Check out my new video about the latest solutions to the Fermi Paradox! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-BGCdgOhinXI.html What is the Contact Era, the Silent Bubble and the Galactic Club?
One Megalithic hour is 240 minutes, or 14,400 seconds (1/4) There are 6 Megalithic hours to the day, each made up of 6 minutes, each of which is 6 seconds long. If the Megalithic hour was divided into 60 minutes, each would be 1,440 of our seconds, times 100 is 144,000. One Megalithic second is 400 of our modern seconds, divided by 60 (to get minutes) is 6.6666666.... 360 ÷ 6.66 is 54 54 x 2 is 108 108 x 2 is 216 To effect this the hands on a clock count out 10 (units of 6) x 10 (units of 6) × 4 (=400 units of 6). Therefore the relationship of the Megalithic second to our current form is mathematically proportional to the ratio between the Sun and Moon. A Megalithic second is 6.66 minutes (400 seconds). A Megalithic Minute is 40 minutes, or 2,400 seconds. 6 x 6 x 6 x 400 = 86,400, the number of seconds in a day. This would mean a clock with 216 seconds would go around 40 times in a day (2160 x 400). This means 1 Megalithic second is 6.66 of our modern minutes, meaning their metric system is based on the Full Moon, of which 360 fit into to the night sky, and 720 will encircle the globe, divided by half gives us the 360 degree circle, and the basis for our present hexadecimal system of time. Which is why 1 degree of Arc on the Moon = 100 Megalithic Yards (2700ft). This means the Beast, the hidden hand of the Masonic fraternity, is the Moon; and Time. The white limestone covering of the Pyramids denotes the Pale Moon in Megalithic Ireland, like at New Grange, where Enoch describes a Crystal Palace illuminated by the Full Moon every 19 years. 6 x 6 x 6 is 216, there are 2160 years in an astrological age, and the Moon is 2160 miles in diameter, the solar metonic calendar using 60 6 day weeks produces 1 extra day every 216 years. There are also 216 Megalithic seconds in a day, and 216 letters in the name of the Hebrew God, Just as Solomon has 36 or 72 scrolls, and Muhammed speaks of 72 sects. Enoch also buries 36,525 scrolls, the number of days in a year, times 100. Oh by the way, this shows that our current measure of time is based on the principle of 1/6, the basis of an Egyptian Royal Cubit, but first they built the first ring at Stonehenge, which is 100 metres (330 ft) wide, with an area of 2160 square feet, a Cube's interior angles also add up to... 2160! This produces a Calendar of 60 6 day weeks plus five. Every 4th year a 366th day makes exactly 61 weeks. This means every 216 years this calendar produces 1 extra day, so after 648 years 3 days must be removed. This is when the Phoenix arrived, and stepped onto the Alter of Ra or Holy Grail, completing the Metonic cycle and bringing the Calendar back into sync with the first New Moon of the Spring equinox. The Capstone of the Pyramid is even called the Benben Stone, the Egyptian Phoenix is called the Bennu. It likely relates to Deneb, in Ophiuchus, the 13th Starsign of the Zodiac. The base of the Pyramid is exactly 13 Acres, as is Teotihuacan, because they share the exact same base dimensions. Such a location would be ideal for calculating the speed of light using the transit of Venus. Incidentally the Great Pyramid's Latitudinal coordinates are the speed of light. 1440 ÷ 108 = 13.333333 11 and 3 are the most sacred Celtic numbers of royalty, and also happen to be the proportions of the Earth to the Moon, and the Great Pyramid. The starsigns also precess 1 degree every 72 years 72 x 3 is 216 2160 ÷ 648 is 3.3333333 The Aztec Calendar also begins with a double transit of Venus, in 3116BC. This whole code can be encoded into a single Pythagorean Triangle of Dimensions 666 by 630, by 216, this is the Key of Solomon, 33 is the inverse of 66. 100 is the "perfect number" because it represents 10 6 unit metrics times 10 6 unit metrics, a unit being 6.66 ie 60 x 60 (3600) the number of Arcdegree seconds in a second, or a one second unit on a clock the size of Earth This means seconds represent 10ths of the Moon; 216, or 6 x 6 x 6 (100 ÷ 6 ÷ 6 = 2.7): Euler's number, and the number of feet to a Megalithic Yard, 3/11 is .27 and the number of days in a sidereal month is also 27. 11/3 is 3.66, the number of days in a Canicular leap year, the character of Thoth, Cuchulainn, and Kukulkan, the Dog Star, and star by which the Sothic (Seth) Calendar is determined. Thoth was the Son of Seth, who is portrayed as a Serpent. 3 x 11 is 33, the years in a Great Solar Return. As the Sun and Moon inhabit their respective houses of the Zodiac they animate the character within, playing out the dramas and battles we know as myths, for example the Moon traveling through each of the Zodiac houses each month, for a grand total of... 144 (12 x 12) Metatron/Enoch/Echnaton/Arkenaten's Cube is 13 circles in a Star of David: 13 x 360 is 4680 4680 ÷ 216 is 21.666.. This is the basis of the Nautical Mile, and all based on the Moon
My only hiccup about that is that the Earth remained "normal" via this collision (as far as we know), however via other theories, Venus and Uranus' collisions changed them. Venus' "collision" caused it to rotate backwards while Uranus' "collision" caused it to spin on its side. Not saying that the objects that collied into them were the same sizes.
@@blahlbah8602 The earth has not remained "normal" from this collision, we have a core that behaves really strangely and the collision is considered to explain its anomalies and quirks. For example, a little while ago there was news about how the Earth basically, if simplified, has two cores nested inside each other and these "wrestled".
@@blahlbah8602Well that's the interesting thing; It seems as though the collision with Theia probably slowed down Earth's rotational velocity by quite a lot. Looking at the other planets in the Solar System and beyond, the higher the mass, the higher the rotational velocity. Mars, at only 15% the mass of Earth, has a day length that's around 40 minutes longer than ours. Jupiter, at 318 times more massive than Earth, has a day length of just 10 hours. It's a shame Venus' rotation was so badly disrupted in the past, because it's similar mass and density to that of Earth would've allowed us to make a more direct comparison, but the pattern seems to hold that the greater the mass, the greater the rotational velocity. Taking a rough average between the known masses and rotational periods of planets and satellites within our Solar System, it can be theorised that the impact with Theia actually slowed Earth's rotation quite a lot, potentially from a day length of fewer than 12 hours to one longer than 20 hours, which has been slowly extending ever since. Indeed, without the Moon tugging the Earth around the system's barycentre, the impact of Theia may have completely bled off the Earth's rotational velocity by today, or certainly made our days very long indeed.
There are Zero cause and effect relationships established for anything observed in the sky. Even the distance and size are based on assumptions of Keppler. If they tell you they know what those objects are made of they are lying. Reason is no one can manipulate an independent variable which is your presumed cause to see how it effects the dependent variable or desired outcome. Even Michio Kaku states No one in his field used the scientific method, it's all flying by the seat of your pants guesswork. This means at least 3/4 of this video is total BS.
@@prodigalpriestIf something "feels" like a planet‚ then we will alter the definition so that it is a planet. If something being a planet would make the definition feel too complicated or include other bodies that we do not want as planets‚ then we will alter the definition so that it is no longer a planet. Apply to all definitions.
Did you know? Earth is the only planet in our solar system that can experience a full solar eclipse because our moon is just the perfect size to do so?
Perfect size and perfect distance, but as the moon is slowly moving away from Earth, that will eventually change. It'll still take another million years or so, but one day there will be no more total solar eclipses.
Other planets also have full solar eclipses: Jupiter has Ganymede, Europa, Callisto, Io, etc. If you meant the only terrestrial planet, then you are correct.
@@PlumFromTheForest It's literally where the word lunatic comes from. There's long been an association of the moon with madness. And I think that probably has something to do with women's menstrual cycles, which - like the tides - tend to be affected by the moon. And the moon is known to affect some people's state of mind, including mine. But as a celestial body it was little understood for eons, and only well understood very recently in the big scheme of things.
For a Russian speaker your accent is great! (I used to watch your russian Chanel, actually, you were one of the reasons why I came to science in the first place) Удачного продвижения вам Андрей!
I just posted a comment trying to figure out his accent. I was leaning towards Russian, but I don't have an ear for other Eastern European accents. Thanks for clearing that up for me. 😊
The term "moon" was first and always applied to our moon. It wasn't until Galileo that the idea that other planets could have moons came along. That it was the first and for the longest time the ONLY moon the idea that it's not a moon goes against the history of the the term "moon". If you think reclassifying Pluto as a dwarf planet caused a lot of outrage, reclassifying the moon as a planet will be a thousand times harder to justify.
If suddenly every known moon would become a planet we would end up in a situation where we have hundreds of planets. Many of them smaller than a couple of kilometers. Small objects with the same status as Jupiter or Neptune. Pluto got reclassified because planetologists slowly, and sometimes with a lot of aversion, finally realized it's just a Kuiper belt object. It doesn't matter Pluto is relative big and relative close by, and therefore accidentally discovered in 1930 while searching for mysterious Planet X (which does not exist). If Pluto had been discovered in the 1990s or early 2000s nobody would have made a fuss about it being classified as a dwarf planet. Of course the situation since 2006 will change sooner or later. Other objects will be discovered, either in our own solar system or around other stars, changing our present insight.
This paper is probably one of more than a few meant to demonstrate that the IAU's definition of "planet" is functionally worthless, rather than an actual attempt to argue the moon's a planet.
I think Mars' moons should be considered a new sub class of moons called Dwarf Moons. Classification would be any celestial object that orbits a planet but isn't large enough to be spherical by gravity. If Pluto can't be a planet anymore, Mars' moons shouldn't be considered moons anymore.
There was a report last year that they found the remains of a planet underneath the Earth's crust.So there's no way the moon is a dual planet or a catched planet or anything else, it's collision.
If the barycenter makes objects in space binary systems, if the barycenter is outside the bigger object, then the Sun and Jupiter make the Solar System a binary system.
IMO I think a combination of the barycenter rule + the size difference being with the smaller object being 25% the size of the larger object or greater would be what would classify a binary or dual planet system
Except that Jupiter is nowhere near large or massive enough to be a star. Even if the mass of all the other planets and moons, the Kyper Belt and Ort cloud, and everything else in the solar system were added to Jupiter's mass it would still only be about half of what would be needed for a minimum sized star to form.
@@tymcfadden8496 Not only is Jupiter not 1/16 the mass to make a star, assuming it were pure hydrogen, but the Sun comprises more than 99% of the mass of the entire solar system.
@ascendantindigo271 It seems that all rocky celestial bodies have continental crust covering black basalt. The black areas are where the basalt is visible where the continental crust isn't I don't subscribe to the eruption theory of the moons seas because we don't see large flood basalts on the earth, because the earth is more volcanic. It has to be the same as the black basalt in the earth's ocean basins.
This is awesome! I never knew so much about the moon. Definitely subscribing! You make such top quality, educational and entertaining videos. Keep on thr good work
Actually it is very easy to explain. The moon gravity is one-sixth of Earth's, which already tells you everything will hit the moon 6 times as soft. The moon has a soft outer laying mostly made up of moon dust, the inner layer is just frozen rock... The moon freezes at night -298 F (-183 Celsius) and gets baked during the day 224 F (106 Celsius) (Average -50 Celsius) So the top layer will freeze at night and will melt at day, but 1 feet deep and it will be permanent frozen. The crater depth is only based upon observation from earth which is like measuring over great distances which is by definition broken. You can't know how big a airplane is when it flies over you, not even when you 100 meters away. Just curiosity, we already figured this out 1000 years ago, why do we pretend we didn't? all of this comes from the old books.
good point. although I believe double planets are considered a single body when deciding if something has cleared the neighbourhood of comparable-sized bodies. but I'm not an expert, by far, so I may be wrong. or it may be that the experts just go with "whatever we want to be, is"
few points: neptune essentially has only one large moon like earth, triton. dwarf planets should be considered as the difference between main planets and dwarf ones is artificial. captured moons actually tend to have very small eccentricities not large, this is because of dampening effects especially for retrograde ones. earths axial tilt is not really stabilized by the moon, and doesnt need to be anyway. the IAU only accepted a provisional definition, thats to say its ill defined as of yet untill scientific consensus comes up with smth better. (and the current vague definition is ridiculous anyway). mike brown has a paper also making an argument to redefine the term planet, basically to anything big n round out there but not shiney.
Heliocentrism is a conspiracy theory to demote Luna as planet... probably... ;p On a more serious note you should compare gas giants' satellites with their rocky cores, not with their massive "atmosphere".
@@Cosmos_elementary - I doubt it's quite like a regular rocky planet, unless it is like Mercury, which I and others suspect was an ice giant whose gases were blown out by the Sun, leaving only the most compact and barren core. But with all that pressure there should be a quite solid core of one kind or another at the center, they can't be just "clouds".
Very interesting, thank you. FWLIW: I've long since come to the opinion that some terms resist strict definition because they exist for linguistic convenience rather than as labels for speific things. eg: What is a 'Fish'? We may 'know' what a fish is in converstation, but you will never come up with a robust definition. I would suggest 'Planet' is the same - the best plan would be keep the word as a common parlace term only. "It's a planet because we generally agree it is." ...binary planets, rogue planets, moons, asteroids. All likely fit the same 'category' of being terms of lingustic convenience rather than labels that can be defined. Moons of moons? Red dwarfs vs brown dwarfs vs planets..? These may be eventially categorised through formation history or what may or may not be going on within, but even then a specific object may 'resist' categorisation simply because we can't confidently assign those definitions.
Partly based on that paper's argument, partly out of a desire to embrace chaos, and partly because I think it'd be neat to consider moon missions as "interplanetary," I'm all for defining the Moon as a planet. But I'd definitely argue against it being considered the _9th_ planet. Generally, planets are numbered by order of increasing orbital radius from the Sun. Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, etc. This would place the Moon as the 3rd or 4th planet from the Sun, in fact alternating in position with Earth on a periodic basis.
That would be a bit of a headache to be constantly changing which number planet we are, but yeah, if it was considered a planet, either we should do that or just ignore the technicalities and call us the third and it fourth.
I have a definition for a double planet/double dwarf planet: A pair of objects which: 1. Are both round through self-gravity (hydrostatic equilibrium) 2. Orbit a star, brown dwarf or stellar remnant 3. Are approximately equal in mass to one another (with a roughly 20/80 size ratio) 4. Orbit a barycenter outside either of their surfaces and are inside each other's Hill spheres Pluto and Charon are an excellent example.
Your statement that size is the only argument for calling the Earth-Moon system a double planet has very little to do with size. What makes it a planet pair, rather than a planet and its satellite is how the Moon moves with respect to the Sun. If you ignore the planet and just look at how the body moves in its orbit, most of the things we call moons will trace out a series of loops. (By “loop”, I mean the path crosses itself. Luna (to avoid the Moon/moon confusion), does not do this. It’s path waves back and forth, but never backtracks on itself. Another way of saying the same thing is that it never moves backward, as seen from the Sun’s point of view. If you went north for a 100 million miles or so, and looked down at the Sun, Earth, Moon bodies, assuming the Sun is stationary in your field of view both Earth and Luna would go around the Sun once a year, both of them always moving counterclockwise. Look at Mars and its moons the same way, and you’ll see Phobos and Deimos both move “backwards” (I.e. clockwise with respect to the Sun.) THAT is what make the Earth and Moon a double planet, although with modern terminology, they would be a planet/dwarf planet pair. As far as I know, Luna is the only moon that does this. So Luna is not a moon (as in satellite) or, if you find deliberately confusing language funny, the Moon is not a moon. :)
Damn. I meant to say that the statement that size was the only argument was false, and that size had very little to do with calling the Earth/Moon pair a double planet had very little to do with size. Saying that size has nothing to do with size… :(. Sorry about any confusion that caused.
My theory is that the moon was created at the same time as earth in the same orbit. Then the moon bumped into earth bouncing off at just the right way to start orbiting around the earth. The bump stopped the spinning of the moon and imparted more spin to the earth. Or it's just an alien spaceship orbiting around their zoo planet.
Google "Theia". Theia is a hypothesized body that did form in the same orbital region as Earth, and collided with Earth, was absorbed, and the cast off debris from the collision condensed to form Luna, our moon.
Honestly, I think the barycenter is the best definition for a double planet. It sets a hard "Yes/No" line in the sand without being vague or open to interpretation, unlike other definitions. The fact that the Earth Moon system doesn't fit that criteria isn't a good reason to say it's a bad way of defining binary planet.
A remarkably interesting and unsolved question in astronomy is did Venus also possess a large moon verging on double-planet at some point in the past, either by collision or capture? The reason this is so interesting is if that were the case, it would likely demonstrate that singular, large natural satellites in a barycentric system with terrestrial planets is nothing particulaly unusual, perhaps even normal. There's some very intriguing clues that Venus may have indeed once had a large, natural satellite of its own that may have been ejected from the system within human history. Firstly, we have no real good explanation as to why Venus rotates backwards, and so incredibly slowly. It's generally thought that this was due to a massive impact early in Venus' formation, but if that was the case, why did moons not form from the ejecta? Also, the impact of Theia with Earth didn't cause such a near instantaneous bleeding off of Earth's rotational velocity, so how could an impact large enough to cause Venus to rotate backwards not completely destroy it? Secondly, throughout the C18th and even into the C19th, dozens of exceedingly qualified, capable, trusted, and vouched by results astronomers said that they'd identified a large natural satellite orbiting Venus which had remained unseen until then due to Venus' super bright albedo washing out any nearby celestial bodies. The curious thing is, the astronomers who recorded Venus' moon, stating it to be in roughly the same proportions as Earth and our Moon, found to their shock that Venus' moon had a polar orbit, orbiting from pole to pole rather than around the equator. The neat thing is if you plug in the estimated size, mass, and orbital paths into standard Newtonian mechanics, a large moon in a polar orbit, if at a very slight declination to the perpendicular of the ecliptic, would eventually bleed off the rotational velocity of the planet it was orbiting. However, since momentum must be conserved, Venus' polar orbiting moon would've acted like a mainspring in a clock, and Venus a key winding it up. As the mainspring in a clock stores more energy it begins resisting any more energy being imparted to it by the key, making it harder and harder to wind. Eventually the mainspring reaches its energy capacity, and winding it beyond that point will cause it to snap. Exactly the same thing may have happened to Venus and its moon; As Venus transfered its rotational energy to its moon, it slowed down, yet the moon still retained a maximal energy capacity. Once Venus finally stopped rotating, its moon contained all the momentum within the system and so was flung out of it, like the mainspring in the clock breaking. The ejection of Venus' moon would've then imparted back onto the planet some of the momentum it had absorbed, giving Venus a little kick back from completely stopped to rotating very, very slowly in the wrong direction. If this theory is true what's truly mind-boggling is that our sister planet may have lost its moon that was incredibly similar to ours within human history, but a mere century or two too early for us to have technology sufficient to confirm or deny that for sure.
It's interesting that the moon rotates on its axis in a tidal lock with Earth. Which is why we only ever see one side of it. I've wondered what would happen if the moon rotated faster - or more slowly - and how that would affect its orbit of Earth and its gravitational effect on our planet. I expect there are people who could answer that question. I don't think the moon be considered a planet. It orbits the Earth as the Earth orbits the sun. I'm sure the Sun has some effect on the moon's orbit, but the moon's orbit of Earth is very stable. And over a few billion years, the Sun seems to have had a negligible effect on the moon's orbit relative to Earth. Regardless of these speculations, I love the moon. It is so beautiful. So integral to our planet. It seems unthinkable that it wouldn't be there. And there is nothing quite like going out on a cold winter night under a full moon, with the snow glowing that particular blue. It's one of the things that makes this world seem magical.
I have a couple of follow-up questions on cratering. The Moon's surface looks to be almost completely covered in craters but I don't hear reports of continual collisions and new craters, have collisions slowed, stopped or are they so common no-one reports them? If the near side of the Moon has always faced the Earth, I would expect less cratering on that side, is that the case? Really enjoyed your video - thanks.
Most of the craters we are seeing formed billions of years ago, during the much more chaotic era of the Solar System, so, yes, they happen rarely now, but they still happen. There are even projects aimed at monitoring flashes of light on the moon, that happen when a new collision happens, like this one neliota.astro.noa.gr/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 as for the cratering of different sides, we would see a significant difference if the Moon were much closer to Earth. But if you look let's say at this image smd-cms.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/5-Things-Moon_SeparationDistance-1-jpg.webp where the sizes and distances are shown to scale, you will see that even if Earth might deflect some bodies, it still doesn't look like a shield that would protect the entire near side of the Moon. There are still lot's of trajectories asteroids could hit the Moon even from the direction of Earth
Also there are no atmospheric or geological processes to wear down the surface, so once the craters are there they're pretty much permanent. We're seeing the result of a low impact rate over a very long time. The far side does look more cratery, but apparently that's because it has a thicker crust.
Chinese astronomers recorded a large impact on the moon during one of their old Dynasties. Google it, the article is more interesting than my description.
IF the moon were artificial, the only reason for making something that large would have to go far beyond surveillance. Such as, housing a vast subterranean civilization of its own. It's a pretty silly concept, though. And if aliens are surveilling us from the moon they could most likely do it with small observation bases. Imagine the optical tech they could have.
I do not get how people can say that the size comparison is unique and seen nowhere else, its literally seen (and even a larger satellite compared to its 'planet') in pluto and its satellite.
Imagine, there's a planetary system on the other side of the galaxy, where there's double bodied system like the Earth and the Moon. Where one body is quite dense, denser than Mercury although about the size of the Moon AND life evolved there, it had an atmosphere, water and a biosphere with intelligent life on it. The other body was made of a ver porous yet rigid light weight materiel and was far larger yet much less dense than the first body, also this second body was devoid of life. Due to the differences in density the barycentre of the orbits would be within the smaller yet denser planet. Which of these two bodies do you think the inhabitants of the first world would consider to be the Earth and which the Moon? The inhabitants of this planet, like us, would never have had any contact with any other life outside of their own world. The lifeless world would be the Moon even if it were much bigger in volume and caused some big eclipses.
It's not an implausible situation, but we haven't discovered a similar case. However the ''planet'' would most likely be the object with the most mass, regardless of its diameter or its composition. Until we discover one, great stuff for a scifi novel or film.
@@Kleineganz Well that would be the first thought but then it disqualifies rogue planets (planets without a star) and planets that orbit blackholes or other phenomena. These criteria just don't make sense. Neptune doesn't clear its path either as Pluto crosses it. Probably the main criterion should be any body massive enough to be spherical. If there's going to be a division into dwarf planets then there must be a dividing line, a certain mass. Currently there isn't one.
The IAU system doesn't make any sense to me. There is no reason to distinguish between "moons" and "earth-like planets" at all. Objects made of solid matter which have a spherical form should be treated as one class no matter if they orbit around a star or a gas giant or another solid planet. And there's no reason to distinguish between planets and exoplanets. IMHO we should only distinguish between Stars, Brown Dwarfs, Gas Giants, Planets (including big moons and dwarf planets) and Asteroids (including Asteropid-sized moons), defining Objects based in what they are, not how or where they move. Of course there must be sub-classes and their role in a stellar system can be expressed in a new naming scheme. Earth could be SOL 3 (Arabic number for "planet class") and Moon SOL 3A (capital letter for being "planet class"), Saturn would be SOL VI (Roman number for "Gas Giant" or "Brown Dwarf" class), while Titan would be named SOL VI F... just my two cents
@@summersky77 That's only because of the mass difference between the two. In binary star systems with nearly equal mass stars, or multiple star systems with five or six stars, what is orbiting what? Taking a special case and then generalizing it is almost certainly false. The barycenter of the Pluto-Charon system is actually above the surface of Pluto. Even then we would say on direct observation that Charon orbits Pluto. I did a simulation with Universe Sandbox where I froze the Earth and let all the other solar system's bodies remain real so that it showed what those motions look like from the surface of the Earth. And all the planets STILL orbited the Sun! Why doesn't it appear obvious to us? It's because the third dimension, the distance to the objects, isn't apparent to our eyes or a telescope. We can't see it but it's real. The simulation makes it obvious. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ptiNYlUPyTk.html
The moon bounced off the earth. Thats why the moons has alot of minerals only found on earth. And also has some deposite that can only be made by biological processes. And also why the pacific ocean has signs of a large impact and the entire pacific ocean floor is made from crust newer then the rest of the earths crust. Showing that there was an impact that cause new crust creation. As well as why all the continents are mostly on one side of earth.
The moon is an impact satellite which means it was formed from a collision some other moons are also formed from for example Pluto’s Biggest moon is thought to be a impact satellite too
My idea The moons the moon and its earths friend it is slowly moving away because they are growing up so they are going separate ways just really really slowly. (Which is happening) Anyway The moon needs a better name. I like lunar just because moon is used for other planets moon but they have their own names. Our moon needs a name too. A fun one would be the Greek work for friend which is “fílos” I think that would be adorable
Imagine explaining to your kids that scientists decided that THE MOON was no longer a moon. It’s THE friggin MOON!😂😂😂 I’m still a little butt hurt about Pluto btw😂😂😂 I think we should rename scientists. 🤣🤣🤣
in regards to the binary planet argument: i think if its down to semantics, go with whatever sounds cooler. if the distinction between a planet and not a planet is so unclear, why not humor the fact that space is cool, and say that they are binary planets?
I find it odd to name the Moon the 9th planet, I think the planets would need to be renamed. I always thought of it as a reference to its common positional order in distance from the Sun; Mercury Venus Earth Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune is how I remember it, wouldn't we then have Mercury1, Venus2, Earth3, Moon4, Mars5, Jupiter6, Saturn7, Uranus8, Neptune9? This fails to consider the planet some scientists insist is out there affecting the orbits of other planets, "Planet X".
Studies made since the Apollo days, at NASA Ames Research Centre, using a massive air gun firing into a vacuum chamber showed that high velocity impacts at any angle down to 2deg to the horizontal produced a spherical shock wave resulting in a circular crater. At 2deg or lower, the grazing impact results in a 'butterfly' shape or an ejecta pattern that fans out from the impact in two 'wings' Butterfly craters are found on the Moon.
@@allistairneil8968 There you go, is it? Well. Point 1. Are you casting a stone so that it strikes the water at 2deg or lower? Point 2. Is the stone striking at a velocity measurable in 'kilometres per second' resulting in a shock wave whose velocity exceeds the velocity of seismic waves that the water or rock would normally sustain due to its bulk modulus and rigidity modulus?
Thank you making and posting this. It make us all think and debate. To make their point stick, they conveniently exclude Pluto-Charon (why?), and then forget to mention that the Moon is only 1/81 of the mass of the Earth: making it a puny companion to our planet. A "double plent" would be like a ratio of 1 to 2 or to 4 or even 1 to10. Bring Mars to orbit the earth, and that would be just about a double planet, if even that. BUT, all it is fine since it make folks who can think and are knowledgible, to think and analyze. Thank you. I just subscribed to ur channel
Correction: The AIU declares itself to have the authority of dictating definitions. Literally no reason anyone needs to listen to them as science constantly proves different models are more useful than mandated consensus ever could be. The same is true of Pluto, which was a planet before humanity ever laid eyes on Pluto. The AIU applied a modern made up definition of what constitutes a planet in order to vote Pluto out of planethood. The AIU imagines themselves to have authority over the cosmos by their very word through their conspiracy to propagandize their own views through publishing in order to achieve a perception of such power. That's like trying to take away the pen name Dr. Suess on the grounds the author did not have a doctorate. Worse really, as they'd be doing it after making up new rules about who can be a doctor in order to do it. For those too young to remember; Here's how that big announcement went: "There are now only eight planets. Isn't Pluto a planet? No. Then what is it? A Planet minor. So it's a planet? No. Then what is it? A dwarf planet. So it's a planet? No. Then what is it? A Planetoid. So it's a planet? No. Then what is it? ect... Humanity, history, tradition, and the namers, all agree Pluto is a planet, and therefore always will be. But the AIU psychotically hold to a delusion that Pluto can't be / isn't simply an exception to their rules. All the greatest astronomers in history since Pluto's initial discovery have, do, and intelligent stargazers always will, deem Pluto our solar system's ninth planet. Honorary, or not.
In classification, some probably would say that Pluto is a Dwarf planet. While others say it's not a planet but, they can't decide either way. Personally, for Pluto I could put it under a D-Class Planet for "Dwarf" for it's size.
Rouge planets are no planets even if bigger than Earth that is already clear by IAUs 🤪 definition 😂. Beyond that I wonder if there's a non-zero cance to find a pair of Earth sized or bigger Exoplanets that sort of co-orbits like the two saturnian moons Janus and Ephimetheus do. These then would also not be planets by the IAU definition.
there's a theory that gives reason behind the existence of our moon + the asteroid belt between mars and the gas giants. there was another planet in our solar system early on that was roughly same size as earth if not slightly bigger and it collided giving it its uniquely diverse minerals and possibility for life and its tidally locked moon. it's also somewhat theorized that there was once life on mars prior to this event and its been stripped of its atmosphere and life due to that collision of earth and its mystery collision with something of similar size/slightly bigger which has left its massive scars evident all over. all the rocks that flung off from Earth and did NOT form into it or the tidally locked moon; it was sent flying to destroy Mars and whatever life/atmosphere it might've had along with all lifeforms. Most of this debris was ejected from the solar system due to the MASSIVE gravity pull from the Sun and Jupiter (a failed star more than it is a planet / "just a gas giant") - hence why we have a RANDOM belt of asteroids. oh now you're talking bout it in video. ok.
I have a problem with people calling, Pluto a dwarf planet; a planet is a freaking planet, and somehow due to its size it's a miracle, it Handt been sucked in and in the state of Venus being obliterated by the sun. People tend to make up the stupidest non-necessary stigmas about stuff, that are pointless to even make. Especially when Pluto and Neptune, are noted as the most viable planet to live after earth, because it's not scorching hot, neither has immense storm that would delete a ship. And for human especially with technology, cold is much easier to deal with than sulfur and fire; especially when it comes to hull integrity of ships, and radiation problems. There is a reason why people are living in Antarctica, and Alaska or Greenland, but nobody would dare go near a volcano, especially after the history of Pompeii, and the city of Minos
There are a couple odd coincidences with the moon. 1. The moon is very close to a perfect size match for the sun to create a solar eclipse. If you take the size of the moon and sun and their _average_ distances and do some basic geometry math you find its only about 1% off from perfect. If you try this remember to subtract 1 earth radius since the important distance is NOT from the center of the earth to the moon, but from your eyeball to the moon. 2. The moon's orbital period and the sun's rotation period are almost the same - 27 days. Note that the moon's orbit is a little shorter than its full moon period.
i just want to correct that dwarf planets are planets... i know, it seems obvious with a category that has planet in it's name. but many people (most people) do not include dwarf planets.. they include gas giant planets with terrestial planets but seem to always leave out dwarf planets... well.. we currently have 14 planets. so... is the moon the 15th planet? that is the question.
0:20 imagine that as a hardback book full of glossy pages, all properly collated, edited and everything - one on the solar system, one on the galaxy and one on the cosmos? getting that dvd book set, a lego playstation, an rc caroplane and a bmx mountain e-bike for Christmas? 🤗😊 a beano annual, jane's airplanes and a scalectrix set? i'd be so happy i'd tell mum to forget about slying me the barbie doll🤭🤫😆😆
We all have our opinions. This is mine. To begin the current definition doesn't appear to me to have a firm scientific basis. I majored in biology so I think the definitions should be more Linneaen and begin with the most common characteristics then proceed to those that increasingly differentiate them. 1st. a planet is a celestial object that has enough mass that it's gravity pulls it into a spherical shape but it is not massive enough to allow nuclear fusion. That's it. The 2nd level of definition concerns what it's made of and there are 3 fundamental categories, 1, gas planets, 2, rocky planets, 3, icy planets. The 3rd level of definition would divide them into planets that orbit a star directly (this includes binary planets in which the barypoint is not located within one of the planets), satellite planets in which the barypoint is located within one of the planets, rogue planets that don't orbit anything. 4th concerns planets that orbit stars there are two categories at this level major planets which dominate their orbit and tend to clear it, minor planets would not dominate their orbit and thus not clear it (I would discard the term dwarf planet entirely). And that's it. By this definition the Earth/Luna system would be binary with one major planet and one satellite planet and our solar system would have a lot more planets including Pluto and objects such as Ceres, etc...
The moon is literally the original moon from which the definition of moon was derived. It can't be a double planet.. it's literally called the moon. Its the original - we then said other planets had "moons" when we saw a similar situation to earth vs the original moon.
I remember reading about the moon's orbit in a science book by Isaac Asimov way back in the seventies. He also theorized that without such a large moon we would have an atmosphere more like Venus that would not support life as we know it.
I also find the conspiracy theorists' questions interesting because they force us to give up on simplistic explanations that others accept blindly. That is the silver line of their questions, but yeah, they are not questions formulated in good faith anyway.
Deimos and Phobos; galactical potatoes, rip, thou its not so bad, after all there is the wtf is going on, with Sirius* b I believe the moon is to round, maybe the earth was doing some serious breakdancing in its younger years
Have u ever thought that the moon was once part of earth once? There was ankther planet that we call gaea, it crashed into earth, it was like earths twin. And the dust of earth and gaea that blew off collected into the moon (edit, the earths twin is actually named theia, my bad)
I think the definition of planet should be any object with enough gravity to form a spherical shape and is not massive enough to induce Fusion and the definition of Moon should be any planet that is not the largest planet in a multiplanetary system
Do you think we could find the asteroids in the impact craters and thus find a cleaner sample of them vs what we find on earth that has been exposed to so many different things? Edit: Oh I would also like to add, if there is remnants of the astroids all over the moon, I wonder if that will be the true moon race for colony or outpost growth.
Can you imagine seeing the moon right after it formed only 17k miles away. It would have been enormous in the sky and the tides it would have created would have covered the entire earth. Of course at the time the earth was still mostly molten with little to no atmosphere and no oceans unless you count molten rock.
I don’t think the Earth and the Moon are a binary system I believe that to be a binary system they need to have a strong gravitational pull on each other to make them orbit each other our moon is to small to have a big gravitational pull on Earth it only orbits us we don’t orbit it.
