@@melle1996meijer Again, you're wrong, the latest findings are that the core is indeed molten. Venus most definitely is volcanically active and has no magnetic field. This, should tell you how flawed your logic is.
Mars is not geologically inactive. InSight (Who recently shut down forever) has shown us a lot of Mars and how it's still very much active in some capacity. The largest marsquake recorded by InSight clocked in at a 4.2. It's also much more porous than previously assumed, which might mean there's more radioactive elements present there than here on earth.
Also the reason it doesn’t have a magnetic field is because there was as much liquid separation between denser and lighter materials. They sort of just mixed together without much difference in the mantle or so I read.
Also, there have been some VERY tantalizing discoveries made at Gale Crater in the recent years. We wont be absolutely sure until a sample return mission in 2030, but some of the photos being sent back from Gale go WAY beyond fossilized microbes on a rock. I urge anyone reading this to do some googling :)
The reason Mercury has such a large core might be because it once was a much larger planet according to some theories. Things were chaotic early on especially with Jupiter and with Mercurys funky orbit it seems likely something major happened to it after formation. Might have been a Earth like planet or even a super Earth at one point which we are finding to be pretty common out there. Maybe in the future we will have some super algorithm that can perfectly rewind the solar systems history and tell us what happened.
@@WikiNieWikiYes but if I remember correctly, while the sun liquidities some of the surface of Mercury, the side facing away is cold enough to consolidate the rock back on the surface, meaning no mass is ever loss.
@@Kidgermodsout Yeah I do remember hearing something to that effect. I don't think Mercury is being burned off into space if that's what Wiki is saying never heard anyone make that claim.
This change subjects real quickly XD First we're talking about insides of a planet, the next thing you know that he's explaining what would happen if earth is the same size a Jupiter XD Cool vid tho! It's interesting :)
A lot of it is still theoretical, we don’t actually know exactly what Jupiter’s core is made of. But there’s some theories that it is made of metallic hydrogen. I’m wondering how they’re so confident that half of these objects have iron cores. I would’ve liked for the people making this video to specify how we know these things and talk more about this topic generally before confidently describing the contents of each object
Always interesting to see Jupiter's composition get discussed. I wonder when we'll advance beyond the notion that the planet is 90% hydrogen (the lightest element in the universe) and 10% helium (the next lightest) and yet it self accreted these elements into a planet that is 2.5 times the mass of all the other planets combined. It's a lazy answer. In a gravity well, matter is stratified by its density which is why you have light atmospheric gasses on top (radially speaking) and dense metals at the bottom (core.) On earth, hydrogen readily escapes off into outer space. In fact all the 4 inner 'terrestrial' planets have weak atmospheres, slow rotations and low mass compared to the outer 4 'gas giants' They're gas giants because they have a very large core that is able to grab and hang onto and even compress gasses. Hydrogen does not escape from jupiter. Its well is very deep.
Drilling video he says Jupiter’s core reaches 50,000c in temp but second video with the Great Red Spot says the core is upto 28,000c? I like these type of videos and the animations really make things look great but fact checking and consistency is very important.
About mars they do think mars recently they think its still has a living core of molten metal like our own as mars has earth quakes or just quakes they think are lava plumes under the surface scishow did a episode on it.
Just because we never see the dark side of the Moon doesn't mean it's always dark. Why is the crust so much thicker? Edit: I think I get it now. It's the gravity of Earth pulling the dense center of the Moon with more force then the lighter outer crust. May have settled this way while the moon was still molten
higher gravity won’t fundamentally impede flying, as athmosphere will indeed become denser, which in some sense will make it even easier to fly. we’ll just have to evolve not just physically, but also technologically and develop different sorts of planes that will rely on these changed conditions. also, birds will much more rely on floating and will have to grow much bigger and stronger, with huge wide wings which will allow them to float on in the air, like huge living kites, using ascending and descending currents.
The thickness of the moons crust is because of the way it formed, and there's no way of knowing how thick it is on either side, it's all just conjecture. The moons molten core would be very small, if it exists at all. A large meteor strike will cause the moon to ring like a bell, giving the impression that it is either a solid ball of iron ( actually an alloy), or that it is hollow (there's the belief by some that it's not even a natural object, but a very large ship...maybe like the Deathstar?). I guess anything is possible, no matter how unlikely!
Maybe we humans on surface Earth are the offspring of astronauts sent from inside to figure out how to free those inside. It seems living inside a planet would be much safer. And similar to us now trying to figure out how to branch out further into space.
sorry but your info about mars is incorrect it does in fact have a molten mantel and magma as well as quakes a magnitude 5 was recorded by one of the landers on its surface not that long ago
Why no talk about Venus or Uranus cores? Additionally I thought this video was about planet cores, how come it went on talking about Jupiter storm and other stuff?
I wonder if anyone who is into Astral Projection has tried going into the cores of these different planets. I wonder what they saw? (Whether or not you believe Astral Projection is "Real," there are real experiences from them, the same as Dreams. So people can try this, and report on their observations. That doesn't mean it will match physical reality.)
in order for us to survive 5x gravity we would have to gradually be exposed to higher and higher pressure from what we are now so our bodies could slowly adopt to the changes over time but if you just jump from 1G to 5G environment.
It would have to be easier to terraform venus, which already has a thick atmosphere than it would be to try to create and hold an atmosphere on mars which lacks the gravity to hold onto a robust atmosphere. The difference would be that we would not go to venus first and THEN terraform it, we'd have to introduce elements to the system that would bring the atmosphere and conditions present to be more in line with that of the earth. Likely by introducing extremophiles who injest something on venus we dont need or want and excrete something we do need or want. It wont be a fast process
NASA said that the Jupiter’s red eye could actually disappear in the next 20 years and they are not sure why I guess we’ll find out when the time comes I guess
I love carl sagan, but hollow moon? Give me a break, that would fundamentally go against how a gravity well (which is what any celestial body is) works. Densest material at the core and lightest elemental gasses at the top.
A video that starts and goes nowhere....like they had three four different of these and they merged them without reason. And most important....where are Venus and Uranus? You know, the 2nd and 7th planet of the solar system....
Don't you need a conductive core to have magnetic fields? So is Jupiters core a liquid conductive substance since using the JWST shows Jupiter having a magnetic field? Just admit it if you don't know or what we have is theory on Jupiters core. As far as prerequisites go. - Interior of conductive material (usually molten rock/metal) - Convection of the conductive fluids through rotation. - Rapid rotation.
I’m honestly confused about the non-inclusion / randomness of these celestial bodies: 1. Venus? 2. Uranus? 3. Ee-oh is pronounced “eye-oh” I think… 4. Titan? I mean, if you’re looking at Europa and Io… 5. Enceladus? 6. Pluto? Might as well. I meant as far as digging into the core…
Exactly! I wondered if I had missed Venus, it makes no sense not to include it, we even have PICTURES of Venus' surface from landers! Also, Jupiter was revisited multiple times, which was weird and confusing.
these infographic channels tend to gloss over a lot of the details, I won't try to explain it myself coz I'm no scientist but channels like PBS Spacetime, Astrum, and Anton Petrov have a few videos that go into more detail about atomic emmission spectra and mathmatical simulations of these planets that predict what these planets are really like (along with data from probes that we've sent to these planets to study them).
The thickness of Luna's crust does not depend on whether the Sun shines upon it. It depends on location. Specifically, the crust on the side near Earth appears to be thinner than the crust far from Earth.
This is surprising to me. Any theories as to why? You'd think gravity on the side facing may cause some kind of.. bulge. You'd think the centers of mass would be nearest the systems gravitational center 🤔
I think you're a little confused. It's called the "dark side" not because the Sun never shines on it, but because it always faces away from us on Earth. Hence humans on Earth have never seen it, hence "dark side". Also when rockets or satellites orbit over that side, they can't communicate via radio with Earth, hence their radio "goes dark". Still, it _is_ rather confusingly labelled.
@@DavidStruveDesigns While calling the far side dark is still inaccurate, it is not what I am complaining about this time. What I am complaining about is that he called the near side sunny.
@@frantisekvrana3902 Yeah I re-watched it cos I didn't quite catch it the first time, and you're correct - he did. And yeah, that's incorrect as you pointed out. So my bad, I misheard him not you. Apologies :)
