Having a 3 times effect is actually a fail, because it means the math is totally wrong. Meaning future projects IE saving Earth might fail because the guestimate the figures.

@@ntal5859 how so please explain .

@@motogeee510 perhaps the mass of the astroid was miscalculated.

@@ntal5859 A three times effect is a success, because it proved the technique worked. Calculating how to do it accurately is not important right now, and the data collected will be our first burst of data regarding how to do just that. If DART had done nothing at all, or even very little, that would have been the worst-case scenario.

@@DarthMeteos Measuring success depends on what your goals are. If you want to affect an asteroid by at least a certain amount and get three times that then you succeeded. I think N Tal is looking st it in a different way than that that I also agree with. Engineers and scientists and have the goal of understanding and having predictive power. For the DART they no doubt used simulations of mathematical models to design the device and its path to the asteroid in order to have a certain effect on its trajectory. They may have also run many cases to get a probabilistic prediction of the result based on the final design. For the outcome of be three time greater would suggest that either 1) the models were not as accurate as they should be, which is a pretty big problem when it comes to saving the planet because it just as easily could have gone the other way or 2) the specific event was so well executed that or that it was such a freak event, statistically, that it fell outside the confidence interval established by the all of the different cases run to establish probabilities, in which case the assumptions about the probabilities that went into selecting cases weren't that great or we can't necessarily rely on it always being three times as good as expected and flocks are just touting the three time as good outcome to give a good headline. It would have been a much more promising outcome if the engineers and scientists involved nailed the estimate because it actually demonstrates a high degree of proficiency.

It’s the hallmark of a good video!

Right because the explanation is nonsense

But I didn’t imagine our planets and moons literally existing on the same solar plane, but I guess it makes sense considering it would probably be chaotic without some form of equilibrium. I remember the whole “Planet X” theory that basically makes the argument that some bodies in our solar system could orbit on a plain, only to intersect the normal orbital patterns over tremendous lengths of time. I think the evidence they used is the strange behavior of small rocky bodies being flung into the inner solar system on occasion, or maybe it was an observing an odd gravitational anomaly that could only be explained by fault in classical physics, or a planet orbiting our sun in a drastically different orbit

Ladies and gentlemen he's got it.

Nope from a certain point of view everything is moving in a perfectly straight line. Space and time are bent. Things follow their path through space time. Even a motionless sun would create orbits. Yes things fall towards the sun but they wouldn't intersect with the sun unless something reduces the objects speed or direction.

@@samtheweebo a motionless sun would NOT create orbits. If fact as far as we know a motionless sun is impossible in our universe although I hate to use the term impossible.

@@ynkybomber mass bends spacetime so a relatively motionless sun would still have enough of a gravity well to have objects orbit it. Things orbiting are not chasing the item they are orbiting. I know nothing can ever be considered truly motionless. I also know that the motion does affect and contribute to gravity, but the sun is definitely not a projectile with all the planets trailing behind trying to fall into where the sun has been. The motion of the solar system as a whole is kind of edge on. I'm not finding the best words to express the idea at the moment but I hope it's clear enough

and then....???? your point???

@@lunam7249 point is, if you want to use Latin use it correctly???

@@lorenzokern1604 thanks for elucidating your point..... but how about ancient syrillic? thrown by the wayside? egyptian hierogliffs?

@@lunam7249 You’re apparently unaware that you are responding to two different people yet you want to lecture them on points they weren’t making in the first place. Does that satisfy your need to feel superior?

@@negativeindustrial your correct...however apparently it lorenzo jumping in inapproprietly.... but that ok..thats what comment freedom is all about...salvatore really made no point...it frustrated me, actually...you..correctly noted my error...

good

Thou speak'st aright.

Why does angular momentum cause the net rotation to increase? Sorry, I don't understand angular momentum very well.

And where did that gas and dust come from? Who created it? 🌚

@@AkshatSharma1505 imagine spinning on skates with your arms out. If you bring your arms in, you will spin faster (because all of your mass is closer to your axis of rotation) The same thing happens with star formation, except on a much larger scale. Even a tiny amount of net rotation will be magnified into a tremendous speed of rotation once the majority of the mass has been pulled in to form a star at the center

👍

Me too *m & m* There was a time I wasn't really interested, but over the past 2 years or so it's like I've found my interest niche.

@@Ron4885 Hi Ron. It's great to hear from you and l'm so very glad you found a happy place with our Insane Family! 🤩

@@mm-dw4rr 👍

Emily Tienne, Am sure a Catholic would think you're talking about god. We need someone " in here " to answer questions . . . .

@@fjb4932 Well, no, I wasn’t hinting at anything of a religious nature. But my religious mother would have said something like, “The planets orbit in a plane because God wanted it that way...there’s your answer.” She had very little scientific curiosity.

Jupiter was really close to being our sun's companion!

It does, and it’s close

@@antoniokambire2271 not as close as you might think though… The smallest stars have about 70 times the mass of Jupiter (The largest known exoplanet has about 30 Jupiter masses!)

I was thinking the same thing

So what you are saying you didn't understand cetrifical force? So you are dumb? Yup.

“add the bleach”? Won’t the blue shirt look a little nebulous after this wash?

True but one could argue that's gravity holding it together (instead of flying away) Imo

That disk shaped enclosure is the Milky Way..

Ding ding ding we have a winner. I dont understand why there is so much confusion out there about such a simple idea.

That's an insufficient explanation. While the orbital plane for an object is orthogonal to the axis of rotation, that doesn't explain why different orbiting bodies have to share the same orbital plane and same axis of rotation. If there are n orbiting bodies, why don't we see n different orbital planes, with each body moving around its own axis of rotation? That's the question behind the video. The explanation needs to address a system of multiple orbiting bodies and not just a single body.

@@jkbeatty1 They all fall under the same explanation, you're over complicating it. Their explanation is sufficient.

@@montypython5521 An explanation of "gravitational forces" is about as helpful as saying the reason is "physics". While literally true, it doesn't really illuminate anything. In particular, the analogy to spinning an object on a string doesn't really help: yes, an orbiting object travels in plane. But that doesn't address why different objects can't "spin" around different axes and along different planes.

@@jkbeatty1 they do. Remember that thing about earth's rotational axis being tilted in relation to the sun causing the seasons? It is because of that tilt that the moon's orbit around the earth is also tilted by 5° in relation to the earths orbit around the sun. The influence by the gravity of the sun and other planets is pulling it slightly out of what would have otherwise been an orbit perpendicular to it spin axis.

It's not really an answer though - because the dust was in a disc format already. Great - so what caused THAT dust to be in a disc like shape? All I got from this is a wheel is round because its constituent components are formed into a round shape.

@@the_kombinator exactly

@Banter Maestro2 oh neat. I had no idea people also made calculations and educated estimates based on that. Makes sense tho. The planets and likely Jupiter is part of the cause for our stars little wobble right?

The sun travels the galaxy at 230 km/s , so when it comes to movement of planets and their orbits . To not consider this and think of the solar system like in min 0:01 is the same as to think earth is flat, so that being said ... the sun travels the galaxy like a comet and it's "satellites" the planets follow him in a vortex like form . Do you recall that simple representation of relativity with a black sheet and balls thrown in the sheet so it curves representing it's mass ... ok now pintch the very end of the sheet at any center of mass ,now i want you to twist it and see how it really is , vortex like . As for the sun journey the galaxy around the massive black hole from the center of the galaxy ... you gotta think of hierarchy here , as the sun takes 230 million years to complete a cicle also know that our sun is bound to other celestials bodies before being bound to the center of the galaxy . The world famous ancient mathematicians the mayans calculated several sun cicles , something very interesting isn't it ?

@@dudulaselva1549 I know all of this. What’s this got to do with my question?

@@donaldham308 well that is precisely the thing . if you understand the movement like that you have to know that it is very rare to see planets crossing their star . so they estimate it by equations and i really don't know much about that.

@@dudulaselva1549 oh. I was under the impression that they’ve estimated most of the planets out there by observing their impact on the brightness of the host star. Because that movement is all relative considering it’s all moving around in space like that. It’s not as drastic as it all sounds considering the stars in the night sky have barely moved from their position hundreds of years ago. I know the first exo planet they found was because of the dimming of a star.

I think you are correct in that assumption. Eventually all a stars planet would eventually push and pull one another all into the same plane over time.

That's a lie. We have no idea how stars form either.

@@richardclark. ok

@@richardclark. Only you don't. Astrophysicists know stellar nurseries since many decades ago.

El sol no gira alrededor de la via lactea

@@jjuanmarin ????¿¿¿¿

Beautifully said. P.S Be safe and prosper. 😀

Didn't even answer the question, I doubt he can.

@@Mrbfgray In a way he did or tried to... Listen carefully to the text.

@@UtraVioletDreams Conservation of momentum happens in spherical clouds and everywhere, it does not explain a disc over any other shape.

It is cheating. Still no answer to why is the plane?

Afaik the etymology comes from ancient greek and it is a declension of the greek word for "wandering", as they were objects that seemed to wander in the sky since they were moving unlike stars and didn't follow a simple path in the sky unlike the sun or the moon.

Gravity is actually directly proportional to the mass of an object. If you consider 'size' as in the mass of a spherical object, then that roughly increases in relation to r^3, therefore increasing its gravity along the same lines, if we ignore materials of varying density that make up the object.

The problem with impacts is you don't always gain mass from them, the smaller the object being hit the more material will be flung away outside of the gravitational influence. So gaining mass from impacts of other asteroids really depends on luck that it will get hit with enough other asteroids that are small enough and at a slow enough speed to actually increase its mass. The planet formation stage was so important because there was a lot of mass out there in the early solar system. Didn't need big impacts of mass to gain, just collecting small bits of matter constantly. There's not much floating around out there anymore but hydrogen which is notoriously hard to hold onto. Unlike Iron for example which is very easy for a relatively small amount of gravity to capture, it tends not to fly away. Why the planets were able to form when they did there was a lot of heavier elements scattered around. The ability to grow from your own gravity is exponential, if that's what you were refering to that is correct. But at this stage of the solar system there really isn't much mass out there to collect, and what is there is mostly hydrogen.

There’s a linear relationship between mass and it’s associated gravitational force

Take the Earth for example. When we got hit with something very big, we didn't really gain mass, we even lost it- but we gained a friend. Hi, Moon! So no, I don't think that's very likely to happen.

Vesta has very low gravity (a little over 1/50th of Earth’s), so any significant impacts would just fling material off into space

The material started out uniform, but as the proto-sun in the center started heating up, it started naturally dividing up the rest of the material into rough exclusion zones Light gases like H and He were easily blown away by the Sun’s stellar wind, so the inner planets are mostly devoid of these elements as they could only exist further out. No surprise then that instead, these planets are mainly heavier silicates and metals with relatively little gas. The frost line is also significant, as this defines whether a substance can remain solidified as an ice, or becomes sublimated and transformed into different elements. This line is between Mars and Jupiter, so again the inner planets have little ice while the giant planets (particularly Uranus and Neptune) have substantial reserves. The frost line is why comets develop tails as they near the sun, the heat vaporizes it off the surface in awesome fashion. NEOs don’t develop tails because they’re mainly rock and remain solid in their orbits Of course, this isn’t a hard rule because the presence of even a modest atmosphere can insulate the more finicky elements, asteroid impacts can transfer volatile substances to what would be barren worlds, and the subtle effects of migration can eventually move an entire planet out of the environment in which it formed. Additionally each planet will experience various changes in its climate as the sun evolves, once again with the possibly of bringing stable elements outside of an area they could have formed in

Geological and biological factors.

@@George83_Thomas fantastic explanation. Hopefully the commenter learns something from this bc I sure did👍🏼

Why bring superstitious nonsense into what is otherwise an interesting scientific debate?

@@migranthawker2952 Then you'll have to explain why a religious text recorded thousands of years ago correctly described the earth as having the appearance of a circle as well as it hanging in space by nothingness?

Can you explain more, its interesting

Very nice. 👍

But i thought planets as a whole dont have any charge

Nice try. But actually it depends on the direction the mass from the previous star was spinning or moving in.

I wonder if this could be correlated to the gas giants having rings around their equators and spiral galaxies being flat disks around their equator.

Solar system surrounded by extremely cold particles. An in the middle there's a hug glowing ball of heat . Then all these less than equal sized planets orbiting in a flat plain . Yet one Pluto has a distinctive different orbiting pattern . Yet the heat from the sun is constantly being mixed up by the orbits of the planets strangely enough . Then you also have the asteroids soaking up the sun heat as well. The flat plain orbits mean most the heat the sun emits is going above it. An below it an most likely being redirected back into the orbits of the planets from what I believe is the furthest edges like past Pluto orbit. An all trapped by those super cold particles that surrounds the entirety of or solar system.

My perspective is simply that, perspective FROM me / where i'm at, To what i see. As Humans, our perspective is from inside us to / out towards everything else. We Each are the center of everything. Everything is relative to each of us. . . .

Yes as well as the retrograde spin of Venus and Triton the large moon of Neptune with a retrograde orbit. It was what knocked pluto into its odd orbit and put uranus on its side before being captured by Neptune.

@@denver606 Pluto was not "knocked" into an odd orbit. Impact can change axial tilt, but not orbital inclination, particularly not to such an extent. There are no data correlating Uranus' axial tilt and Pluto's orbit, or Triton's either. The origin of Venus' rotation is not conclusively known; an impact is only one possibility; harmonic (tidal) effects with Earth's orbit is also a possibility.

@@scottbilger9294 Says You?

That’s a great question!

Maybe we are all a simulation and things work out like they do because that's what the program demands. I always wondered why things just WORK out so perfectly and mathematicaly percise...

no, it is perpendicular

@@angelafisher5726 certainly couldn't be Creationism. That would be crazy.

Nope! Every planetary system in our galaxy has planets that orbit along a different plane, which does not have to match with our galaxy’s plane The galaxy is so large, and we are so far away from everything else (even the closest stars), that the rotation of our Hydrogen cloud was entirely influenced by local factors and perturbations

He didn't even explained!

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ZtB4ptRkm8WyhIk.html

I agree because if it was chaotic as they believe, those stars would have constant collision. Everything are precisely set to rotate and on it on axis and everything galactic include our universe are keep moving but on the same axis. They say, our milky way Galaxy is on the collision cause with Andromeda but I highly doubt if it will collide.

Even all of man's creations are results of painstaking research, intelligent designs and planning. All our satellites 🛰 put into orbit are not from accidents like big bang.

It's not chaotic at all. It's equilibrium is magic!

@@mansoormannix1753 Andromeda and the Milky Way will surely collide. But that doesn't mean that necessarily any stars will collide. The distance between stars is huge.

@@akindeleakinbayo2390 the Big Bang wasn't an "accident" as you want to make it seem, God created everything, the Big Bang was His making, no matter how much denying the atheists did at first, trying to spin it in a way that denies the complete credit that is due to our Creator just makes y'all look dumb to not say ignorant.. Peace..

waiting for someone to miss the joke like

No. Don't give it up. I think this is a solid explanation. The video begins with a statement before the end of the first minute that "... the planets formed out of a disk of dust. Because that disk of dust was a disk, all in a plane, all of the planets formed in a plane as well." That statement immediately set of alarms in my head. Wasn't the original cloud of dust more like a sphere, most of which near the center collapsed quickly and became the sun? The rest started "orbiting" the central mass in whatever random orientation they were on and started coalescing into larger and larger bodies which eventually started gravitationally affecting their neighbors and synchronizing their alignment before becoming planets (of which Pluto is still collecting dust). Eventually, things settled into a semi-planar shape which is still evolving.

Bryan and Phil , Agreed. I also believe that original cloud of dust was more like a sphere. Each element had its own state of motion. Over time some of the elements fell into the sun and the remaining elements continued orbiting around the sun due to their velocity. Likely the orbiting elements forms a cloud more like a disk (there could be some elements orbiting out of the dominating disk). The initial orbits of the planets did not have to be on one plane. They became so later due to interaction among them.

Short answer: Nope. Slightly longer answer: Hell no. Slightly more useful answer (very abridged): The "orbit" of an electron around the nucleus of an atom is nothing at all like the orbit of planets around the sun. Planets orbit the sun due to gravity. Electrons are held to the nucleus of an atom by the electromagnetic force. Very different. Electrons of an atom are not all orbiting in a plane like this video discusses with planets. They are all over the place at any given moment. In fact electrons do not move in an orbit at all. They jump about, seemingly instantaneously, from one spot to another in a kind of probability cloud. VERY un-planet like. I think this common misunderstanding comes from the classic Bohr model of an atom that students often find in text books. The one that shows electrons orbiting a nucleus in orbital shells. This model is very useful for a basic understanding of the make up of an atom. Also very useful to understanding chemistry - working out molecular combinations and such. I'm not knocking the Bohr model. It has its uses. However it is not reality in regards to the actual positions of electrons. Not even close. However even if the Bohr model were reality it would still be quite different from a solar system. Take oxygen atoms. (The one with 8 "planets" like our solar system) Every oxygen atom would have two "planets" in the nearest orbit and 6 "planets" sharing an orbit further out. Planets can share orbits in solar systems, but it is uncommon, and they don't tend to last en perpetuity. Eight "planets" each with independent orbits, like our solar system, would be impossible in oxygen atoms. Solar scale iron atoms would always have 2 "planets" in the closest orbit. 8 "planets" in the next one. 14 "planets" sharing an orbit after that, and lastly 2 "planets" in the furtherest orbit out. Good luck finding an example of that anywhere in the Milky Way. I could go on and on. The concept of spin for an electron being so very different than the spin of a planet, the makeup of a planet vs. a fermion, etc. However, I tire of typing. Hopefully this is enough. Edit: Scratch that last sentence. If you are interested in learning more about any of this I strongly encourage it. Fun stuff to learn about!!

@@edwardofgreene Wow, thank you for the education, yes my thoughts were based on the Bohr model.

nothing special

Our purpose is to praise Him, the purpose of the stars is to show how great He is.. All glory is to God for creating the Heavens (space) n the Earth..

@@DeadlyKiss000 no, consciousness requires a brain. You don’t get to just redefine consciousness to fit your opinion

@@DeadlyKiss000 you’re so biased… consciousness is not simply movement… air molecules move, yet they aren’t conscious. Because air molecules don’t choose to move or know they are moving. Consciousness requires awareness. There are different states of consciousness, such as the subconscious state when you are asleep. Conscious animals require an unconscious state. That’s why dogs, cats, pigs, etc…. sleep. Once again you don’t get to redefine a collective understanding of consciousness just to fit your opinion

scroll it fast the it will appear

probably true, instead of gravity, perhaps using mass of the planet if using time-space relationship to explain. 😅

I agree with you.

I have the same understanding, over a period of time the miss aligned objects eventually collide with each other and what remains is the current stable state.

Exactly

Not really. There are plenty of comets and asteroids that have highly inclined orbits, and they will basically never be forced to orbit in the same plane as us (in fact, it’s quite the opposite - they started out coplanar, and were disturbed later) But when we were just a Hydrogen cloud that was slowly collapsing, any tiny net rotation was slowly increasing as more mass was pulled to the center (like a spinning skater bringing her arms in to spin faster) Any small amount of leftover material that didn’t get pulled into the center was automatically forced into a disc due to the high rate of rotation (at this stage, you can imagine your idea as essentially correct. The gravity of a large rotating cloud of gas will collapse to the plane of rotation) But once the gas has condensed to form individual objects like planets and asteroids, the orbits of smaller objects (asteroids, comets, etc.) are heavily influenced by the sun and the planets The sun and planets formed with coplanar orbits to begin with, but there are many smaller objects that have been thrown into highly inclined and/or elliptical orbits after the fact (due to close interaction with the planets - Jupiter being by far the biggest culprit, but not exclusively)

So yeah, once way of looking at your idea is that it only works when the spinning mass is largely homogeneous (like a large spinning cloud of gas with countless particles everywhere). But once you have individual objects that are thousands or millions of miles from each other, then “anything” can happen. (Large objects are more “powerful” and are typically not disturbed, but smaller objects can be thrown into literally any orbit)

Yeah, he completely chose to ignore Planet X n the others that orbit that way, hate ppl doing that.. Thank the Aztec n Mayans for showing our solar system as it really is..