 Pluto was not "knocked" into an odd orbit. Impact can change axial tilt, but not orbital inclination, particularly not to such an extent. There are no data correlating Uranus' axial tilt and Pluto's orbit, or Triton's either. The origin of Venus' rotation is not conclusively known; an impact is only one possibility; harmonic (tidal) effects with Earth's orbit is also a possibility.
Sol is latin. It's name in English is simply the 'Sun'. Calling the Sun 'Sol' would be like saying the name for chair is 'sella' (latin) when we just call it 'chair'.
Maybe we are all a simulation and things work out like they do because that's what the program demands. I always wondered why things just WORK out so perfectly and mathematicaly percise...
Nope! Every planetary system in our galaxy has planets that orbit along a different plane, which does not have to match with our galaxy’s plane The galaxy is so large, and we are so far away from everything else (even the closest stars), that the rotation of our Hydrogen cloud was entirely influenced by local factors and perturbations
I would argue that the universe is probably less chaotic than we believe, the issue is that we have limited knowledge from which to base our observations and so things may seem chaotic simply because we do not have all of the possible data.
I agree because if it was chaotic as they believe, those stars would have constant collision. Everything are precisely set to rotate and on it on axis and everything galactic include our universe are keep moving but on the same axis. They say, our milky way Galaxy is on the collision cause with Andromeda but I highly doubt if it will collide.
Even all of man's creations are results of painstaking research, intelligent designs and planning. All our satellites 🛰 put into orbit are not from accidents like big bang.
@@mansoormannix1753 Andromeda and the Milky Way will surely collide. But that doesn't mean that necessarily any stars will collide. The distance between stars is huge.
@@akindeleakinbayo2390 the Big Bang wasn't an "accident" as you want to make it seem, God created everything, the Big Bang was His making, no matter how much denying the atheists did at first, trying to spin it in a way that denies the complete credit that is due to our Creator just makes y'all look dumb to not say ignorant.. Peace..
We know it rains diamonds on another world and we haven’t even been to our own moon. Anytime you look into the sky, you’re looking into the past. It’s called the matrix
The planets orbit in the same plane because it would be too difficult to make mechanical models of the solar system if all the planets had different orbits.
Short answer: Nope. Slightly longer answer: Hell no. Slightly more useful answer (very abridged): The "orbit" of an electron around the nucleus of an atom is nothing at all like the orbit of planets around the sun. Planets orbit the sun due to gravity. Electrons are held to the nucleus of an atom by the electromagnetic force. Very different. Electrons of an atom are not all orbiting in a plane like this video discusses with planets. They are all over the place at any given moment. In fact electrons do not move in an orbit at all. They jump about, seemingly instantaneously, from one spot to another in a kind of probability cloud. VERY un-planet like. I think this common misunderstanding comes from the classic Bohr model of an atom that students often find in text books. The one that shows electrons orbiting a nucleus in orbital shells. This model is very useful for a basic understanding of the make up of an atom. Also very useful to understanding chemistry - working out molecular combinations and such. I'm not knocking the Bohr model. It has its uses. However it is not reality in regards to the actual positions of electrons. Not even close. However even if the Bohr model were reality it would still be quite different from a solar system. Take oxygen atoms. (The one with 8 "planets" like our solar system) Every oxygen atom would have two "planets" in the nearest orbit and 6 "planets" sharing an orbit further out. Planets can share orbits in solar systems, but it is uncommon, and they don't tend to last en perpetuity. Eight "planets" each with independent orbits, like our solar system, would be impossible in oxygen atoms. Solar scale iron atoms would always have 2 "planets" in the closest orbit. 8 "planets" in the next one. 14 "planets" sharing an orbit after that, and lastly 2 "planets" in the furtherest orbit out. Good luck finding an example of that anywhere in the Milky Way. I could go on and on. The concept of spin for an electron being so very different than the spin of a planet, the makeup of a planet vs. a fermion, etc. However, I tire of typing. Hopefully this is enough. Edit: Scratch that last sentence. If you are interested in learning more about any of this I strongly encourage it. Fun stuff to learn about!!
All heavenly bodies have a pattern of objects in orbit in a plane--some like Saturn are visible because their density is easy to see, but other planets have less orbiting debris, so slight it is difficult to see. Earth has a plane of orbiting debris very thin so it's invisible to the eye but it's there.
my theory has for many years been that the planets form at random inclinations or orbit and, starting when each gathered sufficient mass, to pull each other into a common plane (approximately). perhaps the inclination angle of their spin is the orbit they were in when the disc pull started. if so, then Uranus started in a radical orbit angle. Pluto probably had other forces acting on it at times due to its wide and wild orbit, and is slower to reach the plane. should i give up this theory?
No. Don't give it up. I think this is a solid explanation. The video begins with a statement before the end of the first minute that "... the planets formed out of a disk of dust. Because that disk of dust was a disk, all in a plane, all of the planets formed in a plane as well." That statement immediately set of alarms in my head. Wasn't the original cloud of dust more like a sphere, most of which near the center collapsed quickly and became the sun? The rest started "orbiting" the central mass in whatever random orientation they were on and started coalescing into larger and larger bodies which eventually started gravitationally affecting their neighbors and synchronizing their alignment before becoming planets (of which Pluto is still collecting dust). Eventually, things settled into a semi-planar shape which is still evolving.
Bryan and Phil , Agreed. I also believe that original cloud of dust was more like a sphere. Each element had its own state of motion. Over time some of the elements fell into the sun and the remaining elements continued orbiting around the sun due to their velocity. Likely the orbiting elements forms a cloud more like a disk (there could be some elements orbiting out of the dominating disk). The initial orbits of the planets did not have to be on one plane. They became so later due to interaction among them.
What is the basis of gravity? What "things" collide in space, then begin magnetically attracting other things? Explaining what gravity does isn't my question. What causes it to start? A snowball is formed by the force of my hand compacting the snow. Roll the dense snow through loose snow and the loose snow sticks to it and it grows as long as there is loose snow to collect. My question is, who or what causes the initial dense object that attracts collects the material around it? What starts gravity?
Seems to me (in my uninformed opinion) that the interaction of gravitational forces within a solar system means that a planar solar system is probably the most stable. That, once things start to glob together, after time, those elements that will remain within the solar system, settle into a mostly planar orbit simply because anything else would tear them away from the central star.
I don't agree. The best explanation I have heard is that the disk shape orbiting objects are the end result of the chaotic orbits of all objects. Those that don't align with this plane and rotation were more likely to collide with other objects. It's that simple.
I have the same understanding, over a period of time the miss aligned objects eventually collide with each other and what remains is the current stable state.
If Kuiper belt is less narrow and Oort cloud is not narrow at all, does that mean elliptic galaxies also do contain a disk-shaped inner system? In other words, "angular momentum" does not really explain why it is a "protoplanetary disk" instead of "protoplanetary ellipsoid".
You're right to say that we don't know where Pluto may be in the future. He got offended of being downgraded from planet to dwarf planet after all those years, and may as well leave this very rude and insensitive solar system.
The Sun and planets move through space with their south poles forward and the planets make helical waves through space as the move, with the Sun, in our galaxy. You move, with the galaxy, about 230Kms and make one wave a year. Even the Sun moves in a helical wave as it follows the "Great Attractor" trying to aim towards that point in the universe. Nothing ever moves in a true circle, nor ellipse, in time/space unless it can exceed the speed of light squared. All motion is helical. Circular motion is an ILLUSION OF RELATIVITY.
Relation between human life time and space time is like relation between content of human body cells and human life time. We lived to see DART in September 26th, 2022 🥂
Wait the reason they are all coplanar is if they weren’t, they would be pulling on each other until they are in the same plane, isn’t it? Once they are in the same plane, mutual gravity between two planets only affects movement inside the same plane, all the acceleration vectors lie in that plane.
Not really. There are plenty of comets and asteroids that have highly inclined orbits, and they will basically never be forced to orbit in the same plane as us (in fact, it’s quite the opposite - they started out coplanar, and were disturbed later) But when we were just a Hydrogen cloud that was slowly collapsing, any tiny net rotation was slowly increasing as more mass was pulled to the center (like a spinning skater bringing her arms in to spin faster) Any small amount of leftover material that didn’t get pulled into the center was automatically forced into a disc due to the high rate of rotation (at this stage, you can imagine your idea as essentially correct. The gravity of a large rotating cloud of gas will collapse to the plane of rotation) But once the gas has condensed to form individual objects like planets and asteroids, the orbits of smaller objects (asteroids, comets, etc.) are heavily influenced by the sun and the planets The sun and planets formed with coplanar orbits to begin with, but there are many smaller objects that have been thrown into highly inclined and/or elliptical orbits after the fact (due to close interaction with the planets - Jupiter being by far the biggest culprit, but not exclusively)
So yeah, once way of looking at your idea is that it only works when the spinning mass is largely homogeneous (like a large spinning cloud of gas with countless particles everywhere). But once you have individual objects that are thousands or millions of miles from each other, then “anything” can happen. (Large objects are more “powerful” and are typically not disturbed, but smaller objects can be thrown into literally any orbit)
What about the fact that the sun isn't stationary which means we should be traveling in some type of weird corkscrew. Let alone the fact the entire galaxy is also moving
@@DeadlyKiss000 you’re so biased… consciousness is not simply movement… air molecules move, yet they aren’t conscious. Because air molecules don’t choose to move or know they are moving. Consciousness requires awareness. There are different states of consciousness, such as the subconscious state when you are asleep. Conscious animals require an unconscious state. That’s why dogs, cats, pigs, etc…. sleep. Once again you don’t get to redefine a collective understanding of consciousness just to fit your opinion
Planets don't orbit in same plane.Due to different inclination of each planet's orbital plane with the ecliptic, each planets has a unique orbital plane. Gravity acts b/w centers of objects. Therefore, centers of all planets can't fall on same line, as center of each planet seeks a clear line of sight to centre of the Sun.
If you look at sun motion around Galactic center, you will understand, if they go in other direction like pluto, they actually have to accelerate in front of sun and go back, which is infeasible.
Basically you have a humongous Hydrogen cloud, with random motion everywhere (to begin with). However, in 3 dimensions, it is extremely unlikely that all of these motions will exactly cancel out (from a rotational perspective), so there will always be some tiny net rotation But once a majority of the mass starts getting pulled into the center, that’s when the fun starts. Imagine a skater spinning with her arms out. When she pulls in her arms, she will spin faster (since more of her mass is closer to her axis of rotation) The same thing happens with the Hydrogen cloud, except on a much larger scale. This tiny net rotation is magnified by an enormous amount, as the cloud collapses from a volume larger than our solar system, down to form our sun at the center (the sun accounts for 99.8% of the mass of our entire solar system)
The problem is the puzzle isn't fair. The pieces fit but the picture is wrong. You will never figure it out unless you start over and undo everything you have learned.
There are two problems with the idea of the sun and planets originating from the same gas cloud. If that were the case, the planets would all orbit in the sun's equater but they are at about a 7degree angle. I read a dumb explanation from a scientist that said that something hit the sun knocking it to that degree. The second thing is that the planets or solar system is a buldge in the middle with tapered ends. No reason for that unles the solar system was extruded from the existing sun being pulled away at the angle to the passing body. Might also explain a few of the oddities of our system, such a retrograde motion and the odd orbit of Pluto and other odd rotations.
I'm no scientist, but can a 'really unstable equilibrium state' (2:10) actually exist? Equi·lib·rium [ˌiːkwɪˈlɪbrɪəm, ˌɛkwɪˈlɪbrɪəm] NOUN a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced: synonyms: balance · symmetry · equipoise · parity · equality · evenness · stability · steadiness · counterpoise · equipollence. Just asking.
Every particle inside each of us existed in some form at the time of the initial blast 💥 Every thing that ever will be, always was. ♾️ Particles that are in us now could have been inside a dinosaur or a whale or ancient persons, plants, volcano blasts of course it’s endless. We are (and everything is) ancient stardust. I like that. 💫
“It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day: Each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to Law). “- Quraan, chapter Yaseen, verse40
According to the cuneiform tablets of Sumerian times and the propaganda made by Marduk/Rah, the solar system was made when Marduk's (Anu) spear puctured the eye of Tiamat and stabled its waters. Later it was discovered Marduk changed the tablet for propaganda when it was really Anu who stabled the solar system so that they could harvest resources from it later. With the evidence, they placed the moons to stabilized the planets. They perfected the planetary orbits and their speeds. They made both Mars and Earth ideal places for mining rare minerals, especially gold.
So maybe one explanation could be the fact that matter likes being in low energy states. Therefore, a disk of planets is a lower energy state than orbits of different inclinations?
Super cool story. But how would disk formation account for, more than 1 planet (in our solar system) orbiting opposite of the other orbits? How would it account for planets not being on the same axial tilt? How would it account for not all the planets have the same rotational speed? How would it account for more than 1 planet having multiple moons that have crazier and complex orbits around the host planet than the planets have? (Could space junk orbiting earth be put there naturally and continue its orbital complexity without colliding or causing problems without a mind monitoring it with the assistance of fast artificial intelligence to make sure there are no issues??) Other than that, super cool story. I Stopped at 4:55
Coulda, Shoulda ,Woulda ... Are you sure ... 🤣 I thought uncertainty was the" only" constant .... Now I find out I'm in a type of spacial clothes dryer ..
Imagine changing the orbit of the asteroid and it falls into the orbit around some planet or sun and gets a gravity assist and gets thrown directly at us.
He never mentioned conservation of angular momentum, which is the crux of why they orbit in a plane. Matter can fall onto the disc, but can not move closer or further away from the center of rotation because that would violate a conservation law. A really poor explanation.
The washing machine analogy doesn’t work. It’s got a machine that forces only one spin. Nor does conservation of momentum explain the planar disc, because there are lots of orbital arrangements that would have the same total angular momentum, you could even have one planet orbitting in the opposite direction and the total system would still preserve angular momentum. It would just be a different valie.
Contrary to what you've been taught to believe, the planets are not on a 'plane' around the sun. Our sun is pulling the planets behind it as it hurtles around our galaxy. Every one of them in its perfect spot of balance for the entire system. Our system did just cross the galactic plane though. Back in 2012. But we are on a collision course in the cosmic intersection of doom. Every 12,900 years. Dig a hole, find a cave, grab a book. lol.
Maybe a stupid question: if genera relativity says Gravity is due to bending or curving of space ( creating a gravity well like thing ) then shouldn’t all the planets in Solar system be incrementally at a higher plane ? I don’t get it
Lorenzo seems to claim that Pluto is a planet. It is part of the Kuiper belt. Many objects including Pluto share that orbital path and at this time, Pluto is considered a dwarf planet because of its size and the fact in shares its orbit with other objects.
I suppose it would mean we have some re-thinking to do about our current understanding of star and/or planetary system formation! However, at this point we have already observed 5,300 exoplanets (planets that orbit other stars in our galaxy), and they all behave the same as our solar system :)
Hey Insane Curiosity Squad! If you liked the video, we would love for you to share it with your friends or on other social networks like Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, TikTok and Twitter, etc... (Since the algorithm is not cooperating in showing us to the public 😅). In just 30 seconds, you will greatly help our Channel to grow and improve future contents. A big thank you from all of us.
Update: DART did work, and it worked so much better than scientists ever expected. It changed its orbit by like 35 minutes, and it was only expected to change it by 10-11. That’s over 3x the amount predicted. That bodes really well for us with moving large asteroids out of the way of the Earth.
Having a 3 times effect is actually a fail, because it means the math is totally wrong. Meaning future projects IE saving Earth might fail because the guestimate the figures.
@@ntal5859 how so please explain .
@@motogeee510 perhaps the mass of the astroid was miscalculated.
@@ntal5859 A three times effect is a success, because it proved the technique worked. Calculating how to do it accurately is not important right now, and the data collected will be our first burst of data regarding how to do just that. If DART had done nothing at all, or even very little, that would have been the worst-case scenario.
@@DarthMeteos Measuring success depends on what your goals are. If you want to affect an asteroid by at least a certain amount and get three times that then you succeeded. I think N Tal is looking st it in a different way than that that I also agree with. Engineers and scientists and have the goal of understanding and having predictive power. For the DART they no doubt used simulations of mathematical models to design the device and its path to the asteroid in order to have a certain effect on its trajectory. They may have also run many cases to get a probabilistic prediction of the result based on the final design. For the outcome of be three time greater would suggest that either 1) the models were not as accurate as they should be, which is a pretty big problem when it comes to saving the planet because it just as easily could have gone the other way or 2) the specific event was so well executed that or that it was such a freak event, statistically, that it fell outside the confidence interval established by the all of the different cases run to establish probabilities, in which case the assumptions about the probabilities that went into selecting cases weren't that great or we can't necessarily rely on it always being three times as good as expected and flocks are just touting the three time as good outcome to give a good headline. It would have been a much more promising outcome if the engineers and scientists involved nailed the estimate because it actually demonstrates a high degree of proficiency.
i like how they give the explanation up front instead making you suffer through till the end of the video 💯
I made it as far as washing machine.
Thank you for giving the answer in the first minute of video, and then going into details. No unnecessary suspension.
It’s the hallmark of a good video!
Right because the explanation is nonsense
Missed an important point: initially matter circulates at All Planes and orientations. If there is a stistically dominant oritation then ALL THE OTHER ORIENTATIONS ARE ELIMINATED BY COLLISIONS as they pass through the y plane. Leaving only the orbits not subject to collisions.
Sun's rotating magnetic field mostly forces planets to orbit in same plane, without which the orbits of planets will be all over the place. Every planet is highly charged which causes planets to move right angles to Sun's magnetic field, creating an orbit. Gravity and centrifugal force are not the only players in the field. Also mutual repulsion between Sun and planets keeps them from readily colliding.
Can you explain more, its interesting
Very nice. 👍
But i thought planets as a whole dont have any charge
Nice try. But actually it depends on the direction the mass from the previous star was spinning or moving in.
I wonder if this could be correlated to the gas giants having rings around their equators and spiral galaxies being flat disks around their equator.
Job 26:7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing.
Psalm 19:1-4. Is one of my favorites.
Why bring superstitious nonsense into what is otherwise an interesting scientific debate?
@@migranthawker2952 Then you'll have to explain why a religious text recorded thousands of years ago correctly described the earth as having the appearance of a circle as well as it hanging in space by nothingness?
I was under the impression that our solar system behaved similarly to a projectile. Our sun being the leading object with all the plants and moons in our solar system locked into gravitational equilibrium constantly trying to fall into the suns gravitational mass, but constantly missing it due to the suns velocity.
Somewhat similar to how our space stations are perpetually falling onto the planet, but the speed maintained that’s parallel to the surface is fast enough to consistently miss the planets surface.
I literally thought this was the basic idea as to how the solar system as a whole moves through space just more complex like the precise gears in a clock.
But I didn’t imagine our planets and moons literally existing on the same solar plane, but I guess it makes sense considering it would probably be chaotic without some form of equilibrium. I remember the whole “Planet X” theory that basically makes the argument that some bodies in our solar system could orbit on a plain, only to intersect the normal orbital patterns over tremendous lengths of time. I think the evidence they used is the strange behavior of small rocky bodies being flung into the inner solar system on occasion, or maybe it was an observing an odd gravitational anomaly that could only be explained by fault in classical physics, or a planet orbiting our sun in a drastically different orbit
Ladies and gentlemen he's got it.
Nope from a certain point of view everything is moving in a perfectly straight line. Space and time are bent. Things follow their path through space time. Even a motionless sun would create orbits. Yes things fall towards the sun but they wouldn't intersect with the sun unless something reduces the objects speed or direction.
@@samtheweebo a motionless sun would NOT create orbits. If fact as far as we know a motionless sun is impossible in our universe although I hate to use the term impossible.
@@ynkybomber mass bends spacetime so a relatively motionless sun would still have enough of a gravity well to have objects orbit it. Things orbiting are not chasing the item they are orbiting. I know nothing can ever be considered truly motionless. I also know that the motion does affect and contribute to gravity, but the sun is definitely not a projectile with all the planets trailing behind trying to fall into where the sun has been. The motion of the solar system as a whole is kind of edge on. I'm not finding the best words to express the idea at the moment but I hope it's clear enough
The Latin for Sun is just “Sol”, which is in the nominative case (subject case), while “Solis” is the genitive (i.e., of the Sun)
and then....???? your point???
@@lunam7249 point is, if you want to use Latin use it correctly???
@@lorenzokern1604 thanks for elucidating your point..... but how about ancient syrillic? thrown by the wayside? egyptian hierogliffs?
@@lunam7249
You’re apparently unaware that you are responding to two different people yet you want to lecture them on points they weren’t making in the first place. Does that satisfy your need to feel superior?
@@negativeindustrial your correct...however apparently it lorenzo jumping in inapproprietly.... but that ok..thats what comment freedom is all about...salvatore really made no point...it frustrated me, actually...you..correctly noted my error...
TLDW: Stars are believed to form as the result of a collapse of a low-temperature cloud of gas and dust. As the cloud collapses, conservation of angular momentum causes any small net rotation of the cloud to increase, forcing the material into a rotating disk. All of the angular momentum of that disk is retained in the star and the planets that formed from it.
good
Thou speak'st aright.
Why does angular momentum cause the net rotation to increase? Sorry, I don't understand angular momentum very well.
And where did that gas and dust come from? Who created it? 🌚
@@AkshatSharma1505 imagine spinning on skates with your arms out. If you bring your arms in, you will spin faster (because all of your mass is closer to your axis of rotation)
The same thing happens with star formation, except on a much larger scale. Even a tiny amount of net rotation will be magnified into a tremendous speed of rotation once the majority of the mass has been pulled in to form a star at the center
At the risk of sounding like a smarty pants or a dummy, the washing machine is a bad example. Explain why: The clothes are enclosed and therefore restricted in a disk shaped enclosure.
I was thinking the same thing
So what you are saying you didn't understand cetrifical force? So you are dumb? Yup.
“add the bleach”? Won’t the blue shirt look a little nebulous after this wash?
True but one could argue that's gravity holding it together (instead of flying away)
Imo
That disk shaped enclosure is the Milky Way..
For the same reason that rings on a planet rotate on the same plane (gravitational forces). When you rotate something from a rope, for instance, it always moves to the same plane perpendicular to it's axis of rotation no matter in what other plane it starts rotating. Ignore effects due to atmospheric conditions.
Ding ding ding we have a winner.
I dont understand why there is so much confusion out there about such a simple idea.
That's an insufficient explanation. While the orbital plane for an object is orthogonal to the axis of rotation, that doesn't explain why different orbiting bodies have to share the same orbital plane and same axis of rotation. If there are n orbiting bodies, why don't we see n different orbital planes, with each body moving around its own axis of rotation? That's the question behind the video. The explanation needs to address a system of multiple orbiting bodies and not just a single body.
@@jkbeatty1 They all fall under the same explanation, you're over complicating it. Their explanation is sufficient.
@@montypython5521 An explanation of "gravitational forces" is about as helpful as saying the reason is "physics". While literally true, it doesn't really illuminate anything. In particular, the analogy to spinning an object on a string doesn't really help: yes, an orbiting object travels in plane. But that doesn't address why different objects can't "spin" around different axes and along different planes.
@@jkbeatty1 they do. Remember that thing about earth's rotational axis being tilted in relation to the sun causing the seasons?
It is because of that tilt that the moon's orbit around the earth is also tilted by 5° in relation to the earths orbit around the sun. The influence by the gravity of the sun and other planets is pulling it slightly out of what would have otherwise been an orbit perpendicular to it spin axis.
I just love this type of Insane Curiosity! 🤩
👍
Me too *m & m* There was a time I wasn't really interested, but over the past 2 years or so it's like I've found my interest niche.
@@Ron4885 Hi Ron. It's great to hear from you and l'm so very glad you found a happy place with our Insane Family! 🤩
@@mm-dw4rr 👍
It amazes me that 95% of all stars observed have companion stars but our sun doesn't, that we know of yet.
Jupiter was really close to being our sun's companion!
It does, and it’s close
@@antoniokambire2271 not as close as you might think though… The smallest stars have about 70 times the mass of Jupiter
(The largest known exoplanet has about 30 Jupiter masses!)
I’ve always wondered this. I also wonder why galaxies are nearly the same plane too. And how are we estimating the amount of planets in a galaxy when we can only ever see the planets that pass between us and their star? What if half of them have planets that orbit north to south in relation to the direction were observing them from?
@Banter Maestro2 oh neat. I had no idea people also made calculations and educated estimates based on that. Makes sense tho. The planets and likely Jupiter is part of the cause for our stars little wobble right?
The sun travels the galaxy at 230 km/s , so when it comes to movement of planets and their orbits .
To not consider this and think of the solar system like in min 0:01 is the same as to think earth is flat, so that being said ... the sun travels the galaxy like a comet and it's "satellites" the planets follow him in a vortex like form .
Do you recall that simple representation of relativity with a black sheet and balls thrown in the sheet so it curves representing it's mass ... ok now pintch the very end of the sheet at any center of mass ,now i want you to twist it and see how it really is , vortex like .
As for the sun journey the galaxy around the massive black hole from the center of the galaxy ... you gotta think of hierarchy here , as the sun takes 230 million years to complete a cicle also know that our sun is bound to other celestials bodies before being bound to the center of the galaxy .
The world famous ancient mathematicians the mayans calculated several sun cicles , something very interesting isn't it ?
@@dudulaselva1549 I know all of this. What’s this got to do with my question?
@@donaldham308 well that is precisely the thing . if you understand the movement like that you have to know that it is very rare to see planets crossing their star . so they estimate it by equations and i really don't know much about that.
@@dudulaselva1549 oh. I was under the impression that they’ve estimated most of the planets out there by observing their impact on the brightness of the host star. Because that movement is all relative considering it’s all moving around in space like that. It’s not as drastic as it all sounds considering the stars in the night sky have barely moved from their position hundreds of years ago. I know the first exo planet they found was because of the dimming of a star.
Even the word "planet" seems like it's derived from the word "plane" lol
I like that he gave the answer at the beginning then took the rest of the video to explain.
It's not really an answer though - because the dust was in a disc format already. Great - so what caused THAT dust to be in a disc like shape? All I got from this is a wheel is round because its constituent components are formed into a round shape.
@@the_kombinator exactly
This video makes me believe in God even more. The fact we exist at all is incredible. I wonder what our purpose is.
Our purpose is to praise Him, the purpose of the stars is to show how great He is.. All glory is to God for creating the Heavens (space) n the Earth..
I bet there is someone out there who could supply the answer succinctly in about one minute.
Emily Tienne,
Am sure a Catholic would think you're talking about god.
We need someone " in here " to answer questions . . . .
@@fjb4932 Well, no, I wasn’t hinting at anything of a religious nature. But my religious mother would have said something like, “The planets orbit in a plane because God wanted it that way...there’s your answer.” She had very little scientific curiosity.
Steller systems, galaxies, etc all form a disk because mass pulls to the center. So that means in the very beginning all mass rushes to the center and then blows by on all planes. As time goes on as mass starts to group, mass on one plane eventually over takes mass on another planing making chaos into a pattern that follows suit. Eventually the finally plane dominates leaving a simple disk like pattern.
I think if all the planets were on different planes, they have the tendency to converge to the same plane due to gravity
I think you are correct in that assumption. Eventually all a stars planet would eventually push and pull one another all into the same plane over time.
I mostly understood the first 60 seconds
Thank you...
If the material in the disc was uniform and all the same, why do the planets each have different chemical composition especially from the sun which contained the majority of the matter?
The material started out uniform, but as the proto-sun in the center started heating up, it started naturally dividing up the rest of the material into rough exclusion zones
Light gases like H and He were easily blown away by the Sun’s stellar wind, so the inner planets are mostly devoid of these elements as they could only exist further out. No surprise then that instead, these planets are mainly heavier silicates and metals with relatively little gas.
The frost line is also significant, as this defines whether a substance can remain solidified as an ice, or becomes sublimated and transformed into different elements. This line is between Mars and Jupiter, so again the inner planets have little ice while the giant planets (particularly Uranus and Neptune) have substantial reserves. The frost line is why comets develop tails as they near the sun, the heat vaporizes it off the surface in awesome fashion. NEOs don’t develop tails because they’re mainly rock and remain solid in their orbits
Of course, this isn’t a hard rule because the presence of even a modest atmosphere can insulate the more finicky elements, asteroid impacts can transfer volatile substances to what would be barren worlds, and the subtle effects of migration can eventually move an entire planet out of the environment in which it formed. Additionally each planet will experience various changes in its climate as the sun evolves, once again with the possibly of bringing stable elements outside of an area they could have formed in
Geological and biological factors.
@@George83_Thomas fantastic explanation. Hopefully the commenter learns something from this bc I sure did👍🏼
Very unpredictable about the future of the Universe and it's impact on Mankind!
¡Muy interesante¡, aparte de mis problemas con el idioma quiero entender que los planetas giran en torno al sol en el mismo plano que el que el sol gira en torno a la vía láctea.
El sol no gira alrededor de la via lactea
@@jjuanmarin ????¿¿¿¿
Are the oort cloud and/or kuiper belt coplanar or all encompassing? I obviously don't know what word should be used, lol. Multiplanar? Omni?
On some planets- it rains diamonds! Wow, what an awesome fact. Cool to learn about the Ecliptic- thanks for the video!
That's a lie. We have no idea how stars form either.
@@richardclark. ok
@@richardclark. Only you don't. Astrophysicists know stellar nurseries since many decades ago.
When thinking about the universe I stopped thinking of it in terms of left to right, up to down, in or out, changed my perspective immediately.
Solar system surrounded by extremely cold particles. An in the middle there's a hug glowing ball of heat . Then all these less than equal sized planets orbiting in a flat plain . Yet one Pluto has a distinctive different orbiting pattern . Yet the heat from the sun is constantly being mixed up by the orbits of the planets strangely enough . Then you also have the asteroids soaking up the sun heat as well. The flat plain orbits mean most the heat the sun emits is going above it. An below it an most likely being redirected back into the orbits of the planets from what I believe is the furthest edges like past Pluto orbit. An all trapped by those super cold particles that surrounds the entirety of or solar system.
My perspective is simply that, perspective FROM me / where i'm at, To what i see.
As Humans, our perspective is from inside us to / out towards everything else.
We Each are the center of everything.
Everything is relative to each of us. . . .
Absolutely fascinating
Our Planet is very precious. We have the huge planets in the same plane to protect us and shield us from cosmic attack of various propotions.
Pluto is probably a great example of our solar system grabbing Pluto as it was part of a gigantic astronomical body coming in at an oblique angle to our solar system.
Interesting subject!! In classic astronomy, the etimological meaning of the word planet is directly related with the fact that they are in the same plane!!
Afaik the etymology comes from ancient greek and it is a declension of the greek word for "wandering", as they were objects that seemed to wander in the sky since they were moving unlike stars and didn't follow a simple path in the sky unlike the sun or the moon.
It's because the sun is moving through space and dragging the planets behind and around itself. You literally "can't" go "down" unless you outpace the sun itself.
ua-cam.com/video/0jHsq36_NTU/v-deo.html
Our short life compared to the cosmos? We are just as infinite. An astounding video and easy to understand. You have outlined the basics of constructing a free energy device without it being called, perpetual motion,' Simplicity says to construct a hollow disk from a conducting metal. Start with a copper (motor) ring with a removable top plate and bottom plate (generating disks). Make a loose-fitting armature out of the same material, but in the shape of a spiral galaxy put it inside the disk and seal it shut. Now hit the assembled unit with a bolt of lightning.
The electromagnetic field will protect the disk from heat as well as provide energy to create electromaglev bearings. When lightning saturates the disk, the armature will repel off the bottom, top and sides and start spinning in the direction of the shape of the arms. The outer ring pushes the armature which generates electricityn in the top & bottom platesm which feed the motor ring, etc.,etc.,..........................................................................................................
I'm assuming the gravity of an object within the asteroid belt increases exponentially as it increases in size...? As Vesta is already showing signs there's been impacts on its surface, will it potentially end up growing large enough to become a planet (even though it missed the initial 'construction' stage)?
Gravity is actually directly proportional to the mass of an object. If you consider 'size' as in the mass of a spherical object, then that roughly increases in relation to r^3, therefore increasing its gravity along the same lines, if we ignore materials of varying density that make up the object.
The problem with impacts is you don't always gain mass from them, the smaller the object being hit the more material will be flung away outside of the gravitational influence. So gaining mass from impacts of other asteroids really depends on luck that it will get hit with enough other asteroids that are small enough and at a slow enough speed to actually increase its mass.
The planet formation stage was so important because there was a lot of mass out there in the early solar system. Didn't need big impacts of mass to gain, just collecting small bits of matter constantly. There's not much floating around out there anymore but hydrogen which is notoriously hard to hold onto. Unlike Iron for example which is very easy for a relatively small amount of gravity to capture, it tends not to fly away. Why the planets were able to form when they did there was a lot of heavier elements scattered around.
The ability to grow from your own gravity is exponential, if that's what you were refering to that is correct. But at this stage of the solar system there really isn't much mass out there to collect, and what is there is mostly hydrogen.
There’s a linear relationship between mass and it’s associated gravitational force
Take the Earth for example. When we got hit with something very big, we didn't really gain mass, we even lost it- but we gained a friend. Hi, Moon!
So no, I don't think that's very likely to happen.
Vesta has very low gravity (a little over 1/50th of Earth’s), so any significant impacts would just fling material off into space
I have a question regarding gas cloud collapse triggering the formation of a star. That seems to be a reasonable explanation. One cause mentioned was the collapse of a near by (in space distances) of an older star. This implies an older star. Obvious that is a reaction type event. What other events are believed, with supporting evidence, to trigger gas cloud collapse and star formation? Or we run into that 'What started the oldest star?' question.
Do they? The sun is circling around the galaxy and the planets are being drug along by the sun with the planets being in a helical spiral around the path of the sun. I’m not sure you are right at all. Your view is a simplistic view that assumes the sun is not moving.
It's a skill. Posting everyday and keep it interesting!
Thank you, again :)
Beautifully said.
P.S Be safe and prosper. 😀
Didn't even answer the question, I doubt he can.
@@Mrbfgray In a way he did or tried to... Listen carefully to the text.
@@UtraVioletDreams Conservation of momentum happens in spherical clouds and everywhere, it does not explain a disc over any other shape.
It is cheating. Still no answer to why is the plane?
It’s overwhelming to me because the universe is certainly teaming with life.
I wonder what will be.
Human being seeing stars, all things reeling in all directions, strewn by innumerable celestial collisions of unimaginable scale, and then continuously the way down to the meeting of strangers. Later our cells greet death,, decades pass as a heartbeat.
Unknowingly you and I have already collided and now shared is the future. Now you and I are become infinite.
And the pondering mind’s why will absolutely made clear, for that set in motion is expressed energy. The expression of energy does collide and will collide.
Simple things, to let fear be fear.
I wonder, could Uranus' tilt and Pluto's inclined orbit be related?
Yes as well as the retrograde spin of Venus and Triton the large moon of Neptune with a retrograde orbit. It was what knocked pluto into its odd orbit and put uranus on its side before being captured by Neptune.
@@denver606 Pluto was not "knocked" into an odd orbit. Impact can change axial tilt, but not orbital inclination, particularly not to such an extent. There are no data correlating Uranus' axial tilt and Pluto's orbit, or Triton's either. The origin of Venus' rotation is not conclusively known; an impact is only one possibility; harmonic (tidal) effects with Earth's orbit is also a possibility.
@@scottbilger9294 Says You?
Sol is latin. It's name in English is simply the 'Sun'. Calling the Sun 'Sol' would be like saying the name for chair is 'sella' (latin) when we just call it 'chair'.
Does the planets orbit In the same plane as the galaxy's plane?
That’s a great question!
Maybe we are all a simulation and things work out like they do because that's what the program demands.
I always wondered why things just WORK out so perfectly and mathematicaly percise...
no, it is perpendicular
@@angelafisher5726 certainly couldn't be Creationism. That would be crazy.
Nope! Every planetary system in our galaxy has planets that orbit along a different plane, which does not have to match with our galaxy’s plane
The galaxy is so large, and we are so far away from everything else (even the closest stars), that the rotation of our Hydrogen cloud was entirely influenced by local factors and perturbations
It's called conservation of angular momentum. You're welcome.
I would argue that the universe is probably less chaotic than we believe, the issue is that we have limited knowledge from which to base our observations and so things may seem chaotic simply because we do not have all of the possible data.
I agree because if it was chaotic as they believe, those stars would have constant collision. Everything are precisely set to rotate and on it on axis and everything galactic include our universe are keep moving but on the same axis. They say, our milky way Galaxy is on the collision cause with Andromeda but I highly doubt if it will collide.
Even all of man's creations are results of painstaking research, intelligent designs and planning. All our satellites 🛰 put into orbit are not from accidents like big bang.
It's not chaotic at all. It's equilibrium is magic!
@@mansoormannix1753 Andromeda and the Milky Way will surely collide. But that doesn't mean that necessarily any stars will collide. The distance between stars is huge.
@@akindeleakinbayo2390 the Big Bang wasn't an "accident" as you want to make it seem, God created everything, the Big Bang was His making, no matter how much denying the atheists did at first, trying to spin it in a way that denies the complete credit that is due to our Creator just makes y'all look dumb to not say ignorant.. Peace..
We know it rains diamonds on another world and we haven’t even been to our own moon. Anytime you look into the sky, you’re looking into the past. It’s called the matrix
Exactly
The planets orbit in the same plane because it would be too difficult to make mechanical models of the solar system if all the planets had different orbits.
waiting for someone to miss the joke like
Well…. Maybe ?
Venus and Uranus…. Conflict with this hypothesis.
No one ever seems to think this is worth mentioning.
Excellent video. Thank you
Because God did so.
So we just found out today that DART absolutely worked. Pretty awesome.
I have always wondered if the Sun might not be a nucleus and we happen to live on an electron of a much grander scale.
Short answer: Nope.
Slightly longer answer: Hell no.
Slightly more useful answer (very abridged): The "orbit" of an electron around the nucleus of an atom is nothing at all like the orbit of planets around the sun.
Planets orbit the sun due to gravity. Electrons are held to the nucleus of an atom by the electromagnetic force. Very different.
Electrons of an atom are not all orbiting in a plane like this video discusses with planets. They are all over the place at any given moment.
In fact electrons do not move in an orbit at all. They jump about, seemingly instantaneously, from one spot to another in a kind of probability cloud. VERY un-planet like.
I think this common misunderstanding comes from the classic Bohr model of an atom that students often find in text books. The one that shows electrons orbiting a nucleus in orbital shells. This model is very useful for a basic understanding of the make up of an atom. Also very useful to understanding chemistry - working out molecular combinations and such. I'm not knocking the Bohr model. It has its uses. However it is not reality in regards to the actual positions of electrons. Not even close.
However even if the Bohr model were reality it would still be quite different from a solar system. Take oxygen atoms. (The one with 8 "planets" like our solar system) Every oxygen atom would have two "planets" in the nearest orbit and 6 "planets" sharing an orbit further out. Planets can share orbits in solar systems, but it is uncommon, and they don't tend to last en perpetuity. Eight "planets" each with independent orbits, like our solar system, would be impossible in oxygen atoms. Solar scale iron atoms would always have 2 "planets" in the closest orbit. 8 "planets" in the next one. 14 "planets" sharing an orbit after that, and lastly 2 "planets" in the furtherest orbit out. Good luck finding an example of that anywhere in the Milky Way.
I could go on and on. The concept of spin for an electron being so very different than the spin of a planet, the makeup of a planet vs. a fermion, etc. However, I tire of typing. Hopefully this is enough.
Edit: Scratch that last sentence. If you are interested in learning more about any of this I strongly encourage it. Fun stuff to learn about!!
@@edwardofgreene Wow, thank you for the education, yes my thoughts were based on the Bohr model.
All heavenly bodies have a pattern of objects in orbit in a plane--some like Saturn are visible because their density is easy to see, but other planets have less orbiting debris, so slight it is difficult to see. Earth has a plane of orbiting debris very thin so it's invisible to the eye but it's there.
my theory has for many years been that the planets form at random inclinations or orbit and, starting when each gathered sufficient mass, to pull each other into a common plane (approximately). perhaps the inclination angle of their spin is the orbit they were in when the disc pull started. if so, then Uranus started in a radical orbit angle. Pluto probably had other forces acting on it at times due to its wide and wild orbit, and is slower to reach the plane. should i give up this theory?
No. Don't give it up. I think this is a solid explanation. The video begins with a statement before the end of the first minute that "... the planets formed out of a disk of dust. Because that disk of dust was a disk, all in a plane, all of the planets formed in a plane as well." That statement immediately set of alarms in my head. Wasn't the original cloud of dust more like a sphere, most of which near the center collapsed quickly and became the sun? The rest started "orbiting" the central mass in whatever random orientation they were on and started coalescing into larger and larger bodies which eventually started gravitationally affecting their neighbors and synchronizing their alignment before becoming planets (of which Pluto is still collecting dust). Eventually, things settled into a semi-planar shape which is still evolving.
Bryan and Phil , Agreed. I also believe that original cloud of dust was more like a sphere. Each element had its own state of motion. Over time some of the elements fell into the sun and the remaining elements continued orbiting around the sun due to their velocity. Likely the orbiting elements forms a cloud more like a disk (there could be some elements orbiting out of the dominating disk). The initial orbits of the planets did not have to be on one plane. They became so later due to interaction among them.
@@bryanbaker6579 The particles collided, and the up-and-down movements cancelled out. This turned the gas cloud into a disk.
So happy that you used planetary system and not star system
I was under the impression that orbits are influenced by thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years of gravity influence.
What is the basis of gravity? What "things" collide in space, then begin magnetically attracting other things?
Explaining what gravity does isn't my question. What causes it to start?
A snowball is formed by the force of my hand compacting the snow. Roll the dense snow through loose snow and the loose snow sticks to it and it grows as long as there is loose snow to collect. My question is, who or what causes the initial dense object that attracts collects the material around it? What starts gravity?
Seems to me (in my uninformed opinion) that the interaction of gravitational forces within a solar system means that a planar solar system is probably the most stable. That, once things start to glob together, after time, those elements that will remain within the solar system, settle into a mostly planar orbit simply because anything else would tear them away from the central star.
08:45 - The last time this happened was on February 07th 1979. I was born the previous day.
I don't agree. The best explanation I have heard is that the disk shape orbiting objects are the end result of the chaotic orbits of all objects. Those that don't align with this plane and rotation were more likely to collide with other objects. It's that simple.
I have the same understanding, over a period of time the miss aligned objects eventually collide with each other and what remains is the current stable state.
If Kuiper belt is less narrow and Oort cloud is not narrow at all, does that mean elliptic galaxies also do contain a disk-shaped inner system?
In other words, "angular momentum" does not really explain why it is a "protoplanetary disk" instead of "protoplanetary ellipsoid".
Sun is magnetic matter,that's why sun doesn't have south and north pole called antimatter
Why do all the planets orbit in the same lane/direction? Quick answer: Same reason Saturn's rings have gaps at specific radii.
Because orbits in the same plane have the smallest gravity energy variations which is more stable structure.
You're right to say that we don't know where Pluto may be in the future.
He got offended of being downgraded from planet to dwarf planet after all those years, and may as well leave this very rude and insensitive solar system.
The Sun and planets move through space with their south poles forward and the planets make helical waves through space as the move, with the Sun, in our galaxy. You move, with the galaxy, about 230Kms and make one wave a year. Even the Sun moves in a helical wave as it follows the "Great Attractor" trying to aim towards that point in the universe. Nothing ever moves in a true circle, nor ellipse, in time/space unless it can exceed the speed of light squared. All motion is helical. Circular motion is an ILLUSION OF RELATIVITY.
Relation between human life time and space time is like relation between content of human body cells and human life time.
We lived to see DART in September 26th, 2022 🥂
Wait the reason they are all coplanar is if they weren’t, they would be pulling on each other until they are in the same plane, isn’t it?
Once they are in the same plane, mutual gravity between two planets only affects movement inside the same plane, all the acceleration vectors lie in that plane.
Not really. There are plenty of comets and asteroids that have highly inclined orbits, and they will basically never be forced to orbit in the same plane as us (in fact, it’s quite the opposite - they started out coplanar, and were disturbed later)
But when we were just a Hydrogen cloud that was slowly collapsing, any tiny net rotation was slowly increasing as more mass was pulled to the center (like a spinning skater bringing her arms in to spin faster)
Any small amount of leftover material that didn’t get pulled into the center was automatically forced into a disc due to the high rate of rotation (at this stage, you can imagine your idea as essentially correct. The gravity of a large rotating cloud of gas will collapse to the plane of rotation)
But once the gas has condensed to form individual objects like planets and asteroids, the orbits of smaller objects (asteroids, comets, etc.) are heavily influenced by the sun and the planets
The sun and planets formed with coplanar orbits to begin with, but there are many smaller objects that have been thrown into highly inclined and/or elliptical orbits after the fact (due to close interaction with the planets - Jupiter being by far the biggest culprit, but not exclusively)
So yeah, once way of looking at your idea is that it only works when the spinning mass is largely homogeneous (like a large spinning cloud of gas with countless particles everywhere). But once you have individual objects that are thousands or millions of miles from each other, then “anything” can happen. (Large objects are more “powerful” and are typically not disturbed, but smaller objects can be thrown into literally any orbit)
Better Call Sol
Very succinctly presented, in a most interesting manner, keeping one's attention focused. Thank you
What about the fact that the sun isn't stationary which means we should be traveling in some type of weird corkscrew. Let alone the fact the entire galaxy is also moving
@@DeadlyKiss000 no, consciousness requires a brain. You don’t get to just redefine consciousness to fit your opinion
@@DeadlyKiss000 you’re so biased… consciousness is not simply movement… air molecules move, yet they aren’t conscious. Because air molecules don’t choose to move or know they are moving. Consciousness requires awareness. There are different states of consciousness, such as the subconscious state when you are asleep. Conscious animals require an unconscious state. That’s why dogs, cats, pigs, etc…. sleep. Once again you don’t get to redefine a collective understanding of consciousness just to fit your opinion
Our planet is magnificent
Planets don't orbit in same plane.Due to different inclination of each planet's orbital plane with the ecliptic, each planets has a unique orbital plane. Gravity acts b/w centers of objects. Therefore, centers of all planets can't fall on same line, as center of each planet seeks a clear line of sight to centre of the Sun.
If you look at sun motion around Galactic center, you will understand, if they go in other direction like pluto, they actually have to accelerate in front of sun and go back, which is infeasible.
I've been wondering that for a while now. Thanks!
What happened to 'counter clockwise '?
'unstable equilibrium '... oxymoron
Muy interesante. Saludos desde Perú.
But what makes planets or stars spin in a specific plane ? What drives the moment
Basically you have a humongous Hydrogen cloud, with random motion everywhere (to begin with). However, in 3 dimensions, it is extremely unlikely that all of these motions will exactly cancel out (from a rotational perspective), so there will always be some tiny net rotation
But once a majority of the mass starts getting pulled into the center, that’s when the fun starts. Imagine a skater spinning with her arms out. When she pulls in her arms, she will spin faster (since more of her mass is closer to her axis of rotation)
The same thing happens with the Hydrogen cloud, except on a much larger scale. This tiny net rotation is magnified by an enormous amount, as the cloud collapses from a volume larger than our solar system, down to form our sun at the center (the sun accounts for 99.8% of the mass of our entire solar system)
@@Muhahahahaz thank you waited 3 months for an answre 🙌🏽🙏🏾
The problem is the puzzle isn't fair. The pieces fit but the picture is wrong.
You will never figure it out unless you start over and undo everything you have learned.
:50 Why do all the planets orbit on the same plane? Well it’s because they were already that way 🤷♂️
I always thought it was the gravity between them balancing them out over time.
probably true, instead of gravity, perhaps using mass of the planet if using time-space relationship to explain. 😅
I agree with you.
There are two problems with the idea of the sun and planets originating from the same gas cloud. If that were the case, the planets would all orbit in the sun's equater but they are at about a 7degree angle. I read a dumb explanation from a scientist that said that something hit the sun knocking it to that degree. The second thing is that the planets or solar system is a buldge in the middle with tapered ends. No reason for that unles the solar system was extruded from the existing sun being pulled away at the angle to the passing body. Might also explain a few of the oddities of our system, such a retrograde motion and the odd orbit of Pluto and other odd rotations.
I'm no scientist, but can a 'really unstable equilibrium state' (2:10) actually exist?
Equi·lib·rium
[ˌiːkwɪˈlɪbrɪəm, ˌɛkwɪˈlɪbrɪəm]
NOUN
a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced:
synonyms:
balance · symmetry · equipoise · parity · equality · evenness · stability · steadiness · counterpoise · equipollence. Just asking.
What started thee rotation in the first place?
so you have no clue why?
I expected this was the answer. I'm about not to watch now
Every particle inside each of us existed in some form at the time of the initial blast 💥 Every thing that ever will be, always was. ♾️
Particles that are in us now could have been inside a dinosaur or a whale or ancient persons, plants, volcano blasts of course it’s endless. We are (and everything is) ancient stardust. I like that. 💫
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
“It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day: Each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to Law). “- Quraan, chapter Yaseen, verse40
According to the cuneiform tablets of Sumerian times and the propaganda made by Marduk/Rah, the solar system was made when Marduk's (Anu) spear puctured the eye of Tiamat and stabled its waters. Later it was discovered Marduk changed the tablet for propaganda when it was really Anu who stabled the solar system so that they could harvest resources from it later. With the evidence, they placed the moons to stabilized the planets. They perfected the planetary orbits and their speeds. They made both Mars and Earth ideal places for mining rare minerals, especially gold.
So maybe one explanation could be the fact that matter likes being in low energy states.
Therefore, a disk of planets is a lower energy state than orbits of different inclinations?
Super cool story.
But how would disk formation account for, more than 1 planet (in our solar system) orbiting opposite of the other orbits? How would it account for planets not being on the same axial tilt?
How would it account for not all the planets have the same rotational speed?
How would it account for more than 1 planet having multiple moons that have crazier and complex orbits around the host planet than the planets have?
(Could space junk orbiting earth be put there naturally and continue its orbital complexity without colliding or causing problems without a mind monitoring it with the assistance of fast artificial intelligence to make sure there are no issues??)
Other than that, super cool story. I Stopped at 4:55
Coulda, Shoulda ,Woulda ... Are you sure ... 🤣 I thought uncertainty was the" only" constant .... Now I find out I'm in a type of spacial clothes dryer ..
Imagine changing the orbit of the asteroid and it falls into the orbit around some planet or sun and gets a gravity assist and gets thrown directly at us.
He never mentioned conservation of angular momentum, which is the crux of why they orbit in a plane. Matter can fall onto the disc, but can not move closer or further away from the center of rotation because that would violate a conservation law. A really poor explanation.
The answer seemed obvious to me after reading the caption. I’m a carpenter!
The washing machine analogy doesn’t work. It’s got a machine that forces only one spin. Nor does conservation of momentum explain the planar disc, because there are lots of orbital arrangements that would have the same total angular momentum, you could even have one planet orbitting in the opposite direction and the total system would still preserve angular momentum. It would just be a different valie.
This statement is true, because Pluto was declassified as a planet.
Contrary to what you've been taught to believe, the planets are not on a 'plane' around the sun. Our sun is pulling the planets behind it as it hurtles around our galaxy. Every one of them in its perfect spot of balance for the entire system. Our system did just cross the galactic plane though. Back in 2012. But we are on a collision course in the cosmic intersection of doom. Every 12,900 years. Dig a hole, find a cave, grab a book. lol.
Ok, I'll just go and warn the fairies at the bottom of my garden!! 🤣🤣🤣
Maybe a stupid question: if genera relativity says Gravity is due to bending or curving of space ( creating a gravity well like thing ) then shouldn’t all the planets in Solar system be incrementally at a higher plane ? I don’t get it
Lorenzo seems to claim that Pluto is a planet. It is part of the Kuiper belt. Many objects including Pluto share that orbital path and at this time, Pluto is considered a dwarf planet because of its size and the fact in shares its orbit with other objects.
Never explained why it's a disk and not a sphere, nor where the disk gained its angular momentum.
It's called the plane of inertia. It's a property of magnetism.
So, if we,discovered that we are in the only solar system where; the planets orbit on the same plane, what would that mean?
I suppose it would mean we have some re-thinking to do about our current understanding of star and/or planetary system formation!
However, at this point we have already observed 5,300 exoplanets (planets that orbit other stars in our galaxy), and they all behave the same as our solar system :)