There seems to be some confusion about how there are some moons that orbit their planets retrograde. These are moons that are captured objects, objects whichs did not form alongside the planet. These are known as irregular moons, different from the regular moons which formed with the planet and thus orbit along its plane.
And Pluto's very different orbit (likely due to similar gravitational interactions with Saturn or Jupiter) was very much a part of why it was "voted off of Planet Island". EDIT: snate56 has corrected me, that it was voted off for it's size. So... I guess size does matter... EDIT #2: and Emilia Little has informed me that it simply hasn't cleared it's orbit. Let's see if IAU changes it's mind again in the next 10 after debating the value of using a word adopted from astrology: "planet."
All the 'planets' and 'moon' and all other luminous objects in the 'universe' rotate the same direction because they are floating in the liquid hydrogen layer approximately 120 miles above 'Earth'. These luminous objects are rotating around the 'North Pole'; 'Earth is in the center of the 'universe'. The 'stars' are simply crystalline minerals similar to diamonds that emit light when are electromagnetically charged. The 'planets' are artificial satellites as is the 'moon', all of which resist the flow of the liquid hydrogen. Sunlight is the effect caused by the interaction between the electromagnetic force field located about 250 miles above 'Earth'; there is an artificial satellite composed of superconducting material that creates a plasma field when interacting with the electromagnetic force field, which encloses 'earth'. 'Earth' ('existence' / 'reality') is created from electromagnetic energy and consciousness; each 'atom' that composes 'matter' is simply a force field; objects appear solid because one force field resists another. Bonus answer: the sky is blue because it is composed of liquid helium that is a fluorescent gas, as is argon, neon and xenon that each emit colors that create the sunrise and sunset. Our 'World' is simply an artificially created bio-habitat for biologically engineered organisms; we are in a 'zoo'.
@Darth Quantum Yeah I guess "your room" is more of a CLOSED SYSTEM than a proto solar system, just like the 2nd law of thermodynamics postulates. But if there were forces that "swirled" into your room with enormous power over enormous amounts of time, you "stuff" would take on a regular form (like your clothes in the dryer does) :)
This very question long bounced about in the back of my mind quite often. But usually at times when researching was not convenient. And then it would slip away. Thanks for this. 🌠The more you know…
is that the best fictional backstory you can come up with. Jesus Christ what else Haas long bounced around up there. researching is not convenient. lol. is that cos someone in the family using the laptop again. guess we'll have to wait till a more convenient time.
@@metalwellington Jesus christ, this guy. Examples of when researching is not convenient: Driving, stuck in traffic, trying to fall asleep, whilst in work, whilst shopping, whilst changing the babies nappy, whilst cycling, whilst painting or other DIY, whilst gardening, whist waiting in a game lobby, whilst playing said game or waiting for it to load... Etc etc. Edit: yes, and of course, when somebody else is using the laptop or computer.
After re-watching How the Universe Works so many times I began to feel a void for interesting space videos with awesome animation. That void has been filled by your channel. Thank you!
Great video but missed a lot of things: Venus actually spins opposite from all other planets in our solar system. Also, vast majority of star systems observed are NOT on a single plane. We still don't know why/how planar orbital systems like ours happen, but we know they are more unique/rare.
"Yea, yea, I got this one. The gas that forms the planets was all going around the same way, so obviously the planets will too." Watches video. "Oh, you explain WHY the gas was all going around the same way. Damn you are good!"
While I didn't expect to learn too much from this video, I gotta say a couple of the visualisations were quite impressive. They will definitely make an explanation easier next time I'm asked a similar question, TYVM!
I have watched this at least 300 times. Amazing animations and commentary. Thank you so much for creating this video. It must have taken a lot of time to create it
Maybe Pluto has a 0° orbit and the rest of the planets have a 17° inclination. See Pluto? Even if you're not a planet, your glass can still be half full! 🤗
It's nice to think how similar this is to the "spontaneous" synchronization of metronomes ticking on a sliding surface. Conservation of momentum seems to create order in a lot of places we expected to see chaos.
Thank you, Alex. This update brightened up my day. In this bleak time, it's nice to be reminded that order could emerge from chaos. Long after we're gone, the cloud and dust from the remnants of solar system might be recycled in this way to form a new generation of stars. Our existence, including our crisis, is nothing but a petty blip in the vastness of the universe. Yes the knowledge gives me existensial crisis, but it's also awe inspiring. I hope you and your little family is well and healthy. Take care.
Fun fact. In contemporary functional linguistics theories, human languages are also seen as emerging complex systems, with frequency of use playing a role analogous to that of gravity (frequent patterns attract more members, as in wept > weeped) up to a threshold. It is a highly quantitative, probabilistic view of language, and has great explanatory power =)
Average actually is more misleading. The total momentum of the "system" (rings, moons or orbiting planets) is the SUM of the momentum of each individual sattellite. Average would imply that after summing the momentum of the parts, you would divide by the total number of objects to get total momentum which is not correct. " Cancelation" implies that objects with negative momentum (orbiting the opposite direction) will simply be subtracted from the total momentum of the system, canceling out some momentum of other particles moving on the positive direction. An average would be the correct way to estimate the "total" velocity of the system, not momentum.
When you showed us Saturn with its rings it made me wonder if any observations/readings were made to see if the rings are loosing matter or getting "thinner" with time.
the Rings may just get thinner and eventually turn into moons. This might be the reason for Saturn now having more number of moons than Jupiter. It can have even more moons after every ring turns into moon!
@@MotesTV Nope. That is actual cloud formation and scientists aren't sure why it is there. The thermodynamics of the outer planets aee only just now starting to be understood.
I ended up asking myself if one day the universe will even itself entirely. No stars, only black holes. No asteroids, comets or dust, only planets and moons.
"Its almost beautiful how in nature, you can have something so chaotic that will eventually form something rather calm and orderly" Litterally my class from 5th Grade to 9th Grade
Brian Cooley what’s your proof of his existence, millions of hours of research have gone into these hypotheses and they’re still not confident they are the truth. Why is one book which is thousands of years old definite proof of gods existence if this isn’t proof of science-based creation.
Thank you, Astrum! I have always wondered about this. And always, I’ve never gotten around to researching it. Thank you for explaining with visual aids, as well. You’re awesome!
As a thumb rule, objects with lower mass always rotates around objects with heavier mass, like moons rotate around planets, planets rotates around star, stars rotate around black hole at the center of galaxy. When something rotates "time" is created. Just an idea.
So the sayings, "go along to get along." And, "If you can't beat em, join em." Has a much larger meaning, and applicable to much more than our social lives? 😁👍 Nice. The logic of those 2 sayings is pretty heavy, now.
if processes take so long and distances are so vast why are our lives so short? because the universe wasn’t built for us, we aren’t special, the universe will continue with or without us
I must admit, I really thought that the Coriolis force would have a bigger effect. After all, the gas cloud would be in orbit around the center of the galaxy and, as it began to collapse, the outer parts, which would be moving faster, would "miss" then center and head to the leading part of the cloud in the galactic orbit. The inner part, moving slower, would head to the trailing part of the cloud. Much like what happens to a cyclone.
@@buildingsheriff The orbital motion of Venus and Uranus around the sun is the same as for the other planets. The difference is, that Venus's axial rotation is upside down and Uranus's is turned by 90°
There are some Kuiper Belt objects orbiting perpendicular to the major planet's plane. Planet Nine, if it exists, orbits in a different plane too. I think there is still some mystery about why most planets orbit most stars in a common plane. There may be A LOT of planets in the universe that orbit stars in many different planets. We just aren't looking for them yet because of lack of technological tools. There are valid simulations of star formations that create many different planes of orbits around stars.
Question: Which direction the sun orbits the center of the galaxy? Does the sun moves equator on or polar on? I mean can the planets be ahead of the sun in its orbits around the galaxy?
The planets orbits around the sun (which in turn, rotates along with our galaxy). I don't think we should look at space structurally. Meaning all things being always in motion, they can't be an "ahead" nor "backward" At least I believe.
Wowzers! Yet another counter-example against the theory of entropy/inevitable disorder. (Biological life being the most,err 'apparent'!) Mr Astrum,your explanantions and presentations are brilliant. How lucky we are to have you and others amongst us,sharing all this. Shine on you crazy diamonds. Thankyou thankyou thankyou!!!
This question has been bothering me for years and no one I asked has been able to answer it. Thank you so much for posting it, makes so much intuitive sense. Liked the part about self-organizing emergent-systems as well.
At 4:30 I paused: READ this additional info: The law of conservation of angular momentum is the WHOLE story here. All is good in Astrum's explain here, but now the cold dark cloud is collapsing around an AXIS of rotation and all particles with small radius from this axis (the poles N and S as it were) feel very little centrifugal force, so they collapse toward the middle. The particles at large radius experience a large centrifugal force so they tend to stay at their radius and not fall into the star. It's a sine function, so when sin(90) =1, then the centrifugal force is at a maximum, this is 90 degrees to the axis of rotation (the poles). As the cloud of gas falls in its rotational speed goes up, so does the centrifugal force on all particles, but that is a maximum at sin(90), therefore eventually all particles end up in a disc around the central axis of rotation, where the resistance to fall into the star is at a maximum. I will explain "centrifugal" and "centripetal" forces as a matter of reference frame if asked. Cheers.
I was already worried my explanation was getting too complicated in the video, but this comment is great for anyone that wants to delve a little deeper. Thanks!
I've been toying with the notion that spin exerts an outward force against the body attraction of a contiguous mass which nevertheless must spin to ignite stellar fusion. Why spin? Glad you asked, its because the nett balance of forces are summed in the same direction - one is an outward planar gradient of distributed force that generates a voltage drop relative to the inbound force of gravity (according to my line of thinking which was hazy from the beginning). The outward force is still attractive electronically toward the stellar core in sum vector directions of mass and charge and stuff. There's more going on in the mathematical sum of momenta than some stuff rushing together and crushing itself into stellar fusion.
Hey Astrum: 1) when there's only one, it's called 'a phenomenon', not 'a phenomena' (which is plural) 2) when a noun is a plural, use 'fewer' but when it is a substance, use 'less' (eg 'fewer planets' and 'less mass'). Do the above and you'll be slightly more articulate.
Great explanation and watched several times to digest. I have been asking this question since the age of 14, decades ago. It’s something that was always astounded me. Science teachers at school, it seemed, couldn’t even grasp the concept. In particular, our solar system was always shown in 2D so when the question arose “what does it look like in 3D?”; there would always be this answer of “well it looks the same” but could never really get an answer of why. Thank you so much for addressing this.
Deep in the middle of the proto solar system there was a unified SHOWER of particles from rocks to gravel to sand, until all the disparate motions were cancelled. This only occurred within the solar system, not the Kyper belt, where the density of colliding particles is not enough to cancel out-of-plane directions, so the distribution remains spherical, not planar.
Except electrons don’t really orbit the nucleus, they exist as probabilistic distributions in various shapes around the nucleus at certain discrete energy levels.
Thank you sooo much for answering a simple long time child hood question, I really enjoyed the simulation, don't mind all the brainiacs in the comments section, social media makes people think they know everything,
Okay, if material in 3D space converges into what is essentially a 2D plane, does that mean that if you increased spatial dimensions, the result would always (eventually) be a 2D disk?
It seems to be a matter of simple physics...the interaction of planets and objects with other planets and objects in the stars orbit equalizes their motion over time. The gravity between the planets and objects in the system eventually draws them each into the same plane and same direction. This can happen anywhere in nature--as seen in the demonstration by Dan Burns .
I mean, obviously if something spins, stuff has a habit of following the direction of the spin. You could attach beads on string and spin yourself around and the same thing would happen. The answer is literally "it's spinning"
Fascinating...thank you! How does this square with the second law of thermodynamics that says that entropy of a system always increases? It seems to me that the system is actually getting more orderly, hence lower entropy. Silly question I'm sure, but foxed me.
The entropy of the system includes EVERYTHING in the system, and the entropy of all that hydrogen randomly moving and colliding in the sun (98% of the mass of the system) is enormous. Local low entropy elsewhere can't compete with that.
Very interesting video thanks! So, a question out of curiosity why Venus have a rotation different than the other planets? Could it be related with the fact that it doesn't have a moon also?
The way stars are born and planets are born. It's amazing how it just happen to happen by itself. Like something is programming it and just let time and gravity do all the work.
As with everything, I guarantee that there are exceptions to this phenomena... Similar to Uranus's unique orbital axis... We may not have found an example, but it is very likely, even probable, that there are planets that orbit in the opposite direction, or even perpendicular to the orbital planes, of the other planets, within distant solar systems...
Pp Ss It’s a statistical certainty. Extrasolar planetary captures can certainly have irregular orbits, while the orbital mechanics of binary and trinary star systems can create all sorts of funky scenarios. I’ve no idea if we’ve identified any such examples, given the nature of extrasolar planetary observation, but it certainly occurs. This has been common knowledge for decades.
Релёкс84 - It's not just a matter of sounding professional, although being imprecise rarely conveys an air of competence. It's maintaining the ability to convey specific ideas precisely. I suppose it depends on whether you prefer your language to evolve and refine or degenerate into a blunt object.
I always wanted to ask, why would anyone dislike such videos? It's been 44 mins the video is uploaded and already people dislike it. Is it autonomous or are these the anti intellectuals that people talk about?
A question most people have but don't know how to frame it without looking stupid. Thanks for reading great.minds of ours. Keep up with the good work. Stay safe and healthy. From Hker worldwide
Talking about how a large occupied space area can flatten out, I couldn't help but think of deflating a balloon as an example. Although instead of a central pull like gravity, is an outter compression due to elasticity of the balloon; visually speaking, I think kids would get it in a classroom.
I really appreciate your uploads and find them informative. However, on a more critical note, whenever I watch animations, illustrations and simulations it really is a pain in the arse when a. during an explanation about the expansion of the universe galaxies - instead of receding - are coming towards the viewer or b. in the case of rotation from West to East the images are rotating in the opposite direction. It irks me to no end. I hope that you and well-meaning, informed presenters will pay attention to ths aspect of your presentations. Thanking you in anticipation of a suitable outcome.
For all we know this thing we call life is infinite since “energy can never be destroyed”, the it suffices it to say, what god around comes around...bc with time it will come around! I love physics. Now if I just understood it. It’s just to full of paradoxical formulas and laws!
So the planets all orbit the sun in the same direction because over billions and billions of years, anything traveling in the opposite direction had collided with another object, traveling in the other direction? Causing said object to change direction? Excellent visual 👌
That we figured this out within 500 years or so makes me wonder what we will learn in the next. I think humans will probably take themselves out by then, it will cool if we didn't and learned how to time travel.
I did not realize the planets orbited on the same plane until I was an adult. I always assumed it was random and they depicted like that for simplicity’s sake.
So the concluding answer (as I didn’t really hear one) is that in a chaotic space of orbits, the anti-clockwise movement will eventually be universally “preferred”.
It would be cool if they were on different planes though, not just some planets going "backwards" but some plants orbiting "vertically". I guess I'll leave it to my imagination.
@@genghiskahn9233 Also: Scientists believe that on large scales the Universe is isotropic (the same in all directions). Thus, from our perspective, half of all spiral galaxies should spin clockwise, and half counter-clockwise. A recent analysis of the spin of spiral galaxies confirms this. The public classified over 35,000 spiral galaxies with spins both clockwise and counter-clockwise in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey as part of the Galaxy Zoo project. Scientists published the results in a recent paper and found that the Universe is indeed isotropic - we see the same number of clockwise as counter-clockwise spirals (within the uncertainties).
the designer uses laws of physics on a level beyond out current understanding. they still can't explain why gravity happens, only conjecture how it happens! They why is more important!
What fascinating insights I have learnt from this video. I refer to the Comments, of course. I knew I would get a higher class of slanderous academic warfare, and was not let down. Marvellous.
