Gravitational centre of solar system being outside the sun until 2027 is crazy. It will definitely be a lot of fun to explain this to future school children.
When i was in elementary school, i thought it was fun to learn that Pluto was actually closer to the sun than Neptune (due to its elliptical orbit). It went back to last place in 1999.
My first takeaway of this scientific news: The flat-Earthers will try and use this, clumsily and without understanding, to scream more about how NASA is making scientists lie and flat-Earth was right all along.
Except when we find out that our models that seemed to work and predict were wrong. The problem is when people assume we understand perfectly something that we still don't because of unknown factors that come to light.
@@CalaTec All models are wrong, but some are useful. Gravity is often still thought of and treated as a force even though General Relativity tells us otherwise. The Apollo moon landings were done with 1-body Newtonian models because of the very limited computing power available in the 1960s. The original comment uis right in that what gives a model scientific value is that it can make useful predictions. You can get to the moon with Newtonian mechanics even if they're not 100% accurate. You can't do anything useful with a flat earth model. Also, if there's ever a model that's a 100% fit for the data, the model has been overfitted and won't make useful predictions.
@@cooltubes547 And also because some people's egos are so big that they refuse to share the same opinions as the majority, instead basically going out of their way to have contradictory views, but yea.
The loops the Sun moves in, caused by the planets and the gravity between them, is one characteristic astronomers look for to detect planets around other stars.
It's the dimming of the star when a planet move across the star is how planets are found. Wobbling of the star is a part. So you're not totally wrong. The wobble is if it's a binary system or not. Because planets could be further away to not effect the gravity pull to make a star wobble.
@@splinewalker214 Hint: simply claiming that something is a lie won't convince anyone. Try providing some arguments and evidence. Or do you prefer that people think you are a total fool?
Minor but happy note: I love how you had the timer visual onscreen for the 15 seconds you said your thank yous! Clearly your message got out, but reassured folks you wouldn't be long. Wish that was the standard!
Something my mentor once told me is “all models are wrong but some are useful” and I found that to be extremely profound. No matter how much we know the best we can do is build models to understand reality. And they will always inch closer to Truth but never reach it. Despite that, our current models let us predict everything from how electrons will behave to the motion of planets.
Occasionally, a new Copernicus emerges to challenge or reshape existing models. The issue lies in people overly relying on these models, assuming them to be absolute truth. True wisdom, as Socrates once stated, involves recognizing our own ignorance.
Something i read once said "Don't eat the menu." The model isn't reality, it is a useful description of it. The word 'hamburger' on the menu is not the food. Don't eat the menu.
Please let's not call less accurate or simpler models "wrong." If they give answers that are/were sufficient for the purpose it's day, then there was something good about them. The wrungs on the bottom of a ladder aren't wrong just because they won't take you to the top. But they might have been very useful to get to the top.
@@MegaLokopo A lot of people dont know this discrepency and so its pretty interesting stuff if youve never heard or thought about it before. Plus its still quite an interesting video even if you are as educated as yourself! Some history in there too which is always nice. Not every video has to be super new information as it would only be accessible to those who are informed and up to date on scientific advancements, which isnt the point of educational entertainment
@@nonagone9570 I guess, but if people wanted to know about it, they could find the information out pretty easily on the internet. I see what you mean, but you could also argue, that just because this one channel hasn't done a video on a specific topic yet, doesn't mean they should. In ten years from now are all of the science channels going to have exactly the same content, but simply posted in a different order?
Actually, the technically correct answer depends on the definition of 'center'. He's only using the definition of gravitational center, not the definition of planetary center.
@@Tensquaremetreworkshop correct in that context. But the headline is not correct because it is context dependant. It's like saying Mt. Everest is the tallest mountain on earth. When actually, it 'could be', but it depends on the context. For the headline to be technically correct, he'd need to have said something like 'gravitational center'.
Nice video. What amazes me is not the amount of refined scientific knowledge we have amassed in human history but how much of it was not known 100 years ago. When I was taking high school chemistry and physics in the 1960's, it wasn't impressed on me how much of what I was being exposed to had only been known since the 1910's, 20's and 30's. And the accumulation of scientific knowledge has only accelerated since then. Stay curious and try to drink from the fire hose. richard -- Said of the Ephebian philosophers, but just as valid for modern scientists: "These are men who are trying to work out how the world fits together, not by magic, not by religion, but just by inserting their brains in whatever crack they can find and trying to lever it apart." - Terry Pratchett. Pyramids
Doing a little research, it's been known since Galileo in the late 1500s early 1600s that the earth is in motion around the parent star. So why is Newton and Einstein and Hawkings still treating the earth as a stationary frame with the universe revolving around it? Take gravity for instance. Prior to Galileo, gravitational attraction was the reason heavy objects fall to tge ground on a stationary frame instead of floating off into space. Galileo showed the scientific community that it's the Earth's MOTION in space that causes objects to fall, is the reason there are rides. Kepler's laws of motion added to tools to explain the annual high tide. So why does the scientific community still preach gravitational attraction? There has not been a single experiment conducted that validates it. That goes for Einstein’s relativity nonsense. Nicholas Tesla pointed out that it was pure mathematical nonsense. And like gravity, no experiment to date has validated it. There are however plenty of experiments that disprove gravity and relativity. Why is the scientific community so blind to reality. By using mass as the actionable force, they created a mirror image of the real universe. What was it that Ronald Reagan said. Its not that Relativists don't know anything, what they do know, just ain't so. Gravity is like the hammer and nail. When all you have is a hammer (gravity) everything is treated as a nail. Galileo created the screw and Newton supplied the screwdriver (laws of Motion), and yet flat earthers like Einstein and Hawkings are still treating the screw as a nail. Why? Just trying to understand why Relativists are so ignorant and refuse to accept reality. The hammer&feather drop test proving mass does not attract mass? The equivalence principle. The Hafele-Keating synchronized clocks showing space and time are separate frames of reference, that there is a preferred frame of reference as motion is absolute. Why are Relativists still preaching time-dilation? Light travels in its own frame of reference. The observer is not in the clock's frame of reference. How is that so-called physicists don't understand that. You may have more information but you are still stuck on stupid when it comes to critical thinking. NDT doesn't even understand basic physics. F=ma. When you add mass (salt) to water, you get less acceleration (temperature). You have all this information but you don't understand how to put 2 and 2 together. I think its on account of the fact that you still have monkey brains being wired chimpanzees. You were taught gravity/gravitational/mass attraction in school and now you are wired to observe the universe from those lenses. You have no critical thinking skills otherwise you would understand why gravity is not a fundamental force of nature. You have all the information. You are just lacking the ability to reason. The brainwashing runs deep which is why Relativists don't understand that they are the real flat earthers/science deniers.
@@stewiesaidthat Look up the Cavendish Experiment, which is over 200 years old and calculates the gravitational constant. There have been many experiments proving relativity, including Mercury's orbit around the Sun, which Newtonian laws don't quite explain. Einstein and Hawking are flat earthers? Really? Then you devolve a lot of projection. Good luck with that.
More than 2000 years ago Aristotle said earth is sphere today SOME people say its flat. Aristotle would be sooo disappointed Edit: ok guys my bad I should have used sphere instead of round
Man, i love these infotainment science-based videos and RU-vid channels. I fell blessed to get this content and knowledge, that too for FREE. Love from India.
@@Neotenyx May I recommend Welch Labs. I guess you should start with "How Kepler Actually Discovered his Laws" I highly recommend it. It has very nice illustrations and many need detiles.
@@Splarkszter Or at least watch all of the ads, like and comment to boost the channel. I think you have missed it at the end since it still greatly boosts a channel and provides some income. Doing both is best. Your comment is very aggressive.
Ptolemy's Epicycles: "What are they spinning around?-- Doesn't matter! Don't think about that!" Kepler's Ellipses: "What goes at the other focus point?-- Doesn't matter! Don't think about that!"
why could anything go at the other focus point? the orbits are elliptical because the speed of the planets changes in orbit. when the planets move faster, they move further away from the sun, Which causes them to slow down due to conservation of angular momentum, Which then means they get closer to the sun, Which means they speed up, and rinse and repeat
"We haven't had our last scientific revolution. We've continued gazing deeper into the heavens with greater and greater precision." This should be on a t-shirt or something. So good.
@@besmart I have to say that there is an inconsistency in what you said in the video. You strongly implied that people in the late middle ages didn't question the church. But then you show that Copernicus did just that. And quoting those Bible verses is also off. You imply that the verses are wrong, not that the interpretation of them was wrong. The Biblical writers knew that the Earth moved, because it was often shaken in an earthquake. So, you have to realize that a very valid interpretation of the verses is that the earth does not move out of its orbit around the sun.
I didn't expect that 1% of mass can influence the other 99%(Sun) do much. I thought that the center of Solar System is always somewhere inside the Sun.
It still isn't effecting the position of the point much compared to the size of the solar system. The distances are just large enough that a small percentage change to where a point is can still be a significant distance.
To put it into perspective, after a bit of quick research it would seem that the furthest the center of gravity gets from the sun's center in simulations is definitely under 3 solar radii, and seemingly right around 2 solar radii. and while yes, 1.4 million km is a very big distance to a human, it isnt that significant on these scales. The heaviest planet in the solar system orbits at an average distance over 1,000 solar radii from the sun. So the center of mass moves less than .2% the distance to the second heaviest body at the absolute maximum distance. That's relatively tiny, as would be expected. Edit: wanted to add that according to the math another comment did the contribution of Jupiter itself is just over 1 solar radius. So it is moved percentage wise around .1% of the total distance towards Jupiter. That is practically a rounding error.
for what it's worth. it's that way depending on where the rest of the planets etc, are in their orbits. if all the planets are on one side of the sun, then the center is farther outside, than when they are scattered around the sun.
@@kidmohair8151 right. The number I used for the distance from sun's center to solar system center was based on a graph I found of simulation someone ran for the years 1700-2200. The highest distance on the graph is just over 1,400,000 km so thats what i used. And for the distance to Jupiter I used the average. It was just some quick back of the napkin math. The actual specific numbers aren't all that important. My point was that on the scale of the solar system the distance that point moves is still relatively quite small. It is orders of magnitude smaller than the distances between most objects.
The following is what chat gpt 4o has to say about those verses that you used to support your claim that the Bible claims that the earth doesn't move. (And before anyone says it, yes I understand that he probably meant it to be taken as not his own claim but the claim of the church at the time). These verses are best understood in their context and genre. They are part of the poetic and metaphorical language commonly found in the Psalms and other parts of the Bible. When interpreting these verses, several points should be considered: 1. **Poetic Language**: The Psalms, in particular, are filled with poetic expressions that communicate truths about God and His creation in a way that speaks to the heart and mind. The descriptions of the Earth being "fixed" and "immovable" can be understood as poetic ways of expressing the stability and order that God has established in the world. These verses emphasize God's sovereignty and the reliability of His creation, rather than making scientific statements about the Earth's physical properties. 2. **Theological Emphasis**: The main focus of these passages is theological, not scientific. The intention is to affirm God's control over the cosmos and the unshakeable nature of His creation. For example, when the Psalmist says, "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable," it is to convey that God’s creation is stable and trustworthy because it is under His control. 3. **Cultural Context**: In the ancient Near Eastern context, stability and order were highly valued, and the Earth being "fixed" would have been understood as a symbol of God's order and rule. It wasn't necessarily a literal statement about geophysics but rather a cultural way to communicate the unchanging nature of God’s sovereignty. 4. **Metaphorical Understanding**: The Bible often uses metaphors to describe spiritual truths. The Earth being "fixed" and "immovable" could be seen metaphorically, representing the enduring nature of God’s creation and promises rather than a literal description of physical motion. In summary, these verses are meant to convey theological truths about God’s sovereignty and the stability of His creation, using poetic and metaphorical language. They are not intended to be taken as literal, scientific descriptions of the Earth's physical properties. When interpreted in their proper context, they do not contradict the scientific understanding that the Earth moves.
*Spends 10 minutes talking about the entire history of cosmology. *Spends only a minute talking about the subject in the title of the video. *Doesn't actually go into detail of what a barycenter is or explain it. This is the RU-vid equivalent of a high school essay where the student didn't understand the subject so they waffled for a page and a half about an unimportant tangent.
Also wrongly implies that the lunar cycle is earth's shadow, that "planets" are called that because they "wander" relative to the earth (it's because they wandered relative to the stars) and that the elliptic orbits of the planets caused their going back and forth relative to earth (it's earth's orbit that's causing that)
@olli1886 he never said the phases of the moon were the earth's shadow. He did say they saw Earth's shadow on the moon, and it was always round. Anyone who is anyone knows when we see.earths shadow on the moon it is during a lunar eclipse.
I mean. I always understood that the sun being the center meant that the planets orbited around it, not that it was THE ABSOLUTE center. Always seemed like the center being the center of mass was a given, implied.
Technically, the planets don't just orbit the sun. They all orbit the barycenter of the solar system. Most of the time, the barycenter of the solar system is within the sun. That is the just of this video.
I learned this in social studies / Araling Panlipunan / History, economics, and stuff. Seeing this makes ne happy since when i was younger I'd watch this channel and always expect to learn in school what I'd watch on RU-vid
One minor correction, which might not matter in any case: Since Easter is figured on Passover (which is a Saturday), the actual placement of Easter is the Sunday after the first Saturday after the first Full Moon after the Spring Equinox. So, the only situation where it would make a difference is if the Saturday would fall before any of those conditions, placing Easter a week later. There's also a small bit about "the Liturgical Moon," a contrivance to make the calculations easier. That last bit is why the Protestants and Catholics sometimes celebrate Easter on a different Sunday than the Orthodox, who don't use the Liturgical Moon. Back to the title of the post: I was pretty sure where this was going, but I do enjoy seeing how you get there. And you're right that knowing the barycenter of the Solar System is important for such things as the recent probe that met up with a comet, took samples, returned the samples to Earth, and then proceeded to rendezvous with another comet. You really have to have a handle on where things and will be in order to do that.
It's amazing how with many historical philosophers and scientists, they get so much right and so much wrong. Although we keep finding today we do the same thing. There's always more to learn and that's awesome. I love learning and hope to always have the same passion and love for learning.
Is it weird that my favorite part of these videos is the INTRO MUSIC? 0:55 It just always sounds so whimsical. A tad creepy, but in a 'lets go exploring through an old dusty house' way.
There needs to be a game where you wake up on some random world and have to discern the rules of the universe around you through context clues, like what it seems like the Greeks did.
The ancient Greeks weren't the only ones working on these problems. There were smart people in other civilizations as well. They just didn't have an efficient way to communicate ideas with each other, like we have today.
Star Trek is good for these kind of scientific mysteries. There's a fun episode titled "Remember Me" (Star Trek: The Next Generation) where the whole of reality is in a state of decay, with Doctor Crusher using the computer to ascertain the nature of the universe. Some good Star Trek: Voyager episodes like this, too. If you're young and scientifically-minded, I highly recommend these shows.
Someone wrote a book just like that about 900 years ago. The plot is that a young person grows up with nobody else around, and they gradually figure out theological and scientific truths purely through observation. It's called Philosophus Autodidactus (the self taught philosopher). You can download it for free online. Here's more info on it: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayy_ibn_Yaqdhan
Great video. Kinda reminds me of the "Model of the Atom" by Bohr. It´s good enough for elementary and highschool, but if you go to college you´ll learn that it´s just that: "good enough for basic education". There´s so much more beyond but pupil always get taught on their "level" in elementary, highschool, and other schools with a sentient of "THIS IS IT! - you´ve to learn it this way by heart!". I´ve rearly encountert a teacher who was openly about it like: This is only the basics and not all correct, but you need to understand it to build up upon for higher education. The Problem comes when people think they know it all, based on the "flawed" basic models they learned in school. Maybe this could be countered by teaching the "Dunning Krueger Effect" as soon as pupils/students are old enough to unerstand it.
If there is one thing I like more than science, it is history. So this was the best of both worlds. Not to mention, the professor was pretty darn good too. Thank you.
The Old Testament translation is SO BAD. I can't stress this enough. For example - we have 3 or different words that we use to say 'see', yet the translation of the bible always translates this to 'see'. In your example, chronicles 16:30, DOES NOT SAY 'immovable'. It literally says the word 'תִּמֹּֽוט' - 'TIMOT' -> crumble down, fall down, shatter down, fall apart. That is miles away from the word 'Move'. I haven't checked the other examples, but I'm sure they follow the same path of wrong translation...
Regardless of the translation, that is NOT even what those passages say. Has the author of this video noticed, for example, that the Earth has NEVER wandered away from where it is supposed to be? It has been in orbit for as long as people can remember! The Earth is "immovable," as the passage says! I wonder if the author has never used the expression "I am not going anywhere" in his life to mean "I am not giving up." The clergy's interpretation is their opinion, NOT that of the Bible. People "mock" things they don't understand. They always try to "force" their worldview on others and call it science!
@@gy2gy246 - There are More than 16 Translations of The Bible in English, and They were Not All Copied by Monks, n or are Translations always Translations of a Previpous Translation. Most of the Translation Issues have to do with Either Linguists Disagreeing on what a Term means or simply facing a Problem in No Exact Match in Language can be Founbd for a Certain Phrase.,
Acktually… you are the centre of your observable universe. Everything you see is back in time. Your reflection in the mirror is a nanosecond old. The light from the Moon is roughly 1.5 seconds old. The light from Alpha Centauri is roughly 4.26 years old. Your cosmic horizon is ever-so-slightly different from everyone else’s.
Not long ago, I watched a video on the predictability of a three element system. That suggested that I was too complicated to compute. I believe it was because it was impossible measure to measure the location, speed, and mass sufficiently accurately. Certainly our dozen plus element system would suffer from that shortcoming. 😊
"the sun is the centre of the solar system" is elementary school stuff. yes, and that's why we don't teach physics in elementary school. here's a fun game you can play. 1) assume you are talking to someone who has never had ANY physics. 2) now review your presentation CAREFULLY, and count the number of words that you used that will be incomprehensible, or worse, misinterpreted, by that person. hint: the answer is "many"
When my daughters were young in the early 2000s they used to watch blue's clues a lot, and your mannerisms and the way you look at the camera and the way you talk reminds me of Steve hahaha
Someone from two, three, or even ten thousand years ago would have had the same capacity for intelligence as you or me, but they lacked the accumulation of knowledge that we had. The ancients were smart, they just weren't knowledgable, it took those thousands of years of passing down our findings to get to today. I also think that the patterns traced by Ptolemy's epicycles are beautiful, even if they are wrong.
How would this effect solar activity? Has anyone attempted to gather and analyze data to see if there is a link between the sun, the gravitational center, and solar activity?
It's just a calculated point. It's the sum of all gravitational forces. Everything spins around it but doesn't mean is attracted to it. The sun is still the sun.
Good question. Does the sun experience tidal flexing from all the planets tugging on it? I imagine the effect would be really small, but on a system of fluid convection that is as big as the sun, that could add up to quite a lot.
I'm not sure if they do, but the best chance of finding something would be the Parker solar probe. Everything has some amount of effect on anything else because almost anything in nature (universe) is a chaotic system and they are notoriously unstable, there is a pretty good chance it has an impact.
I started watching Joe when I was 9, I'm 18 now, this channel literally awaken my curiosity and interest in science, now I'm entering my dream college studying biology, it's a dream come true, continue making these videos Be Smart team, Thank you for always making us curious about our life on earth! PADAYON! (keep going in tagalog)
Except you're also technically wrong: you didn't mention gravity in the title of the video. When you ask "what's the center of our solar system", an accurate answer *would* be the Sun. This is because, putting aside the gravitational center, a planetary system such as our solar system does revolve around a star as the primary gravitational object, and this is generally true for planetary systems.
If you discard gravity, which also discounts all mass, then you need to define some other property of the solar system that can have a center. Even the Oort cloud won’t suffice as a substitute because the limits of the Oort cloud are defined by gravitational boundaries.
Just because gravity wasn't mentioned in the title, doesn't make the title wrong. Everything doesn't technically orbit the sun either. Did you even watch this video? Everything orbits the barycenter of the solar system, which most of the time is within the sun. But the sun also orbits the barycenter. It is a misnomer (technically) to say earth orbits the sun. When if you really get down to the detail of orbits, the 2 things orbit the common center of gravity, the barycenter. Duh Now obviously for just a quick general statement that is not as detailed people do say earth orbits the sun. And generally that is enough detail to continue talking about whatever you were talking about.
As an atheist, thank you for using BC and for not pretending that the Church had nothing to do with the development of civilisation whilst still using their calendar. 🙏😉
No it is a modern deceit. The scale of time is exactly the same, the new names are the result of the modern habit of renaming everything for political reasons.
the thing about heliocenterism, is it can be a good introduction to movement in space, before we tell everyone we're barreling forward in space, like a spiraling missile in a cartoon.
Since about 1920, the Earth has left a trail of radio waves expanding into space along its path. If the Earth was stationary in space they would expand out in a sphere, but the fact we are orbiting the sun and the sun itself is barrelling around the galactic centre means the actual shape of the radio wave trail is... some kind of conical curved spiral. Like a very weird tuba. I have yet to see a satisfactory illustration of this.
This first occurred to me when I was playing a space game (Elite: Dangerous), and I was in a binary system where the jump point was a point in space between the stars, as opposed to a star. At first I thought it was strange, since a point in space doesn't have mass, and then I started thinking how gravity actually works and it made sense. Then I thought, this is probably actually happening in our own system, to a much smaller extent. Anyway, it's kind of cool to see it confirmed.
recently heard about Simon Shack's updated Tycho Brahe model. Which at first glance seems completely ridiculous but it models the geometry of the solar system quite beautifully.
I wonder if the sunspot cycles/solar-flare activity is related to the Sun's 'wobbling' orbit about the solar-system centre-point .... Is there a gravitational 'tidal' effect that comes into play here?
In old Greek, the "p" wasn't silent. And didn't Copernicus insist his book was only published after his death? It's the only way to Inquisition-proof yourself back in those days.
The 'P' is still not silent in current Greek ... used in mathematics these days as Π π (pi) correctly pronounced as pee and not pie.. 🙂
2 месяца назад
About Copernicus is false and true. I mean, he was very careful about this, which could be very polemic, so it was published very close to his death. But, as it was in the past, it is now. On the couch, as in politics, there were many factions, and some of them received very welcome news ideas (in the end, they were from the material world, not the spiritual). But others were very against those ideas. In the beginning, it was the Protestants that were against them; later, Galileo, there was a flip in the side.
6:46 For anyone who cares. In Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, and Psalm 96:10, The word translated as immovable is "môṭ," which means to totter, shake, slip. The word translated as fixed is "kûn" which means to be firm, be stable, be established. In Psalm 104:5, The word translated as foundation is "māḵôn." This translation is pretty close, but it lacks the connotation of dwelling place or abode that the original word has. The word translated as fix is "yāsaḏ." This translation is also pretty close, but lacks the ideas of being set or laid that the original has. In Isaiah 45:18, The word translated as "fixed it fast" is "kûn." Sanuel 2:8, This translation is pretty good, and the poetry is left intact. The section shown here is the second half of vs. 8, and is given as the reason why God can lift people out of poverty and give them authority. Setting a literal planet on literal pillars doesn't make a strong argument for why people can be lifted out of poverty. It sounds more like the pillars are figurative, maybe rules or laws. Psalm 119:90, The word for established is "kûn." The word for stands firm is "ʿāmaḏ," which contains the ideas of to stand, remain, endure, or take one's stand. If you look at the original language and the context, there is no need to interpret the Bible as saying the earth doesn't move. Despite this an authoritarian religious organization happened to insist that they were infallible, and told everyone that they needed to believe only what their interpretations. He who has eye's let him see, and he who has ears let him hear, don't just believe what people say, but test things for yourself.
As one of those who cares, it is plain to see that you have a very analytical mind, yet your obvious genius is spent analyzing a storybook modified to suit the powerbrokers of the times in their own pursuit of wealth and population control. I can only hope that this pursuit is something that you do in your spare time after you have achieved amazing and life changing tasks, physically bettering the lives of humanity, in your day job. The unfortunate reality is that most individuals of your caliber become enmeshed in trying to make sense out of gobbledegook, wasting enormous talent on irrelevant knowledge.
@@kingboagart899 I appreciate you caring. I'm definitely not a genius, I know less than 99% of the knowledge in the universe and can make sense of even less of it. If it was modified by power brokers then they did an awful job. The Bible does a terrible job at controlling people, when I look around no one actually practices what it teaches. Every organization I've studied that tries to control the conscience, tries to take away the Bible one way or another. Trying to understand reality and words is what I do constantly in order communicate with people. I design custom hooks for a living. In my free time I try to share the only hope I have with others. What you call gobbledegook seems to describe the reality I have personally experienced, so I don't think I could believe the knowledge is irrelevant anymore than I could believe grass is never green.
@@kingboagart899 The Bible itself has NOT been modified and changed. We have 2300 year ofd copies of the OT thanks to the dead sea scroll and other that prove to us the words and books have not changed. And he have thousands of manuscripts of the NT from the early churches and thousands of later of the chruhc fathers from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centrifuges that quote virtually the entire NT and again show us the words and books have not changed. We KNOW these things and texts predate the Catholic church by multiple centuries and go back to the time when Christianity was illegal and underground in Rome.
@@RK-si4ln The line they are referring to is: "You are technically correct. The best kind of correct." which, is _good;_ but the _best_ line from Futurama still has to be "That just raises further questions!" although, it unfortunately makes no sense out of context.
Did the math, and Jupiter and the Sun alone have a point between them but outside the Sun! The Sun contains 99.85% of all the matter in the Solar System, and Jupiter has 0.1067%. It's 417 million miles away though, making the center of mass a point 500k miles from the Sun in the direction of Jupiter- but the Sun only has a radius of 400k miles! It's only when the remaining 0.0433% of the system's mass 'pulls' the center back into the Sun that the center of mass is within it. This is really a matter of people commonly underestimating the scale of space. Even a grain of sand orbitting the Sun can have a center of mass outside the Sun if its far enough away! 10 to the 30 or so lightyears to be just outside the sun, though, which is much further than the diameter of the Universe. But proves that no matter how much mass the Sun has, it's the Gas Giants being so so distant in comparison to its radius that 'pulls' our center of mass ouside of it!
@@dojelnotmyrealname4018 my bad! forgot a zero when typing it out- jupiter is 0.1067% of the solar system mass, not 0.167%. I used the corrext value for the calculations though!
@@ttt5020 and to be pedantic since we’re here anyway. We don’t really know the mass of the Oort cloud. Could be anywhere between the Moon’s mass and a few times the Earth’s mass. That alone makes the % leftover after the gas giants a bit meaningless. Although the Oort cloud is often excluded from ‘the Solar system’.
@@ttt5020 we also don’t know the distribution within the cloud. If it’s anything like the asteroid or the kuiper belt the it wouldn’t. A significant chunk of both is in dwarf planets like Ceres, Pluto and Charon. The Oort cloud could definitely hide a few mercuries without us knowing.
Ibn Al-Shatir inventor of the first astrolabic clock, predicted that the sun instead of the Earth is the center of the universe hundred of years before Copernicus, as they began a systemic critique of Classic cosmology as early as the 11th century. In some instance, as in case of the model for the motion of planet Mercury, it was found that Copernicus even made mistakes in his interpretation of the earlier mathematical model that he apparently inherited from the works of the Muslim astronomer Ibn al-Shatir. In other instances he remained faithful to the mathematical formulations that were developed by other astronomers of the Islamic world such as Mu'ayyad al-Din al-'Urdi and Nasir al-Din al-Tusi Copied and pasted
It's high time to give proper credit to eastern scientists for their contribution to science and not just the euro centric narration of science.. and if even Be Smart miss these legendary names😢😢 who will acknowledge them
Speaking of credit to the east, wasn't there a whole thing where the west said the Quran had a mistake when it said the sun has an orbit too until this was discovered
I heard a while ago the barycenter being outside the sun has something to do with it's activity. The further the barycenter is the more active the sun is with solar flares and CMEs. When the sun's center gets closer to barycenter it calms down. Hence it's 11 year cycle.
The historic preamble is extremely important. There are people out there who believe NASA imposed the belief of spherical Earth in the 60s - that right before people "knew" the Earth is flat. In most schools, science is taught as a set of axioms, devoid of development or context. Another reason why flatearthers can be successful telling people they have been "indoctrinated" at school.
What you called padding is actually a brief explanation of the history of the models humanity invented to explain and predict celestial body movements. If you want 30 seconds videos there are other platforms.
Well, if we want to get technically correct. The _Sol_-ar system is always centered on Sol. The wandering point on the model is actually the gravitational center and _not_ Sol.
The closer we examine oour world, the smaller things we discover by actually going through and find those that interact in motion. Simple magnification has been an astounding add to get finer details actually meaured to find that ABSOLUTELY everything is interacted upon by even the most minute ways, previously, ununaccountavle to any viewer interaction.
I usually pick a point called “average barycenter” to simplify the complex motion of the sun because the sun also moves through the galaxy at 720,000 km/h, and when i factor the complex motion, it will increase complexity which confuses me
While not a direct quote roughly Socrates said 'The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.' Socrates was Plato's mentor and Plato was Aristotle's mentor. As you correctly stated the ancients were not stupid. Always starting at the point where we assume that we know nothing gives the advantage of an open mind. Science is based upon having an open mind. Great job on the video!
The same wibbly-wobbly factor can be used to find planets in other star systems. The moon's mass can be determined to be quite small, as the balance point is within the radius of the Earth itself.
Astronomy still has so many unknowns, especially regarding the history of the solar system. Ancient legends including the Bible suggest that Mars used to pass near the earth then finally broke free, changing the Earth's year length from its original 360 days (confirmed all around the world) to what it is now. These legends inspired Jonathan Swift's writings, which gave details of two of Mars' moons 150 years before telescopes allowed them to be discovered.
5000 years ago, Sumerians already knew about all planets including Uranus and Neptune, and other planets beyond Pluto that has not been discovered yet. They also knew about constellations and zodiac
Prior to Nicea 1, the spring equinox was 25 March. Because the Imperial observatory was in Alexandria, it was the Pope of Alexandria who sent the letter about the date of Holy Pascha each year, not the Pope of Rome. When the Holy Fathers of the 1st Ecumenical Council agreed on the Paschal formula "the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox", the Pope of Alexandria pointed out that the sun had crossed the equator on 21 March that year (AD 325), so that was added to the formula as a modifier of "the spring equinox".
Ptolemaic’s model really wasn’t that far off. The scale and perspective are really the problem. There are some cool animations that show it is showing the heliocentric model from the perspective of the earth.
This makes total sense to me, all forces have to balance out across our solar system to keep everything moving smoothly as we know it. When you have just a single planet the size of Jupiter, that is a heck of a lot of pull on the sun, then throw in 7 other planets and a dwarf planet, unknown number of asteroids, all that mass affecting the sun as we fly through space in a wider galaxy. We noticed wobble in stars from their neighboring planets, our sun would be wobbling to other star systems as well with a center not always on the parent star in a system. Makes one wonder what we will discover as we learn more about gravity, because we have obviously not scratched the surface of what we can learn.
I've realized the larger concept here that mass attracts mass proportional to said mass for at least the last 40 years but only just now did I realize that there was enough mass to the solar system to make the center outside of the sun sometimes.
