The main reason astronomers resist calling the Earth-Moon system a double planet is the fact that the barycenter of the system is comfortably deep within the Earth. Now, Pluto-Charon is another matter. People got all upset about Pluto being "demoted" to dwarf planet, but it's far more interesting to call it a double planet. Unlike the Earth-Moon system, the barycenter of the Pluto-Charon system is in open space between the two bodies.
The dangerous part of this criterion is that the barycenter of the Sun-Jupiter system is outside the surface of the sun! So we might end up having to promote Jupiter in some way…
Used to load frozen transport containers. They all had signs inside stating "No Poles Allowed!' Nearly all had scrawls underneath along the lines of "or Estonians, Latts, French....." etc.
@@Azivegu yeah, that chick is his proud daughter, probably. (or sister, he has that undeterminable age) look at the faces surrounding him, that's his family
He obviously has not read the 'Discworld' text books that explain exactly how a flat world works as well as a considerable appreciation of the 'Art of Magik'!
If you think back to the 1400’s and assume there were a few village idiots who believed in a flat earth. Proportionately there are far more people alive today than in the 1400’s so proportionately about the same number of idiots.
@@RevolutionibusOrbiumCoelestium The key difference being that back then there was a lack of proper education for the working class. The people today have no excuse.
Any two orbiting objects rotate around a common point known as the Barycentre. If the two objects are of equal mass then the barycentre will be exactly midpoint between them. If one object has a greater mass then the barycentre will be more towards that object, and the greater the difference in mass between the two objects the more the barycentre will move towards the more massive of the two objects. The generally accepted definition of a satellite is an object where the barycentre is contained entirely within the larger body. As the barycentre of the moon-earth system lies entirely within the Earth, (about 4,700 km below the surface), the moon meets the official definition of a satellite. In order for it to be classified as a binary planetary system the barycentre would need to be outside either body.
RushyYryrsYrossssssssssssryS ur sa r that rtrrTtutyltytsyTYTYTYTYTYTYTTTTYTTtyyttytyytytytyytyttytytytytytttytttyytyttyt typos ytyyyttytytytytytyyyytyttytyttytttttttytytyttyttytytyttyttttytttyttyyttyyytutttuttutututtutututuuttuttututtutytttttyttypidpytuytytitdOututytsOu u sTpyrtdrouusUTydutstytutuuudtutututdutdututudtutuudtuudtuddudrstudTDUUYUTYUutudSDt as
The ironically funny thing is that the joke answers they give to the earth shape being flat are legitimate answers and arguments flat earthers use in serious sincerity in their arguments 😂
"If it's water... we don't know what--it could be custard" The sheer randomness, immediate imagery and David's dead serious delivery... the idea that a moon could be coated in a man-made(?) food product (question mark because it wouldn't be man-made if it was on a moon that we cant even get to)... does it mean that custard is not our own invention? What other foods already exist in the universe that we think we made up? We must investigate this further xD
The southern expeditionist Rupert Longstone I think they said. He looks kind of quiet and posh/nerdy. Humble. That quiet bloke in the audience there is hardier than more or less any bloke that any of us are likely to have met. I find people like him fascinating. Everest climbers are another example; ultimate endurance fitness; unbreakable mental fortitude, fearless in the face of possible (if not probable) death or injury. And yet they all without fail appear as bank managers or estate agents.
I don't thnk he's underrated at all, judging from the reception he gets from the audience every time. He's just playing a role, and he does it wonderfully.
@@yamanmustafa7574 Fry (not "Frye") is Stephen Fry. One of the world's treasures, and certainly the UK's . He's the one asking the questions. Of course, I may have misunderstood your question. Perhaps you just wanted to point out a misspelling. In that case, I only halfheartedly apologise, because it wasn't anywhere near being "quite interesting".
Has he read EVERY book? No. So there could be a book from medieval times that says the Earth is flat. For Mr. Fry, that is one of his most poorly argued points.
Fun fact: Mr Bird invented Bird's custard powder in the Victorian era because his wife was allergic to eggs (and presumably wanted custard). It then caught on because it was so much more convenient than proper custard.
Yes, every star is round. Everything gravitationally bound enough to ignite nuclear fussion is also dense enough to collapse into roughly a sphere. And the difference between the Earth and a true sphere is very very slight. It is hard to even build a sphere on Earth that is closer to perfect than the Earth. The deviations are tiny compared to its massive size.
The Earth is not a planet. Proving flat Earth is really simple. Infrared video shore to shore over ocean water at least ten miles apart. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7-pXWRn_wfk.html and ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tsFvOSManX0.htmldone. (If that part of the ocean is flat then all of the ocean is flat. If the ocean is flat then the Earth is flat.)
@@frederickj.7136 i am not religious or right wing. i base this knowing on real science not quack superstition or belief in cartoon balls or proven liars like NASA. Get rid of your religions belief in the globe and embrace real science. Go ahead and try to disprove the flat Earth, i dare you. You can't. All you will succeed in doing is proving the globe model wrong. If you can see Venus at night, then the Heliocentric model is not right.
thunder bear courage Good job spewing out bullshit and then more bullshit, The earth is flat if you can convince yourself it is. Why can’t you see beyond the horizon line, why do ships appear top up and disappear bottom down. Why hasn’t there been any actual proof of the flat earth? It’s conspiracy for the sake of conspiracy
@@thunderbearcourage Eratosthenes. Please read up on him and his work. This is not with the help of any telescopes or modern atrophysics equipment. This is in ancient Greece, lived around ~300-200BC~, conducted experiments using rudimentary methods (by today's standards). It's not technical jargon, very simple and easily understood. Read with an open mind. It's a strange conspiracy to claim that people are only believing what they are told by Nasa or whatever, when a man 2300 years ago, applying basic experimental science came to the same conclusion that we know today to be true.
In fact, the moon is a “planetary-mass object,” that in addition to the names “Moon” & “Luna” can also be called Earth I (as the natural object orbiting most closely in the “Earth” system). The IAU does not consider the moon a planet, though some astronomers argue, for various reasons, that it is. Given the recent instability of the IAU’s definitions, this may be subject to change.
While "radius" normally is a characteristic of perfect spheres, the Earth deviates from spherical by only a third of a percent, sufficiently close to treat it as a sphere in many contexts and justifying the term "the radius of the Earth".
@@zdcyclops1lickley190 Exactly. If that small deviation was sufficient to call the Earth "not round", then most volleyballs, footballs, golf balls and tennis balls wouldn't be round either.
@@MrPoopnoddy Not really. Let's consider the largest convex irregularity above sea level, Mount Everest. Let's say it's 8 km high. The radius of the Earth is about 6370 km. Therefore, the percentage error in roundness for Mount Everest is 0.12%, which is a lot by modern machining standards. For example, it would mean that a 1 cm ball-bearing ball could be out by 1.25 microns.
@Cara Salusc I agree: most commonly used "balls" are less perfecttly round than the Earth, but he Earth is by no means "rounder than almost anything we can make". And there's no need for advanced technologies either: ball bearings have been around for a long time, and the manufacturing process is as crude as it gets.
Stephen: There are only eight planets. Pluto's out. Also Stephen: The moon may very well be a planet. So there's a good likelihood there ARE nine planets, then? You, my good man, owe Alan some points.
The Soviets putting a statue of Lenin in the middle of the South Pole makes me imagine a parallel universe where the Soviets made it to the moon first and did the same there.
It is not the south Pole it is the antarctic pole of inaccessibility. Pole of inaccessibility means the point of land that is furthest from the sea or the point in the sea furthest from land.
Reminds me of that joke: American Astronaut on the moon: "Houston, we have a problem. The Russians were here first and painted the moon red. What should we do?" Houston : "Allright, allright.... Do you have white paint? Astronaut: "Yes, why?" Houston: "Just write 'Coca Cola' in huge letters."
The moon is the basis of what we call a moon in the first place. Even learning that it is different than we first thought doesn't stop it from being the moon.
referring to any natural satellite as a "moon" is somewhat of a misnomer. "Moon" aka "Luna" (Latin) aka "Selene" (Greek) is the 'proper name' for Earth's natural satellite (although they are often used as synonyms). It would be like calling other planets "Earths"
I think the word moon was invented to describe that large object that is in orbit around the earth and has then been applied to other objects orbiting other planets so saying we don't have one or it isn't one kinda means that the word doesn't exist at all
Well, the meaning has drifted. I find the whole idea of the meaning of words interesting because historically they were used and the meaning was intuitively clear; Moon, life, book etc. But then the world discovers new information and invents new things and suddenly our intuition isn't up to the job any more; is a virus alive, are we in a binary planet system, where is the book in my kindle?
Intuition feelings "the truth of my lived experience", bollox ! if its not the dictionary definition then you've misunderstood and using it is misleading. words are code that have ascribed definitions that allow us to share ideas if we change their meaning willy nilly then we fall from the tower of babel to use a biblical reference or archetypal story.
That might be a little harsh "THE MOON" is the archetype all other moons become moons in reference to or because of it. If it is no longer a moon then moons cease to exist and become orbitals or some such word....
@@jyazman That is a misunderstanding of what language is. All language evolves as new ideas evolve and as old words and ideas are forgotten. Sometimes it's beneficial, sometimes it is not. Please remember that language has existed for far, far, _far_ longer than any dictionary. The first dictionary in the Western World was written in the 19th century. Before we invented the idea of a set definition to a word, there was no way to know what it meant _except_ intuition. Even now, as I'm writing and as you're reading, it's not like you need to think about the definition of each word I use; you intuitively know the meaning behind it. As you teach a new human being (aka a child) to speak, it's not like you give them the definition of words either, you use words and expect them to slowly intuitively learn what they mean.
@@Sigart intuition /ɪntjʊˈɪʃ(ə)n/ noun the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning. This in part illustrates my point I didn't intuitively call the moon the moon I asked someone what is that and they told me it was the moon I then stored this information to use again when needed
The Earth is not a planet. Proving flat Earth is really simple. Infrared video shore to shore over ocean water at least ten miles apart. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7-pXWRn_wfk.html and ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tsFvOSManX0.htmldone. (If that part of the ocean is flat then all of the ocean is flat. If the ocean is flat then the Earth is flat.)
Even an oblate spheroid (hell, even a lump of putty) can have an axis of rotation, and the intersections between that axis and the surface of the Earth could reasonably be called "poles" (or, unreasonably, "Poles").
Columbus didn’t think the world was pear shaped. He wrote about that once as a whimsical thought to a friend, all other records show that he thought the world was almost certainly round and used that to calculate his journey. He did think the world was smaller than it was or that Japan was closer to Europe but that was based off of some of the most trusted maps of the day, so it was not a unique thought.
Actually Earth has 1 permanent moon, two or three semi-permanent moons and a few temporary moons from time to time. They even had one very odd cylinder shaped moon coated in titanium. This was, of corse, not a natural moon. It was the S-4B booster from a Saturn 5 rocket.
Any man-made object in orbit such as the Saturn 5 booster is defined as a non-natural satellite. No man-made object can be classified as a moon because a moon must be a NATURAL satellite. I would also argue that for something to be a moon it would need to be of a sufficient mass ratio compared to what it is orbiting. Otherwise, things like Saturn would have millions of "moons" because every single separate rock, grain of sand/ice, and particle that make up its rings would be considered a moon.
@@ATinyWaffle Perhaps rather than assuming you know the answer, you should look it up. This will do two things at once for you. It provides a link proving you are right and the other person is wrong, and it saves you looking foolish when they are, in fact, not wrong. www.bing.com/search?q=What+is+a+moon+as+defined+by+the+IAU&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN
Sadly NASA, and science in general, disagree with you. A moon is not classified by its size, shape, mass or constitution, simply that it's something that has no atmosphere that orbits something larger than itself that is not a star. The definition is currently obviously vague, but this is deliberate, as it allows for new moons to be discovered without everyone having to get into a huge barfight over how much paperwork the discovery of a new moon might generate, and who's going to do it.
but that only works as a ratio of the two planets/moons. something earths size could be a moon with that definition and also the ratio between the two would have to be massive to call something a moon
The sun is the largest ocean in the solar system. If we're going to be told some planets "rain diamonds" then it's logical to conclude that an "ocean" is a liquid body that is flowing, not having to specifically or necessarily be H2O. The sun is the largest ocean in the solar system.
...liquid would imply in a liquid state of matter, which the Sun isn't... it's a Plasma. However, if you defined oceans as being Fluid (i.e. either liquid, plasma, or gas)... then you may have an argument; although that since interplanetary space isn't a true vacuum the entire solar system is an ocean, too... which is kind of poetic.
I think the definition should revise to being that if the center of mass of said binary system is within one of those bodies (as it is for earth and moon), that body is the plant and the other is a moon.
That's actually the common astronomical definition. A binary or double planet is one where the barycenter (the center of mass of the two-body system) lies in the space between them. Pluto and Charon are the best examples of a true binary (as opposed to a QI binary). The QI elves were also wrong when they said the Earth had two moons, because they included Cruithne, which has an orbital period almost exactly the same as Earth's (it's about 1/4 of a day shorter), but much more eccentric-it's orbit swings out almost to Mars' orbit, and then swings in almost to Mercury's. I think sometimes they try so hard for a "gotcha" question that it's less important to them that the "right" answer actually is correct.
Astronomy is one of my hobbies. What bothers me more is if I can spot mistakes in a subject I know pretty well, what's happening with subjects I _don't_ know very well.
I have to wonder if the whole thing of the ancient Greeks (and other ancient cultures) knowing the shape of the earth "might" be a bit generalised and misleading? When he says "no-one" thought it was flat, or "everyone" knew it was round/spherical, does that actually include "everyone", (eg. the common folk) or just certain scholars after a certain period in their +- 350 years of existence? And even then, perhaps it was more "postulated/theorised" than held as "accepted fact" by all?
"Roger Bacon wrote about the curvature of the Earth in the 13th century" Does evolution work backwards? It must do, because in 2020 we have imbeciles who believe the Earth is flat.
I'm sure there were many, uneducated persons in the 13th century who believed the Earth was flat, based their observations and general ignorance. Doesn't go far to explain 21st century idiots.
@@mrdog4529 You don't need critical thinking skills to look at a photograph. Unless of course you are talking to an idiot who will claim _everything_ is fake in order to promote their stupidity.
Hang on a minute-the North and South Celestial poles aren't on Earth-they're the points in the sky that the night sky revolves around. If you take the Earth's axis and extend it out to the celestial sphere (assume for a moment that the stars are on an actual sphere), where it meets the sphere are the celestial poles
1 - is wrong. They both orbit their barycentre, which is well within Earth. Regardless, that doesn't address the question. Pointing out what a planet is doesn't have an impact on what a moon is unless you provide a definition for a moon which excludes a planet. 2 - debatable depending upon which society you look at. 3 - Earth has no end (spatially anyway, give it some time and it will with time). 5 - There are more, we have an orbital north pole.
I only have a casual knowledge of these things but even I recognize QI's 'facts' about a lot of these are debatable to say the least. Every time this stuff comes up on the show I roll my eyes and try to skip it if I can.
I'd call foul on a lot of things mentioned here (and in other episodes), but I think it's the cheeky parts of the show. This is primarily a comedy show, really. But it is amusing to think of things that are unusual. :)
How is no one talking about Jimmy gently tapping his team mate's arm and giving her an amazed thumbs up for her phenomenal answer/addition to Stephen's definition!!! It was amazing and such a wholesome moment!!!!
So for roughly 6000 years no one believed the Earth was flat and that it was mostly spherical. And now, heaps of people think it’s flat but don’t do any research them selves to figure it out
on the same theme of having no moon, we also have no chairs. theyre all tables now because the definition is ‘flat surface with legs for supporting weight’.
I've seen every episode of QI and my mind has been blown on several occasions, including occasions related to Earth and the Cosmos. The Moon stuff, however, is not mind-blowing. If anything, the question has become less about knowledge and more self-referential and incestuous.
The Pole Inaccessibility should have a bust of Vilhjalmur Stefansson, Stefansson was an explorer, writer, creator of libraries and speaker, among other things. He was the person who propounded the concept of the Pole of Inaccessibility. Though the Russians admired Dr Stefansson, they gotta honor their own.