Astronomers Answer When Will Pluto Collide With Neptune
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 чер 2022
- Pluto's weird orbit was one of the main reasons why it got demoted to the status of a dwarf planet. Three things about its orbit make it an oddball among the planets: Firstly, it's highly inclined to the ecliptic. Pluto's inclination to the ecliptic is 17º, way more than any planet in the solar system. Secondly, the orbit is highly elliptical. And finally, it takes Pluto a whopping 248 Earth years to complete one revolution around the Sun.
Pluto also crosses Neptune's orbit, and astronomers have long wondered why don't the two celestial bodies collide? Some simulations predict that Pluto should have collided with Neptune or escaped the solar system. So what's keeping Pluto stable in its technically chaotic orbit?
The 13th episode of the Sunday Discovery Series answers these questions.
All Episodes Of The Series: bit.ly/369kG4p
Basics of Astrophysics series: bit.ly/3xII54M
REFERENCES:
Paper: bit.ly/3Nhhio5
vZLK oscillations: bit.ly/3OHM0aZ
Created By: Rishabh Nakra and Simran Buttar
Narrated By: Jeffrey Smith
The Secrets of the Universe on the internet:
Website: bit.ly/sou_website
Facebook: bit.ly/sou_fb
Instagram: bit.ly/sou_ig
Twitter: bit.ly/sou_twitter - Наука та технологія
Pluto is a planet in our hearts right guys?
FOREVER
@@mclare71 AMEN TO THAT
No man, come on - it’s pathetic that we ever considered it such. Embarrassing - nearly as much embarrassment as plasma universe theory is causing 😳😜
Yes, it is 😁
No.
Can we all appreciate what a Chad big brother Jupiter is? He takes all the hits from meteors heading our way AND on top of that protects and keeps Pluto with us despite Uranus bullying its orbit.
And as always the Sun is just minding its own business paying no attention to it's children.
Beautiful
This was so sweet ☺️
Actually a study just came out that says that Jupiter actually sends meteors and asteroids our way that wouldn’t otherwise pose a threat.
Yeah I saw that video too I think it was one of Anton's. Jupiter is actually more likely to slingshot a meteor towards us 😂
Uranus should clean his anus.
Mercury: The short one
Venus: The hot one
Earth: The lively one
Mars: The chill one
Jupiter: The nice one
Saturn: The cool one
Neptune: The boring one
Uranus: The weird one
Pluto: The bullied one
The Sun: The landlord
Tell me a sitcom about our solar system wouldn't be a hit
Ceres: the forgotten one
You've got Uranus and Neptune backwards
@@eq1373 ua-cam.com/video/tCmC0XOKO5Q/v-deo.html
I'll have you know that Neptune is my favorite
@@mattrix666 You probably also like unsalted potatoes
It feels like Pluto is being abused :)
I feeling bad😞
He is not planet now, but I think, he strong to be
You are playing with the forces beyond you my friend
*happy face?*
🤣😂🤣😂🤣
It's not a "demotion"! It's a reclassification. If anything it makes Tombaugh's discovery even greater. He discovered a new class of solar system objects.
And you, sir, are the Master of All Things Spin. Pluto has always needed a good PR person, and I think we’ve found our man. (Still, Pluto is a planet. Get your act together! 🤣🤣)
@@xyz.ijk. dont it have a moon to
@@onlythewise1 FIVE! Although we only knew about Charon for most of the time.
Considering they had a probe on the way, if the reclassification was such a great idea then why not wait til New Horizons got there so they could have better data and include the greater scientific community in on the discussion instead of sneaking the vote in on the last day of a conference that didn't even include all the steakholders in the first place and slap everyone in the face with it?
@@colleenforrest7936 Absolutely correct and quite well stated.
Just another reminder of how chaotic the solar system must have been during its long history. Uranus spins on its wildly tilted axis, and Saturn has its retrograde moon, Phoebe, and Neptune has Triton which also orbits the opposite way round. Things must have been really crazy until gravity pulled everything into some kind of order. My personal theory is that we may have lost a planet or two entirely as they were ejected out of the solar system, leading to these anomalies.
Or 2 of them collided and created the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.
Asteroid belt.
They were wildin' back then my nigga
@@Deadassbruhfrfr It's like cleaning up after a wild party! "Now where did I put those planets? I'm sure I saw them somewhere?"
Well jupiter did decide to go to mars' orbit until saturn pulled him out
There is a flaw in your assumption of Pluto's orbit. We have no way of knowing how long the orbit has been, or even of it truly is, stable. The oddity of it definitely seems to indicate something has perturbed it's orbit in the past, and may do so again, OR it was captured by the sun and system's gravity. Also, because we now believe that the planets may have migrated to their current positions, it may be a more recent perturbation than 5 billion years. The absolute vastness of the time scales is the problem when attempting certainty on this and other theories.
I was thinking the same thing.
These so called experts giving an estimate of things outside our planet like they are very sure of it but can't still confirm the exact age of various structures in our planet such as the Great Pyramid.
Precisely! Just because we have yet to see any variable from the past does not preclude that there was one or more factors that influenced Pluto’s orbit.
Also it seams he is assuming the planetary system was created in that order
Same
I remember watching another video, where the guy explained that as one body orbits another, as the orbiting body comes up to the zenith of orbit, it's being pulled by the main body, increasing speed, and then as it heads out, the orbiting body pulls on the main body, slowing it down.
If anyone's curious, look up resonance, or 'why do metronomes synch up'.
That's Kepler's 2nd Law of Planetary Motion.
Very interesting. Thank you for putting these together for us.
I can't help but feel a sense of irony in the first minute this opening statement... it essentially boils down to:
"Us 8 planets are alike. You're not like us Pluto so you can't be one of us."
Pluto: "But everything else about me is like you guys. Just because I orbit different doesn't mean I'm not like you in every other way."
"Nope, you orbit funny. That's weird. you're not one of us!"
It almost reminds me of how humanity treated the handicapped and mentally ill several decades ago as "subhuman" before recognizing that just because they walked, talked and acted a little different didn't mean they weren't part of the human race. Yes, I grew up learning Pluto was the "9th planet" in "the Solar system" and "there are 9." Besides that, it's more that the life lesson I've learned trumps the biased of what I grew up being told in school. Scientists can do whatever the hell they want. It's still the 9th planet discovered in our solar system. It's one of the 9 I know and I'll die still thinking it's "the 9th planet." (throw whatever prefix you want onto that. It's still the 9th planet lol)
its basically emotions vs science. pluto is not a 9th planet. thats the facts. but because all of us grew up as a kid being told that we find it hard to except reality. its something that will only progress until our generation dies.
The problem is that the IAU's definition is not based on actual science. The part about clearing the orbit is based on a since disproven theory of gravity only mentioned in single 1802 publication. Dr. Philip J. Metzger (Ph.D.) of the University of Central Florida has done a deep dive to find the source of the IAU's criteria and found it lacking. Further, he points out that Gallello called the four celestial bodies around Jupiter "the planets of Jupiter". Further, he demonstrated that Pluto around a red dwarf like Proxima Centauri would fit the criteria, but if you put Jupiter around a large star like Sirius or Vega, it would NOT pass those criteria.
then what about the 10th, 11th, 12th etc. planet? We discovered many dwarf planets bigger than pluto. Are they also part, or do you exclude them because "weird"?
@@DundG well they werent around when we were kids so yes they are weird and foreign to us.
@@johnmarkson1998 But still would be wrong to call pluto 1 of the 9 when there are more planets. If you say you don't mind to be wrong then fine, don't need to listen
The planets weren't always in the order they are in now. Some say, Jupiter was much nearer to the Sun in the earlier stages of the Solar System and could have kicked out one or two "Giant Earth" sized planets before migrating to it's present position.
Who says that?
@@elhartzer1639 There are a lot of theories that state as the solar system began to form during it's genesis, Jupiter was forming much closer than where it's orbit is now which caused other celestrial bodies to collide, form, and rest in their current orbits. While others were either pulverized and became the asteroid belt in between Mars and Jupiter or they were flung out of the standard 8(9) orbits we have now thanks to it's gravitational pull. You have to remember, a lot of what's said about "the beginnings" of the solar system (and the universe itself) is derived based upon a very narrow cosmic view and understanding of what we think we believe the universe is as a whole. Every generation, scientists insist "we absolutely know this to be true." Only to be proven wrong generations later.
@@elhartzer1639 because when we see other proto planetary disks around other stars, there is never enough material out at those respective distances to form planets of anywhere near that mass, not to mention Jupiter has a metallic core 17 times the mass of the Earth, heavy metallic material would only be present close to the new born star, out at Jupiter like orbits you only get lighter elements, so it's an almost certainty it formed much closer to the sun, probably even much closer than Mercury is, no computer model simulation has ever been made to successfully explain a solar system with a Jupiter like planet forming where it is .
@@markoyamashitach I concur.
@@markoyamashitach Are there a lot of hypothesis or theories? There is a difference. And who says all of that, i'd like to read more about that, can you name some papers or other sources? :)
I have to disagree. No scientist declares that they are absolutely right. The very nature of science is to test and falsify hypothesis, follow the evidence and then come up with a theory that best explains the observation. And when there is new evidence, the theory is tested and gets refined or even proven wrong. Thats what scientists do.
1:36 All of the planets orbit in the same direction! Venus rotates backwards/upside down, it doesn't orbit backwards.
I’m a little sensitive when it comes to Pluto.As if demoting the ninth planet of our solar system to a dwarf planet wasn’t enough these scientists are out to classify it as a rogue planet 😭 I mean although that’s not the case but somehow that’s what is being implied here, no?
OUTRAGEOUS!! PLEASE STOP THE MADNESS!!!!
But that will be the correct detonation of pluto won't it?
Agree
We all studied Pluto as planet in schools. But, one has to accept scientific revision and move on. After all revision is made on basis of proper technical criteria.
@@adityawaglearch bs Pluto should be considered as a planet fak the scientists
Great information as always thanks . Clear and concise explanation of the azimuthal and latitude libration and the effect of Neptune , Uranus , Jupiter and Saturn on Pluto's weird but stable orbit .
We seem to know more about the galaxies and galactic clusters than about the periphery of solar system and its immediate vicinity. Please make more such videos.
The darkest place is under the candlestick.
@@musicat100 DO YOU KNOW WHY?. THAT'S WHERE THE OPENING/CLOSING CONTROLS TO ALL THE DARTHS SECRET LAIRS/LABORATORIES/POWER CHAMBERS AS WELL THE HIDDEN ENTRANCES TO AREA 51 & THE " TRIANGLES"!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
Of course we know more about objects that are farther away. It's because we can see them from a better vantage point. Objects in the solar system are mostly on the same plane as Earth, which makes them much more difficult to study.
Nicely done. I have long wondered how the orbits of the solar system planets remain as stable as they presently are. Thank you.
i know that most planets mass is only configured by rough estimates as truly knowing any planets composition is something that have slowly been learned as planets are scanned or events happen in the solar system to reveal their composition . Example is the comet that broke up and crashed into Jupiter years ago. The reason I even mentioned this information is my question. Has Pluto's own mass and composition changed over all those billion of years of orbit? Wouldn't that also have a affect on it's orbit and it's own gravitation influence?
The universe is in a constant state of chaos over an eternity. 👍👍👍
Mood
Love the content as per usual 👍👍🇬🇧
Amazing ❤️
Last Friday i see the secret of the universe on Ethiopia TV shows the About Pluto.
Would love to understand how Jupiter and Saturn affect Earth and our moon.
Those planets are the biggest and most massive. So they have the greatest gravity. It’s enough to change the course of asteroids which come too close. Sometimes whipping away in a new direction.
Sometimes their gravity just sucks up asteroids coming too close.
So at times, they capture and consume big space rocks which could hit Earth. At other times, they fire the rocks right at us.
If you watch the solar system long enough you'll actually realize the sun is just slowly orbiting Jupiter, it's just no one else has realized this yet
@@WitchMedusa well I mean that’s false 😅
@@WitchMedusa lol
@@nakf5057 Actually, it's kind of true. Jupiter and the sun orbit a common baricenter which is outside the sun
Thanks for the video ❤️❤️
Thank you. I’m camping and needed some brain food. This fit the void for the next few days.
Interesting points about Pluto’s orbit.
Glad it was helpful! Happy Camping :)
@@TheSecretsoftheUniverse Why did you make Venus orbit the sun backwards, in the opposite direction of the other planets?At 1:40 Venus orbits anti-clockwise while the others clockwise.
The Annunaki did this! Somehow... 🧐
I wish the animation clips would have been a bit longer. I had the feeling they always ended at the important stage of the clip.
Also, either you keep everything in the correct proportions or not.
Poor Pluto
"Most likely Never. It's stable thanks to the other planets."
That's more or less the answer and save anyone watching 8 minutes.
1:39 Why is venus going the opposite direction? I think you guys confused rotation for revolution here.
Also, i know we could be looking at the solar system from a bottom-up view but the planets revolving clockwise makes everything feel off.
yep .. everything is relative
Good catch regarding Venus's revolution direction being opposite the others (in the animation). Venus does indeed revolve about the sun in the same direction as the other planets!
Excellent video. Thank you. Do we know if the five moons of Pluto - Charon and the 4 smaller moons which are also in orbital resonance with each other and Pluto- are any factor in the orbit characteristics of Pluto itself?
Get this to the top so he sees it
I didn't know it had 5, thank you. I didn't expect to learn something.
6:47 - 6:52 Couldn't resist the chuckle with Uranus line here xD
Very informative.
I miss Pluto. It will always be a planet. The other dwarfs should also be given the status of planet😊
There would be 100+ planets then.
Well i think Mercury probably should be down fraded as well. After all Titan is larger than it, and that's a "Moon".
This is not racism but planetism!
No need to miss it. Just because a bunch of rogue astronomers "demote" a planet (moreso for publicity than reason!) doesn't make it so. The definition of planet has always been subjective, and is conferred on a major body of interest. Or in other words: Pluto is a planet. It was a planet yesterday, it is a planet today, and it will be a planet long after homo sapiens is no more!
@@TheLostBijou All definitions of every word is subjective. Or in other words, Pluto is whatever we as a society decide it to be. When homo sapiens are gone, there will be nobody left to recognize what a planet is, or is not, and therefore it's classification as a planet or not at that point will cease to exist.
I would've sworn Pluto's biggest mystery would be why it doesn't have craters on Sputnik Planum (the heart-shaped part of the surface).
It rains nitrogen, and has frozen nitrogen lakes
Constantly bleeding. Which only became worse after its demotion.
@@sexgod57able Sad, but true! Liquid nitrogen tears :-)
Love all this spacey stuff. 👽🌘🌍⭐🛸🚀
Damn ! Was not knowing these stuff,thnx for sharing
This video raises a question to me: How does the "Habital Zone change its shape and range over the presumed next 5 billion years of our Sun's existence and how does that change impact changes to the other planets in terms of future habitability ... Including Pluto as a future surviving planet once the IAU members all burn up along with the Earth?
Even pluto will fry when it goes into stage 2 of it's red giant phase, it will be over 4,000 degrees at it's location.
@@neilpeartspurplenose8739 Can you calculate where the goldilocks zone will be to prove that?
@@markcleveland3790 I don't have the numbers on hand, but all evidence suggests that the habitable zone will be somewhere around the outer edge of the solar system.
@@neilpeartspurplenose8739 That sounds correct based on common sense.
My guess is the Habital Zone will migrate outward as the Sun expands and becomes a red giant.
However, as a red giant expands it will likely cool, thus the Habital Zone will be closer to the Sun, other planets including Pluto, and/or other moons may become future habits for humans.
What do you think about this scenario?
Habitation Zones don't have to last very long, of a planet went through a massive cataclysmic *explosion* terminal. It all would eventually through eternity recover. If you had an autonomous navigation time machine, it would leap the gap events, leaving you to assume the planet remained sustained. Because the tron-stream of the elec-atomic elements, would reside in time & space of a solar system traffic flow.
The only mess is that scientists don’t recognize Pluto as a planet.
Ceres was once considered a planet, too. Now there are both dwarf planets. Good.
nah
@@Vates104 Ceres was demoted because they thought it wasn't round. But then better observations showed that was... It's large enough to fit more than one city on that puppy.
@@Vates104 On the other hand, astrologers consider both Pluto and Ceres as very important in their predictions! The scientists and astronomers should learn from them. :-)
It's not, if you think pluto is a planet, you have to consider thousands of objects In the solar system belts planets
“You heard what happened to Pluto? …messed up right?” Burton Guster
6:07 needs to be a t-shirt 🤣🤣🤣
We should never called it a dwarf, we need it too much. Pluto still remains our 9th planet 🙌🏼
Nope
@@studiosx8561 Yep!
Get over it.
No, just because you studied pluto to be the 9th planet in elementary school doesn't mean it's status will stay forever or science is wrong.
Imagine when science was wrong, they admitted it, changed the concept but you refuse to accept the new concept.
crossing doesn't necessarily mean intersecting. what if one side of Pluto's long orbit is inside of Neptune's, and the other is outside
Exactly! Simply put, space is three-dimensional, but most of our maps and diagrams and charts of it are two-dimensional and thus sometimes deceiving.
ya their orbits dont come remotely close to each other
Good information
this guy is taking my google history that I made at 3am and turning it into videos
I'm tempted to ask whether or not Pluto is a captured exoplanet, with the off ecleptic orbit normalizing into a normal one over time.
Any number of things could have caused Pluto's strange orbit, from a collision to a neighboring star passing by too close. Even Neptune's gravitational influence could have done it. We will probably never know. The odds of it being a captured exoplanet, though, are rather low.
Pluto is just the nearest example of a bunch of more-distant Plutos all in similar orbits and exhibiting similar features. It's not unique.
Pluto was never demoted, it was reclassified. I’m certainly Pluto was neither offended or altered in its being. There was still been more money spent visiting Pluto than Uranus or Neptune (which both survived any form of “demotion”). And if strange orbits were the issue, Mercury should feel thankful
Part of the problem is that the "reclassification" is based on bad science. Dr. Philip J. Metzger (Ph. D.) of the University of Central Florida located the source of the criteria "clear the orbit" is comes from a single publication dated 1802 and that it is based on a since disproven THEORY of gravity. Further, he has demonstrated how Pluto around a Red Dwarf like Proxima Centauri would meet those criteria, but Jupiter around a star like Sirus or Vega would not.
@@davidford3115 yes, and our moon would be a planet if in orbit around the sun, some say that the moon and Pluto should indeed be planets; the classification system is arbitrary. My point remains, as i said, Pluto was just reclassified, not demoted (as was asserted by the author of this video)
@@MD-pl4ww The difference between the Moon and Pluto is that Pluto orbits the Sun directly. This is the first factor on naming a celestial body a "planet". How can the Moon be considered as such?
@@sophiek3292 yes thank you captain obvious. My point, from the start!, is that the classification is arbitrary, not absolute. It does not have effect associated to it, nor does the classification alter the size, composition or dynamics of that celestial body. So, as I said, Pluto was not demoted (as the author of the video asserts) it was reclassified. However there is a valid argument for classification to exclude the orbit, and include bodies of certain gravitational, mass or shape or geological compositions. Indeed, modern science has redefined the term “planet” several times; and the original definition of planet was a celestial body who moved relative to the earth, not the sun…. but it’s all just semantics
Do one where you tell us when Pluto collide with Earth
Trying to set a reminder on my iphone, does anybody know how to make big jumps forward on the calendar? scrolling there is impossible
When a 8+ minutes video could have been a 3 minutes video…
Exactly, jesus
Why is Pluto still in the solar system? Because it hasn't been ejected. Why hasn't it been ejected? Because it is part of the solar system.
And it’s a planet. 😉
@@Jellyman1129 nope
@@studiosx8561 Yes.
@@Jellyman1129 it not
@@studiosx8561 Experts say it is. ua-cam.com/video/nItBncb8ORM/v-deo.html
I posted this as a reply somewhere else regarding whether Pluto is a planet or not, but I’ll repost here so it can get a full viewing.
Yeah, the Star Trek test is really simple.
When Captain Kirk and the starship crew shows up at any
given world and turns on the viewfinder, the audience knows
immediately on looking at the object if it's a planet or a star
or simply an asteroid or small comet or something. They
don't have to do any math. They don't have to catalog every
other object in the solar system and determine where the
orbit stabilities are, right? You just look at it. This is what I
call the Star Trek test. People know a planet when they see
one, and I think that's a pretty darn good test, in fact, for
planet hood.
Better than Neil Tyson whats-his-face explanation .. thank you, Spock
1:40 aren’t all the planets orbiting in the same direction? Why the back and forths here.
And I thought the Earth was on the edge of chaos….
I was under the impression that Pluto's reduction to status of planetoid was based on its smaller diameter rather than its orbit?
Its size and orbit would suggest that it may be a capture from an interaction with another passing solar system or a moon ejected from one of the giant gas planets via a similar mechanism.
It's not about the diameter, it has more to do with its effect on the objects around it. A planet has to meet these 3 criteria: it orbits the sun (this excludes moons), it has enough mass that it becomes roughly rounded (this excludes tons of smaller objects orbiting the sun), and, finally, it has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit (other objects that might have once shared its neighbourhood would have either colided with it or be propelled out of the orbit by the planet long ago).
The last one is where pluto fails the definition of a planet, because Pluto occupies the Kuiper Belt (except for the short period when it get's close to Neptune's orbit, although they never really intersect due to the influence of Neptune's gravity, as this video mentions), where there's hundreds of thousands of other objects. It's the exact same reason why Ceres, the dwarf planet located in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupter, is not considered a planet, many many other asteroids share its neighbourhood. If Pluto were to be considered a planet, many other objects would also end up falling into the planet definition, and there could potentially be hundreds of others out there to the discovered. That's why the distinction was created, because if everything is a planet the definition starts to get muddy and not very useful (also why they often divide the planets further into the rocky planets, gas giants, and ice giants). A dwarf planet is a body that meets the first 2 criteria, but did not clear it's neighbourhood.
@@kiminimuchu__ Thank you for that clarification; I wonder why such basic explanations are not included in these scientific pieces especially since those criteria must be relatively recent? Pluto has been a planet for most of my lifetime.
From your explanation I conclude that if Ceres (diameter less than 600 miles) was in clear space between Jupiter and Saturn it would be considered a planet even though it is vanishingly small compared with the ''classical'' planets?
@@judewarner1536
The idea of a planet is that it clears its orbit by its own gravity.
If it coincidentally happens to be in an area where there is no material but doesn't actually have the capacity to clear it's orbit, that probably wouldn't count.
That said, that's never going to happen. Clear orbital areas don't just happen, something causes them.
What might be more likely would be if Ceres was very close to the Sun, since it's easier to clear orbits when your orbit is smaller. At an extremely rough guess, I'd say Ceres would start to fall into planet territory if it fell within ~0.05 au of the sun.
@@IamGrimalkin Your comment, ''If it coincidentally happens to be in an area where there is no material but doesn't actually have the capacity to clear it's orbit, that probably wouldn't count.'' smacks of speculation rather than fact. Which is OK, most hypotheses begin in speculation. Except here we are dealing with scientific ''facts''... or are we?
Surely if an object meets the three criteria then it is a planet irrespective of its size? Unless the criteria have been selected by the relevant scientists to reflect an opinion, rather than a scientific fact!!! I would suggest that this is what has happened, because scientists are just as capable of becoming wedded to an idea as normal mortals... I posit the Phlogiston Theory as a classic example.
Why would the clearance of an orbit be a relevant criterion? This could have been selected as a criterion by a group who decided that Pluto was too small to be considered a planet and so chose a set of criteria that excluded it in order to ''confirm'' their opinion... it wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened!
What about the early stages of a star system planetary formation when insufficient time has elapsed for a 30,000 km diameter object, orbiting its primary, to clear its orbit? According to the criteria it is NOT a planet.
Arguably before the Early Heavy Bombardment got going there were NO planets in the Solar System; the Earth itself certainly would not have been a planet according to the criteria.
Is there then a 4th (silent) criterion, that enough time must have elapsed that an object must have had sufficient time to clear its orbit?
Suppose, then, that an object is of ''planet-size'' diameter but in a long term elliptical orbit that at times takes it through a volume of space where there is a belt of debris too large for the object to have cleared within the available time-frame? Like an Oort Cloud, for example! Do you see where I am going with this?
BTW are you speaking as a familiar, or have you consulted with your resident Witch? This is not to belittle your position, I am myself a Mage.
@@judewarner1536
I think the thing is more that the criterion is more subtle than their press release suggested.
It's not about the objects themselves in the orbit; it's the fact that the planet cleared them by dominating them with it's gravity.
In terms of the amount of time required; that's kind of debated, the IAU hasn't given a clear answer and various papers give different definitions.
Some would say that yes; it is about the planet having *already* cleared the orbit; so in the very early solar system there were no planets. Which is fine, planets do have to begin at some point.
(I think some of the reasoning towards the total star lifetime definition is it's easier to calculate for exoplanets, rather than any of the reasoning you used).
In any case, once you have a clear definition nailed down, it's not speculation; orbits are something that can and have been calculated, and there are papers with formulae which tell you whether you expect something to gravitationally dominate or not (that's where I got my number about Ceres from, although I extrapolated their graph rather than using their formula because it was easier).
Yes, a very large object which is at a sufficiently far orbit would not be considered a planet under the IAU definition.
The historical precedent for all this was the discovery of Ceres, which stopped being regarded as a planet by many when they discovered that it was one body of many in the asteroid belt.
Giving the "dynamic dominance" definition just kind of formalises that in terms of something scientifically objective.
After all, if Ceres was large enough that it could clear orbits, there probably wouldn't be an asteroid belt.
Anyway, regardless this is nothing personal towards Pluto.
The largest competing planet definition by scientists that does include Pluto jettisons all orbital-based criteria; so (e.g.) the Moon should be considered a planet as well under that definition. I hope you'll agree with me that whether the Moon is regarded a planet or not is more radical than anything surrounding Pluto!
In a definition that keeps Moons out but Dwarf Planets like Pluto in; it's still nothing personal towards Pluto. Such a definition would also include Ceres; and that was discovered earlier than Pluto was.
.
Anyway, what you decide to call a planet or not ultimately is an arbitrary taxonomy question rather than anything that affects the science. They're still the same bodies that operate under the same physical laws, whether you call them a moon, planet or dwarf planet.
It's nice to have a consistent definition that everyone has agreed on and just use it going forward.
I always wondered about this. And now I know.
Always loved PLUTO.
HEART ❤️ OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM.
Pluto was discovered by Clyde Tombaugh on February 18, 1930, so Pluto will have completed one full orbit on February 18, 2178, since its discovery.
The exact answer would be January 28, 2178, since the sidereal orbital period of *planet* Pluto is 247.94 years or 90,560 days
More they talk about Pluto. The more it sounds like a planet.
Nope. Our Moon is gigantic compared to Pluto.
@@RideAcrossTheRiver worth consider Earth Moon is a binary planet.
@@Dularr Not quite, but our Moon's gravity is enough to pull Earth around in its orbit by about 3,400 km. Pluto is much smaller than the Moon.
@@RideAcrossTheRiver and mars is much smaller than the earth. Size is subjective. When will people decide mars doesn’t fit the criteria anymore.
@@Mikey-ym6ok "mars is much smaller than the earth" What? Mars is ten times the mass of the Moon and has the same surface area of all dry land on Earth. It's ore than half the diameter of Earth and twice the mass of Mercury. Mars is gargantuan compared to Pluto.
"Size is subjective. "
Wrong word. Size is _relative._ But if you try to elevate pipsqueak Pluto to Mars, you're being subjective.
Clyde Tombaugh said Pluto is a planet upon discovery in 1930 and it's still a planet in 2022.
Fascinating
Maybe, the Pluto planet vibration is only a electrical magnetism reacting to the other magnetic planets?
No. Its magnetic field is not strong enough to do that.
@@h.dejong2531 I know that we know so little and in the end we will still no nothing.
@@larryswindcatcher We know a lot more than you think. We've mapped the magnetic fields in the solar system.
@@h.dejong2531 Oh, good for you in your higher understanding of what holds our solar system, galaxy and universe together. I have always wanted to know, please explain your knowing theory or what you THINK you KNOW about the subject.
and maybe space hebrews seeded our planet
Given how Pluto has managed to survive for all of these years despite it's rather large neighbors, I think it should be promoted back to its previous planet status.
Yes, I have a fridge magnet that says: "Pluto will always be a planet to me" :-)
Nope. Our Moon is gigantic compared to Pluto. Also, its 'neighbours' are quite distant from it. Jupiter is much closer to us than it is to Pluto.
There is no promotion or demotion involved here.
Pretty nice, thanks (although a lot of unsupported speculations)
just had an exame question on the effect of Neptune specifically on the orbits of Hot and Cold classical Kuiper Belt objects, like pluto, and its elliptical shape and tilt angle to the plane. Help.
It was demoted because there were other platetoids of similar sizes found in the area, Eris etc.
Current "scientists" only have 10 fingers, so there can be no more.
Then Mercury should be demoted too. It's smaller than Jupiter''s largest moon
@@colleenforrest7936 well it doesnt share orbital area with others, so is fine i guess
@@sleeeper4659 Neither does Ceres, by that logic. It is the gravitationally dominant object in its orbit... I mean, if we aren't counting rocks smaller than itself, because there are other rather large rocks in Mercury's orbit, as well as in Earth's orbit.
@@colleenforrest7936 True, and there is some push recently to have moons be considered planets.
0h Wow ty Jupiter n Saturn 4 Keeping Pluto Stable! It's My Ruling Planet in My Sun n N node Placements along With Mars lol Awesome Vid ty 4 Sharing 🧐🙏 Mahalo 🌺
I litterally had a stroke reading this
r/ihadastroke
Please answer this too
When will ads disappear from you tube
When you buy youtube premium
Love the background music.
If Jupiter's strong gravity does help Pluto to avoid collision with Neptune, then how does it's moons not crash on it if it's that strong? Strong enough to affect Pluto that is very far from Jupiter.
Because those moons are in a stable orbit. They are constantly falling around the gravitation well that is Jupiter.
Angular momentum.
For the same reason the Moon doesn't crash into Earth, or Mercury into the Sun.
What about Nibiru?
Soon.
Never existed.
In 1976, someone retranslated a Sumerian text and claimed it talks about an unknown planet. Charlatans then claimed this planet (Nibiru) would destroy Earth in 2012 (coinciding with the end of one period in the Mayan calendar). When that didn't happen (and indeed, no new planet was visible in the night sky), charlatans moved on to the next bit of nonsense.
The 1976 translation turned out to be full of errors. Data from archaeology and astronomy disproved the Nibiru claims. We have found actual planets much further out than this hypothetical one. Sedna has a 10,000 year orbit.
So we know Nibiru doesn't exist, and any claims about a "planet 9" that will destroy us can be dismissed.
What about it?
It's pronounced "ura-nus", but you still made me laugh. Lol
I've always been concerned about Uranus.
I always thought Uranus made everything unstable. Especially after a trip to Taco Belle.
It takes Pluto one year to go around the sun.
At the beginning of this video 0:00, it says Pluto takes 248 years to complete 1 orbit around the sun. The Earth takes 1 year to orbit the Sun.
I think they believe it's strange that Mercury takes a whole year to orbit the Sun, as being small & much closer to the Sun, one would think it would take it much less than 1 year to orbit the Sun. Hence the name.
Being tidally locked to the sun is also considered strange, as is our moon being tidally locked to the Earth, as almost all of our planets & moons spin on their own axis while they orbit.
@@valerieann8007 great point. Unless you consider a year is defined as how long a planet takes to orbit the sun.
@@valerieann8007 It takes one year but it's a plutonian year ☺️
Pluto. Doing whatever it wants. lol
This was my first taste and I have subscribed
Long live Aquarius
So, Neptune isn't a planet because it didn't clear Pluto from it's orbit. They demoted Pluto because they are lazy and didn't want to count anymore planets and it's just so far away. Thanks Neil.
Yeah, ignore the IAU. Pluto rules!
They demoted pluto to because they don't feel like having to name thousands of "planets" in the system. Technically Earth didn't clear it's orbit because of the space junk, however it's not big enough to mess with it's status. Just like Neptune and pluto. Just because you studied pluto to be a planet in elementary school doesn't mean it still is. Accept it
@@G-Lewis The IAU being lazy about naming planets is their problem. Also the planetary experts never use this definition because it’s trash.
@@Jellyman1129 How is that definition trash? What definition do you use?
@@G-Lewis The definition is trash because the first criterion says a planet “must be in orbit around the sun”. That means the 5,000+ exoplanets found throughout the Milky Way aren’t planets because none of them orbit the sun. That’s one problem of many. The definition of a planet that I use is what the experts use called the geophysical planet definition. It says a planet is:
1) a celestial body that have sufficient mass to assume a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, but
2) has insufficient mass to undergo nuclear fusion in its interior because then we’d call it a star.
Very simple.
Didn’t the gas giants switch positions during the life of the solar system?
Yes, yes they did.
@@Jellyman1129 it isn’t been taken in account here.
@@palantir135 That’s the problem.
@@Jellyman1129 it a theory
@@studiosx8561 Yeah, but it’s very probable. Planet X is a theory, yet astronomers take it as fact.
I think once we leave this solar system. I think we find more Pluto's out there.
If Pluto hasn’t collided with Neptune yet, I doubt it ever will
I don't think it ever will ethier,I know some planets do collide with each other but what are the chances of that even happening? I'm not too worried about neptune and pluto colliding,it's not going to happen in our life time
What a stupid comment and braindead reasoning. Sometimes when you don't know what you're talking about it's best to shut up.
I still maintain the Pluto is a planet and did not form in its current orbit. Interactions with Neptune or Uranus changed Pluto's orbit to what we see today.
Imagine a gas giant planet getting slingshot out of its solar system and speeds through the universe annihilating everything in its path.
Well, I guess I have something in common with Pluto, as I have drank a few librations myself.
Poor Pluto!!
The guy just can't catch a break!!!
Fun Fact: if you write fun fact, people will read it
Pluto has been considered to rule Scorpio since its discovery. Scorpios are busy productive chaotic. It fits. Very different from Aries which is ruled by Mars. Many still stick with Scorpio as being co-ruled by Mars but look into the personality of Mars, it doesn’t fit Scorpio, not even loosely.
lol
Astrology is nonsense. Consider this: your "sign" is based on the position of the sun relative to 12 constellations, 2200 years ago. That position isn't constant: it changes due to precession. These position have changed by more than 30º, meaning "your sign" no longer matches the position of the sun relative to the constellations. Astrologers blithely keep using the wrong signs.
In addition, the stars exert no measurable influence on anyone.
I would very much be depressed if I lived in your head. Thank you universe (me) for my freedom to think outside so many limited boxes and that my own head shakes itself and frees itself more and more from the smallness that is so far beyond what our tiny human specs can imagine. And in spite of our small minds, we can know that we are more than belief or logic, connected to the grandness of everything. Ideas such as nonsense and lack of influence is not a constant, it is only a construct. See you in some other universe “someday”, one in which constructs dissolve into play and merging, senses become like the stars and your awareness loves adventuring beyond time. It will happen, perhaps not in this present lifetime but it will happen.
@@ToddDouglasFox There's a big difference between "we don't know if it works" and "we know that it doesn't work". Astrology sits firmly in the second category. To give one example: if astrology worked, we'd see this show up in statistics: people born on certain dates would be more accident-prone than others. Insurance companies study this for a living, and have found no correlation between date of birth and accident rates. The shift of the ecliptic is another big red flag. We may not know everything, but there are things we do know. Astrology has been proven beyond any doubt to be useless.
@@h.dejong2531 You are so lost due to your limited understanding and exposure. The FBI uses astrology to ascertain the types of crimes that may have been or might be committed. Many therapists use astrology to effectively treat addicts and couples. Many researchers and medical experts use it to make determinations as to disease proclivities and predispositions in human medicine and general health. It is also used by law enforcement during interrogation, investigation, and in tracking suspects. It’s been used for millenium to advise those in power and is still known to be used by all heads of countries in this way. Of course you are additionally limited to zodiac signs because as you indicate, you have no knowledge or experience with regard to COMPLETE birth charts to include for example all aspects, nodes, conjunctions, squares, and oppositions, just for starters and you apparently have zero knowledge of understanding progressed charts. It takes decades of learning to be able to truly read astrological influences. Have you done the in depth learning? Per your own limits, lack of knowledge, lack of exposure, lack of study, and certainly from what you’ve indicated, having had NO direct experience, you have bolstered my points to be more likely than yours to be true. Good job. Maybe we can meet on another channel on a different topic we disagree on. I’d like that, you are so easy to refute.
PS, you deleted your first comment. You are giving yourself a thumbs up!
OMG the 2:10 graphics gives the sun a shadow (see Mercury reappear from the shadow) and then I noticed that all the planets are not illuminated by the sun
Absolute intelligent perfection.
Thank you.
If having cleared its orbit of large objects is a requirement for a planet, then that means Neptune isn't a planet either, since Neptune hasn't cleared its orbit of Pluto.
Here's the thing:
-"Clearing" actually means "gravitational dominance". Neptune gravitationally dominates Pluto by the resonance mentioned in the video; in the same way that it dominates its moons.
-Pluto is so small relative to Neptune it may as well not exist. Some proposed a definition of "clearing" to have
@@IamGrimalkin That's like saying Earth is so small to Jupiter it may as well not exist. A better question is "which one would you rather live on?"
Another question would be "at what point does a planet become gravitationally dominant?"
@@colleenforrest7936
But the earth isn't in the orbit of Pluto, so that isn't a question, is it?
I think I mentioned a criterion used by many; gradational dominance is when a body clears its orbit of all objects, apart from a residue of objects with total mass
@@IamGrimalkin so when Jupiter migrated from its closer position around the sun to its present position, as it crossed Earth's orbit, was Earth a planet? If Earth didn't clear it's orbit, but Jupiter cleared it as it passed through, and Earth just happen to settle here, is Earth still a planet.
Please understand, my argument isn't so much about Pluto beshmurched status as it is about the definition being a very poor definition that didn't get the rigor necessary to to accurately define something of such import.
@@colleenforrest7936
To the first question, the answer is honestly 'we don't know', a large part because we don't know the solar system dynamics at the time.
But earth had to have become a planet at some point; and before that it could be called a 'protoplanet' or 'part of a protoplanetary disc'.
I guess perhaps you could call the asteroid and Kuiper belt protoplanetary discs that still exist, although they may never result in any more actual planets.
As to your second question, I think there is a debate to whether something can be called a planet if it's *capable* of clearing its orbit (say, within the lifetime of a star), or whether it has *actually* cleared its orbit.
Either way, if the orbit is clear it almost certainly has been cleared by the planet (earth's orbit would gradually fill up with rubble in the absence of earth itself); but talking about capability makes exoplanets easier to catagorise.
One thing I will say is actually I personally find the orbit-clearing criterion much clearer and more well-defined than the 'roundness' one.
Take Vesta: it's likely it was gravatioanlly rounded at some time in the past (hence its internal layers); it's just not round anymore because it solidified and harded before an impact bent it out of shape.
For most larger unnamed kuiper belt objects whether they count as a dwarf planet or not is in question; and even for imaged objects such as moons people have questions of whether they count as 'gravatioanlly rounded' or not.
And it becomes an utter nightmare for potential exo (dwarf)planets because roundness depends on composition, although it'll be a while before telescopes can actually see objects that small.
Meanwhile, with dynamic dominance, in the solar system at least there's a clear distinction: either an object is easily capable of clearing its orbit or it's nowhere near doing so, and that's also reflected in the orbital paths of the planets themselves.
I guess it becomes more fuzzy when you start looking at moons. If you imagine they took the orbits of their planets, some of them might have cleared their orbits depending how you define the orbit and timescales involved. However, you could argue that there's a reason these objects are moons in the first place: without their planet they could have ended up a different size or ejected from the solar system entirely.
Ok, if you know your math you can tell that Neptune is in a 3:2 reonance with Pluto. For every three orbits of Neptune, Pluto makes two. While their orbits do technically "cross" with one another, whenever that happens one or the other planets is very far from the other one. It could happen at some point in the far future, but it is highly unlikely that Neptune will influence the orbit of Pluto to a high degree that it will perturn the orbit of Pluto. Much less that it will cause Pluto to fly into the inner Solar System.
"you humans, when are you ever gonna learn that size doesn't matter?" (MIB!)
Poor Pluto, he did nothing 💀
1930 is the base year,for calculating the period orbit of Pluto,hence 2178 is the complete revolution aroybd the Sun,base on year 1930.
However we forget that this minor planet has been revolving around the Sun for the last billions of years.
According to the ESA and NASA, Pluto and Neptune will never be close enough to each other to collide unless something hits Pluto out of its current orbit, Pluto may move closer than Neptune for a time but it doesn't cross the actual path of Neptune because Pluto doesn't follow the same line of equatorial orbit around the sun that the other planets do, it's at an angle. There, question answered.
What about you start watching the video instead of thinking your basic knowledge (that is mentioned in the first seconds of the video btw) makes you a know-it-all. You sound like my previous boss, he thinks he knows everything, ignoring everything and anyone else. Yeah he went out of business in no time.
I want to see an accurate representation of the orbit of the solar system in our galaxy.
Which voice changer do you use ?
Pluto has only orbited the Sun one time in Biden's whole life!!
I’d say Pluto had many orbits during that skeleton’s lifespan. 😂
@@Jellyman1129 I was referring to Grampiden; the human form . Not his reptilian form, which his mother, Pelosi, is currently using. 🙂
Repeat the line
Its not a phenomnon that Pluto moves to a higher plane when other planets are close. The planets are alive just like the reat of the universe! They know exactly what they are doing!
Yeah, we love the little guy!!
Lol!!
It even has a Heart!
I'm hoping that Pluto wins this battle, just to show those silly humans who is the real boss.