actually most star systems are binary. the nearest neighbouring star system is even a triple star system consisting of alpha centauri, beta centauri and proxima centauri which is the nearest star to our sun. its estimated that 50-85% of stars actually have a companion
Wishing you a happy Thanksgiving, too. I've been a subscriber from your very first video, and consistently find them both interestingly presented and informative. Thanks !!
The whole video is just satisfying. Its 9.10 am . Woke up from a god nap waking up to some astrum as always . Btw cant wait for the new rover to possibly land next year. The content from here should be good if u post about it
I know this is off topic but I was trying to imagine what our galaxy would look like from a planet orbiting a rogue star at say 100,000 light years from the galactic plane.
These exist. There are planets in the Magellanic cloud dwarf galaxies that orbit the Milky Way. Instead of seeing the Milky Way as we do -- only edge-on from the inside with much of it blocked by interstellar dust and gas -- they'd see the it as a full spiral covering half their night sky.
I'd very much like to see a representation of that. :) I keep trying to find what Pluto's largest moon, Charon, looks like from the surface of Pluto. It's so close that apparently it would be quite stunning
I wonder if it is possible for planet to have a permanent solar eclipse. If the moon of a planet is the right size and has the right orbit can it just perpetually block out the star?
@@James-le8gd Hm, not in my "back of the napkin" thinking. That would require a star to be orbiting a planet. And then that star happens to be the same orbital period of the moon that is blocking its light. Which is of course an orbit that is not possible. Now, a moon with an atmosphere that is in eclipse might be something incredibly stunning.
In every single binary system the planets moons or stars that are less massive than the binary system(orbital parents) will eventually get kicked out of the sysyem or crash into the body. Every single time.
I don't think that would be true. Possible yes, but not that likely. If it was, then it would suggest that moons would always eventually leave their planets due to other planets or the host star, and that's not the case.
@@megabeam any orbits that have 3 objects or more are always like that so no orbit is stable forever and there will be always a single planet orbit that will go unstable
I was under the impression that binary star systems are much more common than solo stars. So I find it odd to say a thing like "as is the case for most planetary systems found in the universe". I guess he key word here is "found" as in what we have observed so far. but that does not include the entire universe now does it?
Jupiter failed to become a sun. Without Jupiter, it's impossible for earth to have life. On that thought, perhaps our search for life out there may be a lot narrowed down if we focus on the brightest stars.
Have you read the short story "Night Fall" by Isaac Azimov? This was a story about people living on a planet in a system with multiple stars that never saw darkness. One day there was an eclipse and not only did they see darkness for the first time, but they also saw the dark sky filled with the stars outside their own system, and their civilization collapsed.
I thought you were going to say the civilisation then expanded out into space, instead of collapsed. If I read 'Night Fall', it was over 45 years ago, and I don't remember this one. [I'd forgotten how many sci-fi I was reading back then.]
It’s coz, in the story, the inhabitants of this planet have evolved to be afraid of the dark (they do have darkness in caves etc.), and this eclipse, which occurs every 2,000 years and lasts several hours, is enough to end the civilisation every 2,000 years
@@alaindubois1505 Unfortunately, that's probably how it would go. The good sci fi writers were realistically bleak lol. That's my one word description of reality right there: bleak.
@@neonfroot Why can't it be both? I escape the bleak on the ground by gazing up to the surreal. Keeps me sane...plus, I've done a ton of mushrooms while out in the Canadian wilderness, so I can see the surreal at my feet for sure lol. I just can't get away like I used to, so I have to settle with what I can get. Nature is my surreal realm on earth, and I'm stuck in a city. No time or resources to get away.
Its crazy, my mom bought me a single picture book of our galaxy when i was 5, and it had such an impact on me that now 19 years later I find myself really interested in space. It’s the little things in life that you take for granted that mean so much to you :D
I remember very little of early elementary school, but the day I learned about the planets in first grade is still burned into my mind. 19 years later and I still feel that same awe
For me ,it was my father that took me stargazing in the summer when I was 4 years old. Since then, space had really grown on me And I still remember those nights so vividly. The most prominent memory I have ,is how my father showed me where Mars was. And those Videos give me the same feeling that I had those nights.
This reminds me of the Isaac Asimov story Nightfall where a planet has 6 suns and is in constant daylight and how people react to seeing true dark when they live their whole lives in constant light.
@@tchy7246 Me too. It'd be cool to see a good movie adaptation of it. Heck, it'd be cool to see good movie adaptations of any of Asimov's stuff. So far all we've gotten has been Bicentennial Man. I, Robot doesn't count, even though it was a good stand-alone movie, it wasn't an adaptation.
Cool, but if that was the case, then someone would comment: "Imagine living in a planet that has 1 star/sun and 1 moon, the view of sky must be really nice, we can finally look at distant stars without getting blinded by 6 stars and 9 moons" LOL
What a stupid thing to say. The person originally coming up with this idea is nothing but a control freak. If something is not upto his/her idea, he/she disregards and declare it wrong. It is the person's limitations to understand the universe which is definitely wrong.
Hi. I also do not understand the reference, but would be interested to find out, if you have time to explain please, as given the quotation marks, i sense that this is not your own idea and that there is a degree of ridicule therein.. and I am always interested in merited ridicule :) Good luck and hope you may find time to explain.
The world doesn't revolve around Earth okay 🙄 no one else outside of Earth knows who Abraham is, they can name their planet whatever they wanna call it!
@@d-lo811 English speaking countries don't call Germany Deutschland. Japanese people don't call their homeland Japan. Damn....you must be hella fun at parties. 🙄
*In response to what you say @**9:38* I'm not watching Astrum because I have little time, I'm watching because those vids are phenomenal, of the highest quality. Thank you Alex.
With 7 suns, a planet would enjoy 7x the stellar wind and CMEs, or worse if any red dwarfs or LBVs, even a binary could be difficult depending on the orbits and star types. So might be difficult for life to appreciate the view! But an enjoyable thought!
How fascinating watching a multi-star system born is like the theory of chaos, starting with a lot of chaos until the system itself find a natural order, it can be said that is a chaordic system, and many systems at the natural level behaved like that.
I agree that it's interesting. But i don't like the way it's phrased in the video. There is no system of order. We're seeing stars that are super old. All the unstable configurations aren't around. It's a sort of survivor bias.
@Dylan sky - Obviously. But it doesn't matter. We see all these systems in stable, repeating patterns because all the unstable ones no longer exist. Order is an illusion.
That would be way too unstable to exist, but you could have a planet orbiting close to a faint star which is itself orbiting a much brighter star such that they are comparable in brightness in the planet's sky: that would cause the planet to alternate between a double sun and a period of eternal day with the stars on opposite sides.
Theoretically? Yes. In practice almost certainly not. Not impossible, but so improbable that we're unlikely to find one any time in the near future. It would be... Rather unnatural.
I saw two brown dwarfs orbiting each other in close proximity while they were orbiting a neutron star on approach one time and I was completely in awe. Had to come here to learn more!
Did that 30 years ago with Frontier Elite(I spent months on end playing that game back in the day). Amazing what you can cram on one single 1.4mb floppy disk.
Alien A: Ugh, it's so hot. Sun F is so close to us. I hope I pass out soon, because I don't want to wait for sun B and C to set... Alien B: *Sigh Yeah... You know, I've always wondered what's it like to live in a single-star system. It must be nice and cool. Alien A: What?! You mean live in a planet where there's only one sun??? Alien B: Yeah.. Wouldn't that be awesome?:) Alien A: No..! If that sun sets, then we wouldn't be able to see anything and we could trip into a hole and die or fall off a cliff.. Alien B: We could just stay still and not move until the sun rises again. Alien A: And if there are so few suns, how would we pass out from the heat? If we can't pass out, then we can't rest. And if we can't rest, then we can eventually die. Alien B: Well, maybe the aliens in that planet have evolved mechanisms to pass out with just only one sun... or even better, pass out when the sun is not around, when they can't see anything... Alien A: Pass out in the dark?? That's absurd! You and your theories...
Really interesting configurations beyond 2 stars! Makes me wonder if there are any long-term stable triple star configurations on a single tier. Are there any known examples, even if perhaps chaotically unstable?
the most obvious to me would be a large binary pair in a stable orbit, with a close in red dwarf that orbits both closely, outside of which could orbit a theoretical habitable planet. where the light would slieghtly redshift as the red dwarf passed infront of the more brighter pair
Remember that this is scaled up a bit from a planetary scale.Close orbits of more than two stars is probably less stable, and therefore much rarer. And long orbits are so long that it's basically an extra star from our perspective. Like Proxima. It is orbiting the two other stars there, but about 0.2 light years away from them. If you're on a planet orbiting Proxima you'd just have two bright stars in the night sky, not two additional suns. And if you were orbiting the other two or one of the other two, you wouldn't even be able to see Proxima without a telescope. They are barely any closer to it than we are here and very faint.
@@politicallycorrectredskin796 its stable or not (milion years orbit at least should be considered stable :) ? the truth is no orbit is stable in the way we think) ure thinking i beleve 2 stars twice the chance something goes wrong
@Aboubakr Hollanda Exoplanets are planets that revolve around other stars outside our solar system. Rogue planets are Exoplanets that broke loose of their orbit around other star systems and are freely floating outside of a solar system. 🤔
If it had intelligent life, the effect on evolution, vocabulary, and culture. What determines day and night. Is there fear, or celebration upon alignment? Look how our astrology, and eclipses have affected us.
I totally get it. It’s funny when a subject is explained clearly it actually becomes interesting. I never knew those stars mentioned were actually binary stars☀️
Alex always seems to know the very subjects that I wish to know about. Thanks for always providing us with quality and informative videos, it's not often one finds such an awesome channel on UA-cam 💙
I was gonna add something I knew from studying this on my own before finishing the video because it seemed like you were wrapping up but then you addressed most of it. Only other thing is that iirc it's statistically more likely for the few planets that ARE found in binary systems to be in the system's habitable zone because in most systems that would be within the much narrower range in which a planet could actually maintain a stable orbit to begin with. However, that doesn't necessarily apply to larger multiple star systems, which are far rarer to begin with due to the three-body problem.
There are many other types of possible orbits that aren't ellipses, such as ones that shift from one barycenter to another. These can be stable if the planet has a resonance with both barycenters, such as two orbits around the first, followed by three around the second, then back to two around the first again, and so on. There's also degenerate orbits, where the planet sits motionless at a barycenter of two stars, or even weirder, oscillates up and down along a line perpendicular to the stellar plane at that barycenter. Depending on models used for star system formation, stable non-elliptical orbits are somewhere between vary rare to virtually impossible. But in the vast multitude of star systems, there's probably a few of these out there.
The question though is stable for how long with time unusual orbits are far more likely to be disrupted as they depend on a number of special circumstances like resonances to be maintained. He also pointed out that more massive stars have a higher rate of occurring in multistar systems ranging from virtually all O and B stars to less than a quarter of M dwarfs so statistically that is likely to skew things a bit.
@Astrum I'm really curious, can multi-star systems have goldilocks zone, and will it support habitable exoplanets? And if so, will it have a forever day cycle, if per se both its star has the same luminosity?
For general purposes you can think of the multiple stars as a single star. If we are in a planet that's inside the Goldilocks zone then it wouldn't be so much different due to the long distance between any habitable planets and the barycentre. But yeah if they are smaller stars then there's a case of having perpetual day (even in case when the planet is not tidal locked) or atleast close to it.
@@tumu_bandit While a binary star system may have two stars that orbit each other (or a point where their gravities balance), there is little reason to expect that the orbit of their exoplanets would be stable as the gravity they experience increases and decreases Add a third star to the mix, and it's likelier that the orbits become unstable
If the stars orbit very close to each other, or very far from each other (or some of each), then the system is just about as likely to have a Goldilocks zone as a single-star system; the pair of close stars effectively act as a single star for determining the zone, and any very far stars have negligible influence on the zone. But for the same reasons, such systems wouldn't have much effect on day/night cycles. A close pair of stars would rise and set within an hour of each other, and the far stars wouldn't be bright enough to turn night into day, similar to the way our Full Moon just makes it a bit less dark. So systems with Goldilocks zones tend to have day/night cycles, and vice versa. But there's bound to be a few exceptions. Note that if a planet is tidally locked to a star (or close pair of stars), it will have one side in permanent day and the other in permanent night.
@@iamdmc Planets can still have stable orbits if they are the right distance from their parent star(s) and the other star(s), just like the Moon manages to orbit the Earth despite the Sun and other planets. However what tumu meant to say is that these stable orbit areas means planet won't be 'inbetween' to suns and will rather orbit a single element which effectively acts as a single sun.
0:10 Wow, you get a HUGE fact wrong within the first 15 seconds of the video! Most star systems are binary, NOT single star systems!!!!! You specifically say that most star systems are single star systems and this is demonstrably FALSE. The most common configuration is BINARY. How is no one else noticing this?!?!?
@RationallySkeptical it's not really wrong since it's not a fact - this subject is constantly being re-evaluated as more data is gathered, just depends where you get your info from. and slow down with the yelling and interrobangs.
Idk much this is my answer to this. Most Stars Are Binary but some are not, like our own star system, its a single star which is called a Solitary Star system. Our star is baisically an oddball of the bunch, so there is a chance that other star systems are Solitary star systems.
I love when humans pretend they know what the norm is in the. Universe when what we can see is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe ...
What is normal in the universe is irreverent. Even what is normal in the Milky galaxy is also almost irrelevant to the human species. Even the to get to the closest star would take over 70,000 years to get to! There is no warp drive and no gravity plates in real life! What is normal in this galaxy or even in other galaxies are academic, which is a good thing for human knowledge! It will be hundreds of years, if the human species last that long, before humans ever venture to another star! It is highly unlikely that humans will find a planet that is really habitable! Have a solid surface does not make it earth like, nor does having a atmosphere, if it is not a oxygen atmosphere, which so far, none has been found!
Well, we have the Copernican Principle, where we assume, where no contradictory evidence exists, that we are not in an unusual part of the universe, and what we see is part of a typical part of the universe viewable by any observer of our reference class. We generally trust this principle because the alternative seems more unlikely, to assume that there is something remarkable, special, unusual, or unique about our corner of the universe that sets it apart and causes it to work differently from everywhere else in the universe. Yes, that _could_ be true, but why would we expect our part of the universe to be so weird? It's more likely to be normal. There's also the principle of induction. We observe certain patterns over and over again to the point where they become practically predictable. When we can accurately predict that a particular phenomenon will continue to take place, then we can say that we have used inductive reasoning to reach generally applicable conclusions about how things work in a more general system. Finally, we have math. Math is fundamental and abstract, and while it can be supplemented with empirical observations, it stands on its own without empirical verification as pure logic. We know that we are almost certain not to find stable 3-body systems that are not broken down into hierarchical structures of binaries because of the mathematical work done on the so-called "3-body problem".
Just a small correction, most planatary systems are actually multi-stared systems. With the most common one being binary star systems. Other than that great video astrum never disappointed 👏👏
If they were all formed at the same time from the same gas cloud it's very, very likely as the resultant bodies would share the sum angular motion of the original mass. But if any member were acquired later by gravitational capture the it could be any which way.
Isaac Asimov's novel _Pebble in the Sky_ features a planet with (iirc) 6 stars in its vicinity. The people living there only experience "night" once every few thousand years when 5 of the stars form a conjunction and the last star is eclipsed by a "nemesis" planet.
@@adm0iii It's the definition of wisdom, not intelligence. If you know almost nothing, you are not intelligent. If you are aware of this fact, you are wise. And the moment you are knowing more and more things, your intelligence is rising as well.
Just imagine being in a multi star system like the Rigil Kentaurus (Alpha Centauri System) on Proxima B (Maybe tidally locked, or has an orbital resonance like Mercury that gives it a day/night cycle depending on the eccentricity of the planet's orbit around Proxima Centauri.) And get to see 3 stars at the same time probably, as well as the night side, the stars Alpha Centauri A and B would still shine bright, but is far away from Proxima Centauri being 4.2 ly from Earth and Alpha Centauri A and B being 4.3 ly from Earth. Since it is close by in the interstellar scale of space, one day, us humans can do plenty of scientific experiments, study the planet as a whole, and then settle there. Though there might be a possibility that there maybe another planet could be orbiting around that system, who knows until we further study it. Nice video btw Astrum, but you've forgot to mention about the habitable zones that is quite important for life as we know it.
Hey Astrum, have you read The Three-Body Problem? It offers a wonderful explanation of binary / ternary star systems, as well as myriad other space phenomena. I've compared a lot of the stuff in that book with your videos, and a satisfying amount of it holds up to reality, which only bolsters my appreciation for the book as a literary gateway to astronomy. Your channel is the same thing-a gateway. We all admire the crazy work you put into producing such captivating edutainment for us, and the recent multilingual efforts to make this content more accessible than ever. Thank you!
Malcolm Spencer dude, not to bash the trilogy which I am a fan of as well, but what the heck? The trilogy was a science fiction and not very strictly aligned with science after all, how does these two compare? Different species...
@@Serenelove520 Yeah I was thinking more along the lines of the first book, but decided to nudge all the books in there for the recommendation. I'll change that. I'll also mitigate my speaking in absolutes. You're right, I'm hand-picking scenes that DID work and neglecting ones that didn't. But personally, it's all part of what brought me to this channel, and there are moments I remember fondly that line up with stuff I've learned here. As for which moments... I'm afraid I must avoid spoilers. Thanks for checking me though mate.
Malcolm Spencer haha, no problem. But there is a video talking about three body problem, totally unrelated to the book, but still cool astrology. You can try look it up
There can be three stars: one small star orbits clockwise and the other small star orbits counterclockwise the big star, all planets orbit their stars respectively.
how about 8 stars they are unstable but 2 close stars orbiting the inner barycenter with the 2 close stars too and the outer 2 star binary system with the 2 star binary system orbit together with the outer barycenter if you don't understand then o-o--.--o-o-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o-o--.--o-o and also could be 9 or 10 oo-oo----------------------oo-oo----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------oo
“Proves the universe prefers order” says the title. Well, no. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that the universe is always increasing in entropy, which put simply, is disorder. The universe “prefers” disorder, not order.
Not quite as delicate or fast as you think. Even if an imbalance were to happen, it would take hundreds or thousands of years for effects to be noticable
Oversimplified: When close, the orbital speeds of the near and far parts of the object become noticeably different. This tugs at and continuously slows down the rotation of the object, until eventually it stops with respect to what it orbits.
Wow, really interesting. Thank you. Looking forward to being able to holiday on one of these planets one day, more particularly those with warm Earth-like conditions and all day sunshine from all those sun's. 8-)
Let me complete for you your presentation : AR cassiopeiaa is multiple star system in the constellation of cassiopeia. It is thought to be a septuple star system. It is one of only two known star system with a multiplicity of 7, the other being Nu scorpii.
You mentioned that "most" planetary systems contain a singular star. This is surprisingly incorrect; according to The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation of Australia, "up to 85% of stars are in binary systems with some in triple or even higher-multiple systems." Edit: You corrected yourself at the end of the video, I was referring to the statment made towards the beginning.
I still imagine these systems to be quite chaotic considering they may have their own Oort clouds extending far outward. Comets flung around all over the place.
@Astrum: The correct term is ternary, not trinary. Trinary is not a real word. Following on from that are quaternary, quintenary, sextenary, septenary, octenary, etc.
Asimov's "Nightfall" features an Earth-like planet (complete with humans) that has 7 Suns in the sky, but claims to have as few as 2 in the sky at any given time. This is what makes me think Asimov didn't do much thinking before writing the story. With 7 of them, how exactly are 5 going to disappear at any give time, unless the stars were orbiting the planet? This would require some Olympic-level stretching to come up with an actual scenario where this might work. Perhaps 5 of them orbit 2 of them, and the 5 will all be hidden behind the 2 at some point.
@@arthurballs7083 Red dwarf stars are very dim, with some effectively invisible at even just a fraction of a light-year. Some astrophysicists predict there are likely several dim red dwarf stars within a few light-years of each the stars we see, including the Sun.
Your videos are absolutely fantastic. They are clear, concise, the music is great and your enthusiasm for the topics presented clearly shows. A new video from Astrum always makes my day. Keep it up because this is a very good thing that you are doing.
looks at device, thinks ho hum.... then Hurray!! .. an Astrum video :-) and weirdly was thinking i must look this topic up just a few days ago, thanks again
Seasons on other planets will be an interesting topic, too: not just axial tilt like on Earth, but other factors to consider: eccentricity, tidal locking to a star, orbital to rotation resonance, and also the effect of having a system with more than one star, be it of comparable masses or otherwise.
Seasons on _Earth_ have been interesting in the past. We have been at a minimum of a complex cycle of seasonal differences for the last 10,000 years or so. It's probably why farming/civilization started about then.
Why does the beginning sound like an ad for our solar system?...
"In OUR solar system we like to keep things simple. :)"
" choosy mothers choose a one star solar system " B-)
Buy Simple - Buy Sol!
Child: "Mom can we get 7 star solar system?"
Mom: "we have solar system at home..."
Solar system at home: generic brand, 1 star...
Interesting video! Wish all of them were like this.
actually most star systems are binary. the nearest neighbouring star system is even a triple star system consisting of alpha centauri, beta centauri and proxima centauri which is the nearest star to our sun. its estimated that 50-85% of stars actually have a companion
It looks like birthdays would be a problem.
xD
🤣🤣🤣
- How old are you?
- It's complicated
@@duckface81 The year should be the orbit around the barycenter, duh!
@@MappingRobloxAnimations people on 7-star-orbiting planet would live and die for multiple generation without reach age 1 xD
You have the best channel for amateur astronomers. Hands down.
Wishing you a happy Thanksgiving, too. I've been a subscriber from your very first video, and consistently find them both interestingly presented and informative. Thanks !!
Thank you for this video. I have wondered about this myself, and you have answered some of the questions that I had when I thought about this matter.
Absolutely brilliant! I love these visual representations and always wished to understand what multi-star systems would look like on each planet.
The whole video is just satisfying. Its 9.10 am . Woke up from a god nap waking up to some astrum as always . Btw cant wait for the new rover to possibly land next year. The content from here should be good if u post about it
I know this is off topic but I was trying to imagine what our galaxy would look like from a planet orbiting a rogue star at say 100,000 light years from the galactic plane.
These exist. There are planets in the Magellanic cloud dwarf galaxies that orbit the Milky Way. Instead of seeing the Milky Way as we do -- only edge-on from the inside with much of it blocked by interstellar dust and gas -- they'd see the it as a full spiral covering half their night sky.
I'd very much like to see a representation of that. :)
I keep trying to find what Pluto's largest moon, Charon, looks like from the surface of Pluto. It's so close that apparently it would be quite stunning
I wonder if it is possible for planet to have a permanent solar eclipse. If the moon of a planet is the right size and has the right orbit can it just perpetually block out the star?
Well you can, as long as the moon’s orbital period is as long as the planet’s orbital period
@@James-le8gd Hm, not in my "back of the napkin" thinking. That would require a star to be orbiting a planet. And then that star happens to be the same orbital period of the moon that is blocking its light. Which is of course an orbit that is not possible.
Now, a moon with an atmosphere that is in eclipse might be something incredibly stunning.
Imagine having two super fast rotating suns...that would look so amazing
Very carefully.
Can you emulate 3:14 into Sol, Proxima Cen., Alpha Cen. A, Alpha Cen. B?
The Sun is not gravitationally bound to the alpha cen system.
bruh that's awesome
In every single binary system the planets moons or stars that are less massive than the binary system(orbital parents) will eventually get kicked out of the sysyem or crash into the body. Every single time.
I don't think that would be true. Possible yes, but not that likely. If it was, then it would suggest that moons would always eventually leave their planets due to other planets or the host star, and that's not the case.
@@MrHappyHour But they do, it's impossible for a moon to orbit a binary system for a consistent time
@@megabeam any orbits that have 3 objects or more are always like that
so no orbit is stable forever and there will be always a single planet orbit that will go unstable
I was under the impression that binary star systems are much more common than solo stars. So I find it odd to say a thing like "as is the case for most planetary systems found in the universe". I guess he key word here is "found" as in what we have observed so far. but that does not include the entire universe now does it?
Jupiter failed to become a sun. Without Jupiter, it's impossible for earth to have life. On that thought, perhaps our search for life out there may be a lot narrowed down if we focus on the brightest stars.
Some stars like are sun is second generation. These could be second generation stars from two giant stars that went super nova like Beatle juice.
Have you read the short story "Night Fall" by Isaac Azimov? This was a story about people living on a planet in a system with multiple stars that never saw darkness. One day there was an eclipse and not only did they see darkness for the first time, but they also saw the dark sky filled with the stars outside their own system, and their civilization collapsed.
I thought you were going to say the civilisation then expanded out into space, instead of collapsed. If I read 'Night Fall', it was over 45 years ago, and I don't remember this one. [I'd forgotten how many sci-fi I was reading back then.]
It’s coz, in the story, the inhabitants of this planet have evolved to be afraid of the dark (they do have darkness in caves etc.), and this eclipse, which occurs every 2,000 years and lasts several hours, is enough to end the civilisation every 2,000 years
@@alaindubois1505 Unfortunately, that's probably how it would go. The good sci fi writers were realistically bleak lol. That's my one word description of reality right there: bleak.
@@davejones9469
Reality is more surreal than bleak.
@@neonfroot Why can't it be both? I escape the bleak on the ground by gazing up to the surreal. Keeps me sane...plus, I've done a ton of mushrooms while out in the Canadian wilderness, so I can see the surreal at my feet for sure lol. I just can't get away like I used to, so I have to settle with what I can get. Nature is my surreal realm on earth, and I'm stuck in a city. No time or resources to get away.
Its crazy, my mom bought me a single picture book of our galaxy when i was 5, and it had such an impact on me that now 19 years later I find myself really interested in space. It’s the little things in life that you take for granted that mean so much to you :D
I remember very little of early elementary school, but the day I learned about the planets in first grade is still burned into my mind. 19 years later and I still feel that same awe
Paradoxically, the universe is big.
Very, very big, as it says in the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy.
For me ,it was my father that took me stargazing in the summer when I was 4 years old.
Since then, space had really grown on me
And I still remember those nights so vividly.
The most prominent memory I have ,is how my father showed me where Mars was.
And those Videos give me the same feeling that I had those nights.
When I was really little I had a book about the solar system. Similar story, except I’m younger than you.
Same for me. Mom bought me a outer space facts book for kids I was like “Ayooooo!”
This reminds me of the Isaac Asimov story Nightfall where a planet has 6 suns and is in constant daylight and how people react to seeing true dark when they live their whole lives in constant light.
I love that book
@@tchy7246 Me too. It'd be cool to see a good movie adaptation of it. Heck, it'd be cool to see good movie adaptations of any of Asimov's stuff. So far all we've gotten has been Bicentennial Man. I, Robot doesn't count, even though it was a good stand-alone movie, it wasn't an adaptation.
@@tchy7246 but the book is too short 😋
red it.. grim as fuck but well..true
@@Drewengtheway Yeah, it's a pretty dark story at parts.
A planet where there is 7 suns, also known as Florida.
SiJamz NZ But Phoenix has at least 13 Suns at any given time 🏀 :P
Countries in the equator: That's cute
Also known as the earths butthole
@@ynntari2775 🇸🇴
What?!!!
Imagine living in a planet that has 6 stars and 9 moons, the view of the sky must be really nice
Yeah, I agree. It might not be as spectacular as you might think, but better than the sky on Earth.
Would you ever have a "night" time?
Cool, but if that was the case, then someone would comment: "Imagine living in a planet that has 1 star/sun and 1 moon, the view of sky must be really nice, we can finally look at distant stars without getting blinded by 6 stars and 9 moons" LOL
Yeah it would be *nice*
Y'all got wooooshed
"Are we out of touch? No, it's the universe that is wrong."
What a stupid thing to say.
The person originally coming up with this idea is nothing but a control freak. If something is not upto his/her idea, he/she disregards and declare it wrong. It is the person's limitations to understand the universe which is definitely wrong.
@@vasudevraghav2109 r/wooooosh
Hi. I also do not understand the reference, but would be interested to find out, if you have time to explain please, as given the quotation marks, i sense that this is not your own idea and that there is a degree of ridicule therein.. and I am always interested in merited ridicule :) Good luck and hope you may find time to explain.
@@cormchm2853 it's The Simpsons reference where principle Skinners asks "Am I so out of touch? No it's the children who are wrong." S05E20
Hahaha, thanks Vaclav 👍
The planet’s name should be “Father Abraham” so we can talk about how “Father Abraham had seven suns”
Hahaha you beat me to it. Nice!
The world doesn't revolve around Earth okay 🙄 no one else outside of Earth knows who Abraham is, they can name their planet whatever they wanna call it!
@@d-lo811 come on, have a sense of humor
@@d-lo811 English speaking countries don't call Germany Deutschland. Japanese people don't call their homeland Japan. Damn....you must be hella fun at parties. 🙄
Very good
*In response to what you say @**9:38*
I'm not watching Astrum because I have little time, I'm watching because those vids are phenomenal, of the highest quality.
Thank you Alex.
That's the standard intro for that sponsor. I wouldn't necessarily assume Alex actually thinking that.
Wow. What a bummer for the characters in that book! I enjoy 😢reading/watching Science Fiction.
7 body problem
With 7 suns, a planet would enjoy 7x the stellar wind and CMEs, or worse if any red dwarfs or LBVs, even a binary could be difficult depending on the orbits and star types. So might be difficult for life to appreciate the view! But an enjoyable thought!
How fascinating watching a multi-star system born is like the theory of chaos, starting with a lot of chaos until the system itself find a natural order, it can be said that is a chaordic system, and many systems at the natural level behaved like that.
I agree that it's interesting. But i don't like the way it's phrased in the video. There is no system of order. We're seeing stars that are super old. All the unstable configurations aren't around. It's a sort of survivor bias.
@Dylan sky - Obviously. But it doesn't matter. We see all these systems in stable, repeating patterns because all the unstable ones no longer exist. Order is an illusion.
Scott Humphreys there is a reason all the unstable ones no longer exist
loogaan koolsen it’s because order took over. How can order not exist when it’s right in front of you dude. Its all over the damn universes man
I believe that Ecclesiastes Chapter 1 explains it best!
Makes me wonder if there could be a planet trapped between two stars orbiting around the planet.
That would be way too unstable to exist, but you could have a planet orbiting close to a faint star which is itself orbiting a much brighter star such that they are comparable in brightness in the planet's sky: that would cause the planet to alternate between a double sun and a period of eternal day with the stars on opposite sides.
In _theory,_ a planet could exist motionless at the barycenter of two stars orbiting each other, so yes.
@@adm0iii In theory... I doubt in practice, but it would be really cool.
@@apatheticdeity6030 Humans have been proven wrong by the universe on more than one occasion. All we need is wait for that day to come again :)
Theoretically? Yes. In practice almost certainly not. Not impossible, but so improbable that we're unlikely to find one any time in the near future. It would be... Rather unnatural.
Play Elite: Dangerous and you'll see all of these examples "in reality". :D
I saw two brown dwarfs orbiting each other in close proximity while they were orbiting a neutron star on approach one time and I was completely in awe. Had to come here to learn more!
Yeah it's a high fidelity replication of the Milky Way that you can fly through.
Did that 30 years ago with Frontier Elite(I spent months on end playing that game back in the day). Amazing what you can cram on one single 1.4mb floppy disk.
@@daviniarobbins9298 ye played forever on 'First Encounters' loved that game.
@@MrBishop077 There is a fan version of that game with improved graphics available to download or there was.
Alien A: Ugh, it's so hot. Sun F is so close to us. I hope I pass out soon, because I don't want to wait for sun B and C to set...
Alien B: *Sigh Yeah... You know, I've always wondered what's it like to live in a single-star system. It must be nice and cool.
Alien A: What?! You mean live in a planet where there's only one sun???
Alien B: Yeah.. Wouldn't that be awesome?:)
Alien A: No..! If that sun sets, then we wouldn't be able to see anything and we could trip into a hole and die or fall off a cliff..
Alien B: We could just stay still and not move until the sun rises again.
Alien A: And if there are so few suns, how would we pass out from the heat? If we can't pass out, then we can't rest. And if we can't rest, then we can eventually die.
Alien B: Well, maybe the aliens in that planet have evolved mechanisms to pass out with just only one sun... or even better, pass out when the sun is not around, when they can't see anything...
Alien A: Pass out in the dark?? That's absurd! You and your theories...
Alien B should be hanged for having such thoughts!
Boring lol
True story.
this is the most underrated comment ever, thats such a good point on perspective !! I loved the story
Really interesting configurations beyond 2 stars! Makes me wonder if there are any long-term stable triple star configurations on a single tier. Are there any known examples, even if perhaps chaotically unstable?
the most obvious to me would be a large binary pair in a stable orbit, with a close in red dwarf that orbits both closely, outside of which could orbit a theoretical habitable planet. where the light would slieghtly redshift as the red dwarf passed infront of the more brighter pair
Castor in Gemini is 6
hes talking about theoretical star systems because they have most chances for stable orbits
Remember that this is scaled up a bit from a planetary scale.Close orbits of more than two stars is probably less stable, and therefore much rarer. And long orbits are so long that it's basically an extra star from our perspective. Like Proxima. It is orbiting the two other stars there, but about 0.2 light years away from them. If you're on a planet orbiting Proxima you'd just have two bright stars in the night sky, not two additional suns. And if you were orbiting the other two or one of the other two, you wouldn't even be able to see Proxima without a telescope. They are barely any closer to it than we are here and very faint.
@@politicallycorrectredskin796 its stable or not (milion years orbit at least should be considered stable :) ? the truth is no orbit is stable in the way we think) ure thinking i beleve 2 stars twice the chance something goes wrong
Hi there! I'm a huge fan since recently. Love your format. I would love if you can make a video about ROGUE PLANETS. Thanks for what you do!
Good idea! I'll add it to the list
Thank you sooo much! 😍😄😄
@Aboubakr Hollanda Exoplanets are planets that revolve around other stars outside our solar system. Rogue planets are Exoplanets that broke loose of their orbit around other star systems and are freely floating outside of a solar system. 🤔
Good request, bro
The most awaited topic to be heard from Astrum
Agree !!
Dhar what are u doing
@@zen9581 yes good what about you
The most awaited topic to be heard from Astrum is alien sex.
@@binaryvoid0101 why sex, of all things?
*planet exists*
Family of 7 suns: “awww, he’s adorable, welcome to the family” 😌
I'd like to see a seventh sun of a seventh sun
Believe it or not, this kind of star actually exists!
just watched that movie lol
I'd prefer to see the eighth sun of an eighth sun. Truly solcerous.
Imagine a permanently lit planet from 3 or more stars.
Hawt
Very Hawt
That would be litty
If it had intelligent life, the effect on evolution, vocabulary, and culture. What determines day and night. Is there fear, or celebration upon alignment? Look how our astrology, and eclipses have affected us.
Namek??😯😲
Namek is seriously Hell.
Astrum videos and watching Rick and Morty on Adult Swim makes me feel good about everything.
I totally get it. It’s funny when a subject is explained clearly it actually becomes interesting. I never knew those stars mentioned were actually binary stars☀️
Alex always seems to know the very subjects that I wish to know about. Thanks for always providing us with quality and informative videos, it's not often one finds such an awesome channel on UA-cam 💙
OMG! I had no idea that they can get so crazy. I have to say this had the best visuals that I've seen! It really helped explain everything! Thanks
Well done, a rarely covered subject interestingly explained.
Finally!! been wanting this topic! Thanks a lot as usual Alex
I was gonna add something I knew from studying this on my own before finishing the video because it seemed like you were wrapping up but then you addressed most of it. Only other thing is that iirc it's statistically more likely for the few planets that ARE found in binary systems to be in the system's habitable zone because in most systems that would be within the much narrower range in which a planet could actually maintain a stable orbit to begin with. However, that doesn't necessarily apply to larger multiple star systems, which are far rarer to begin with due to the three-body problem.
I can't even express how awesome this video is. This answers a lot of questions I had, and the hierarchical stellar diagrams are utterly new to me.
.
Very clear, concise, and easy to follow! Thank you!
There are many other types of possible orbits that aren't ellipses, such as ones that shift from one barycenter to another. These can be stable if the planet has a resonance with both barycenters, such as two orbits around the first, followed by three around the second, then back to two around the first again, and so on. There's also degenerate orbits, where the planet sits motionless at a barycenter of two stars, or even weirder, oscillates up and down along a line perpendicular to the stellar plane at that barycenter.
Depending on models used for star system formation, stable non-elliptical orbits are somewhere between vary rare to virtually impossible. But in the vast multitude of star systems, there's probably a few of these out there.
The question though is stable for how long with time unusual orbits are far more likely to be disrupted as they depend on a number of special circumstances like resonances to be maintained. He also pointed out that more massive stars have a higher rate of occurring in multistar systems ranging from virtually all O and B stars to less than a quarter of M dwarfs so statistically that is likely to skew things a bit.
Ah yes. The three body problem
Glad you're feeling better. Thumbs up to crush a troll.
“The planet with seven suns”
Ancient China: “those are rookie numbers you gotta bump those up”
As always, I love your videos, so relaxing and enjoyable.. (meanwhile my brain gonna blow 😂😂, because my brain is low-level system)
Who are you? And what am I watching? And what are we exploring together?! You never told me in the beginning!!!
This made me laugh 😁
Astrum hahaha always glad to give someone a giggle! Thanks for what you do Alex! You have one of the best channels on UA-cam.
@@markanderson1088 True !
How many stars orbit Sagittarius * ?
Technically, all the stars in the galaxy.
@Astrum I'm really curious, can multi-star systems have goldilocks zone, and will it support habitable exoplanets? And if so, will it have a forever day cycle, if per se both its star has the same luminosity?
For general purposes you can think of the multiple stars as a single star. If we are in a planet that's inside the Goldilocks zone then it wouldn't be so much different due to the long distance between any habitable planets and the barycentre.
But yeah if they are smaller stars then there's a case of having perpetual day (even in case when the planet is not tidal locked) or atleast close to it.
@@tumu_bandit While a binary star system may have two stars that orbit each other (or a point where their gravities balance), there is little reason to expect that the orbit of their exoplanets would be stable as the gravity they experience increases and decreases
Add a third star to the mix, and it's likelier that the orbits become unstable
If the stars orbit very close to each other, or very far from each other (or some of each), then the system is just about as likely to have a Goldilocks zone as a single-star system; the pair of close stars effectively act as a single star for determining the zone, and any very far stars have negligible influence on the zone.
But for the same reasons, such systems wouldn't have much effect on day/night cycles. A close pair of stars would rise and set within an hour of each other, and the far stars wouldn't be bright enough to turn night into day, similar to the way our Full Moon just makes it a bit less dark.
So systems with Goldilocks zones tend to have day/night cycles, and vice versa. But there's bound to be a few exceptions.
Note that if a planet is tidally locked to a star (or close pair of stars), it will have one side in permanent day and the other in permanent night.
@@iamdmc Planets can still have stable orbits if they are the right distance from their parent star(s) and the other star(s), just like the Moon manages to orbit the Earth despite the Sun and other planets. However what tumu meant to say is that these stable orbit areas means planet won't be 'inbetween' to suns and will rather orbit a single element which effectively acts as a single sun.
Thanks to y'all for clearing it up
I wonder if life could form on a planet with 7 suns and multiple moons
Imagine solar flares from every direction!! Wow!😵🤯
With God anything is possible.
nearly unlikely but its possible.
You know, the whole galaxy is a huge multi-star system
I don't think supermassive black hole can be considered as a "star", to call galaxies star systems.
if you apply that logic: since gravity has no range limit, technically the whole universe is an even bigger multi-star system.
DaxMarko - The black hole at the center of the galaxy is actually called “Sagittarius A Star” (which is a pretty cool name btw)...
Semantics.
@@DaxMarko Before the term "Black hole" were popular they used to call them "Black stars".
@@covodex516 its true but the universe is expanding so the galaxy range is a few billion light years
0:10 Wow, you get a HUGE fact wrong within the first 15 seconds of the video! Most star systems are binary, NOT single star systems!!!!! You specifically say that most star systems are single star systems and this is demonstrably FALSE. The most common configuration is BINARY. How is no one else noticing this?!?!?
@RationallySkeptical it's not really wrong since it's not a fact - this subject is constantly being re-evaluated as more data is gathered, just depends where you get your info from. and slow down with the yelling and interrobangs.
Idk much this is my answer to this. Most Stars Are Binary but some are not, like our own star system, its a single star which is called a Solitary Star system. Our star is baisically an oddball of the bunch, so there is a chance that other star systems are Solitary star systems.
diagrams like that are also used in elite dangerous, which is really neat
At least he didn't get interdicted in the middle of the video and got pulled towards a star.
I love when humans pretend they know what the norm is in the. Universe when what we can see is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe ...
Of infinite universe we see still even smaller infinitely tiny part LOL
Why not? As long as the same laws of nature apply everywhere in the universe
What is normal in the universe is irreverent. Even what is normal in the Milky galaxy is also almost irrelevant to the human species. Even the to get to the closest star would take over 70,000 years to get to! There is no warp drive and no gravity plates in real life! What is normal in this galaxy or even in other galaxies are academic, which is a good thing for human knowledge! It will be hundreds of years, if the human species last that long, before humans ever venture to another star!
It is highly unlikely that humans will find a planet that is really habitable! Have a solid surface does not make it earth like, nor does having a atmosphere, if it is not a oxygen atmosphere, which so far, none has been found!
Well, we have the Copernican Principle, where we assume, where no contradictory evidence exists, that we are not in an unusual part of the universe, and what we see is part of a typical part of the universe viewable by any observer of our reference class. We generally trust this principle because the alternative seems more unlikely, to assume that there is something remarkable, special, unusual, or unique about our corner of the universe that sets it apart and causes it to work differently from everywhere else in the universe. Yes, that _could_ be true, but why would we expect our part of the universe to be so weird? It's more likely to be normal.
There's also the principle of induction. We observe certain patterns over and over again to the point where they become practically predictable. When we can accurately predict that a particular phenomenon will continue to take place, then we can say that we have used inductive reasoning to reach generally applicable conclusions about how things work in a more general system.
Finally, we have math. Math is fundamental and abstract, and while it can be supplemented with empirical observations, it stands on its own without empirical verification as pure logic. We know that we are almost certain not to find stable 3-body systems that are not broken down into hierarchical structures of binaries because of the mathematical work done on the so-called "3-body problem".
Very well presented. An interesting topic. So easy to let one's imagination run away with all types of solar configurations. Stay safe. :)
Just a small correction, most planatary systems are actually multi-stared systems. With the most common one being binary star systems. Other than that great video astrum never disappointed 👏👏
Would these multi star systems be on the same orbital plane as well?
Like in a galaxy? The milkyway?
If they were all formed at the same time from the same gas cloud it's very, very likely as the resultant bodies would share the sum angular motion of the original mass. But if any member were acquired later by gravitational capture the it could be any which way.
This is so incredible! I'm having so much fun learning.
Isaac Asimov's novel _Pebble in the Sky_ features a planet with (iirc) 6 stars in its vicinity. The people living there only experience "night" once every few thousand years when 5 of the stars form a conjunction and the last star is eclipsed by a "nemesis" planet.
Isn’t the name of the story ‘nightfall’?
@@bidishadey3815 Yes, and as far as I remember, there were "only" 5 suns... ¬¬
I thought I knew the subject a little, now I understand I know nothing, being lost roughly by the middle of this video Lol
Knowing that one knows almost nothing is the definition of intelligence.
@@adm0iii It's the definition of wisdom, not intelligence.
If you know almost nothing, you are not intelligent. If you are aware of this fact, you are wise. And the moment you are knowing more and more things, your intelligence is rising as well.
@@apolicum I didn't know that.
Me too. This was more complicated than I thought it would be, and I couldn't see the planets
We have actually found a seven-star system!
Its called "AR Cassiopeiae"
The Septasolarians 🫨
As always this is a Wonderful and beautiful video you have made :D
Terrible system.
Never a night’s rest.
Two star review.
Just imagine the kind of stories people would make with binary stars as sun their mythology and philosophy and beliefs would be really interesting
Just imagine being in a multi star system like the Rigil Kentaurus (Alpha Centauri System) on Proxima B (Maybe tidally locked, or has an orbital resonance like Mercury that gives it a day/night cycle depending on the eccentricity of the planet's orbit around Proxima Centauri.) And get to see 3 stars at the same time probably, as well as the night side, the stars Alpha Centauri A and B would still shine bright, but is far away from Proxima Centauri being 4.2 ly from Earth and Alpha Centauri A and B being 4.3 ly
from Earth. Since it is close by in the interstellar scale of space, one day, us humans can do plenty of scientific experiments, study the planet as a whole, and then settle there. Though there might be a possibility that there maybe another planet could be orbiting around that system, who knows until we further study it. Nice video btw Astrum, but you've forgot to mention about the habitable zones that is quite important for life as we know it.
Hey Astrum, have you read The Three-Body Problem? It offers a wonderful explanation of binary / ternary star systems, as well as myriad other space phenomena. I've compared a lot of the stuff in that book with your videos, and a satisfying amount of it holds up to reality, which only bolsters my appreciation for the book as a literary gateway to astronomy. Your channel is the same thing-a gateway. We all admire the crazy work you put into producing such captivating edutainment for us, and the recent multilingual efforts to make this content more accessible than ever. Thank you!
Malcolm Spencer dude, not to bash the trilogy which I am a fan of as well, but what the heck? The trilogy was a science fiction and not very strictly aligned with science after all, how does these two compare? Different species...
@@Serenelove520 Yeah I was thinking more along the lines of the first book, but decided to nudge all the books in there for the recommendation. I'll change that. I'll also mitigate my speaking in absolutes. You're right, I'm hand-picking scenes that DID work and neglecting ones that didn't. But personally, it's all part of what brought me to this channel, and there are moments I remember fondly that line up with stuff I've learned here. As for which moments... I'm afraid I must avoid spoilers. Thanks for checking me though mate.
Malcolm Spencer haha, no problem. But there is a video talking about three body problem, totally unrelated to the book, but still cool astrology. You can try look it up
There can be three stars: one small star orbits clockwise and the other small star orbits counterclockwise the big star, all planets orbit their stars respectively.
how about 8 stars they are unstable but 2 close stars orbiting the inner barycenter with the 2 close stars too
and the outer 2 star binary system with the 2 star binary system
orbit together with the outer barycenter
if you don't understand then
o-o--.--o-o-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o-o--.--o-o
and also could be 9 or 10 oo-oo----------------------oo-oo----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------oo
The answer to “the three body problem”. Thanks.
Trisolarians!
_Video title_
Trisolarans in Trisolaris: 😑😶💀☠
The Universe is insane and we are so small. Love studying the science. So amazing and we barely scratching the surface.
“Proves the universe prefers order” says the title. Well, no. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that the universe is always increasing in entropy, which put simply, is disorder. The universe “prefers” disorder, not order.
Anyone else get existential and anxious about the delicate balance of our solar system watching these vids?
Not quite as delicate or fast as you think. Even if an imbalance were to happen, it would take hundreds or thousands of years for effects to be noticable
nope, because we know planet and star like sun are common 😊
Why are closely orbiting objects usually tidally locked?
Oversimplified: When close, the orbital speeds of the near and far parts of the object become noticeably different. This tugs at and continuously slows down the rotation of the object, until eventually it stops with respect to what it orbits.
@@adm0iii Nicely explained.
Wow, really interesting. Thank you. Looking forward to being able to holiday on one of these planets one day, more particularly those with warm Earth-like conditions and all day sunshine from all those sun's. 8-)
Let me complete for you your presentation :
AR cassiopeiaa is multiple star system in the constellation of cassiopeia. It is thought to be a septuple star system. It is one of only two known star system with a multiplicity of 7, the other being Nu scorpii.
What would comets look like in a system like this?
🤔🤔🤔
I wonder what crazy religions would pop up in these systems to explain the multiple stars? Would be interesting.
Do a shoutout to Space Engine sometime. I think it deserves one for this video.
7 Suns? Now you're talking about some pretty hot stuff! 🔥 🔥 🔥
“We like to keep things simple in this solar system”
AMERICA DOES NOT ADOPT THE METRIC SYSTEM
Sure, planet can have multiple suns but the gravitational pull would be so disruptive that no life or any living thing can survive on it.
You mentioned that "most" planetary systems contain a singular star. This is surprisingly incorrect; according to The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation of Australia, "up to 85% of stars are in binary systems with some in triple or even higher-multiple systems."
Edit: You corrected yourself at the end of the video, I was referring to the statment made towards the beginning.
proxima centauri b is a planet orbiting proxima Centauri orbiting Alpha Centauri A and Alpha Centauri B that orbit each other.
I still imagine these systems to be quite chaotic considering they may have their own Oort clouds extending far outward. Comets flung around all over the place.
@Astrum: The correct term is ternary, not trinary. Trinary is not a real word. Following on from that are quaternary, quintenary, sextenary, septenary, octenary, etc.
Another great informative program by someone with a real infectious enthusiasm for the subject! Love this channel!
Asimov's "Nightfall" features an Earth-like planet (complete with humans) that has 7 Suns in the sky, but claims to have as few as 2 in the sky at any given time. This is what makes me think Asimov didn't do much thinking before writing the story. With 7 of them, how exactly are 5 going to disappear at any give time, unless the stars were orbiting the planet? This would require some Olympic-level stretching to come up with an actual scenario where this might work. Perhaps 5 of them orbit 2 of them, and the 5 will all be hidden behind the 2 at some point.
your voice is now fixed alex. nice
It’s like I was in elite dangerous discovery mode
So true 😂
Hoping to see more multi star systems in sci fi. IMHO, they're indeed as alien as possible
I think aliens are as alien as possible.
The Three Body Problem is an entire Sci-Fi book largely focused on trying to solve a multi-star system
You sure planet 9 is not dward star or a black hole.
If it was any sort of star astromers would be able to see it surely?
or another universe!
@@arthurballs7083 Red dwarf stars are very dim, with some effectively invisible at even just a fraction of a light-year. Some astrophysicists predict there are likely several dim red dwarf stars within a few light-years of each the stars we see, including the Sun.
Your videos are absolutely fantastic. They are clear, concise, the music is great and your enthusiasm for the topics presented clearly shows. A new video from Astrum always makes my day.
Keep it up because this is a very good thing that you are doing.
bad
If you think this is bright, wait til they turn on Discord bright mode.
looks at device, thinks ho hum.... then Hurray!! .. an Astrum video :-) and weirdly was thinking i must look this topic up just a few days ago, thanks again
We all know what a binary sunset looks like.... and the music that goes along with it.
Seasons on other planets will be an interesting topic, too: not just axial tilt like on Earth, but other factors to consider: eccentricity, tidal locking to a star, orbital to rotation resonance, and also the effect of having a system with more than one star, be it of comparable masses or otherwise.
Seasons on _Earth_ have been interesting in the past. We have been at a minimum of a complex cycle of seasonal differences for the last 10,000 years or so. It's probably why farming/civilization started about then.