Astronomy Lecture - the Planets
About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery
Astronomy Lecture - the Planets
Comments
-
I confess that I grinned (even giggled once or twice) each time I heard a Prof. of Astronomy refer to a planet or moon having a molten core as it being "melty".
It amused me as much as several others here. Not in a bad way; I loved the lecture, but that one thing cracked me up!
Also interesting to hear what's changed in the past ten years. Much is still applicable to our solar system, but there's also new stuff, like all the "hot Jupiters" we've found of late. -
Have you published more astronomy lectures somewhere, on another YouTube channel or outside of YouTube? These are great!
-
over a thousand. Most planets discovered outside our solar system are jovian and are not terrestrial. Jupiter sized planets are the most common
-
How many jovian planets are there outside our solar system that we know about?
-
Yes ThreeFangCat pointed this out... (see youtube: numberphile 60). The base units are indeed not important. But besides being decimalized they are also used consistently. So not only inches and miles, but yards, gallons (231inc³), acres (1/640 mi²), or even the paper sizes (letter/legal/ledger) were to be abandoned. What about the smug academics talking down the magnitude of error of semi-educated guesses and pronouncing foreign names the way they want? We all have our weak spots I guess :).
-
I don't think there is much disagreement about the general superiority of the metric system for mathematical ease. I'll just point out two things. One - it has nothing to do with the base units, but rather the way they are subdivided and multiplied. A "meter" is not intrinsically a better unit than a foot. If we abandoned inches and miles for "centifeet" and "kilofeet", the advantage would disappear. Second- even smug Europeans are still stuck with the silly base-60 Babylonian units for time :)
-
Not at all, I do appreciate your remarks about the imperial vs. metric system. I just do not agree with it. In my opinion, I find it a pretty dare understatement to say that one has a general edge over the other (it is much more). I also said, that the only explanation I can come up with for the error is the imperial system, as everything else is so accurate in this lecture. That's not "jumping" to conclusions easily. Dr Dave said he didn't make a conversion error. Ok, fair enough. Best Regards.
-
Yeah, that's a refined definition of a meter. The base values are actually not that important. The System is decimalized and the units are consitently build upon the base (mostly). For example: 1 Newton meter = 1 Watt second = 1 Joule. The areas of mecanics, electricity and thermodynamics in physics are all linked to describe Energy by 1:1. Do you know, that the US is the only industrialized country in the world that has not adopted the metric system? Shouldn't that tell you something?
-
Both thumbs up for adding a annotation so quickly!
-
Yes but just to clarify - I wasn't making a "conversion error", I was making a semi-educated guess based on the fact that I'm an astronomer, not an oceanographer. All trained scientists are more than fluent in the metric system.
-
Yes, due to the conversions, but not just the error, rather the fact that you have to convert at all. For example your result is 3000 feet (which is fair), but how much is it in miles? If my result is in meters, I don't need any conversion to kilometers, right? Btw: I simply multiplied a 100 atm times 10m/atm = 1km, that was my estimate Quote from Eric Mazur: "As far as I know the only justification for the imperial system of measures is that light travels 1 foot per nano second" ;-)
-
(Annotation added at 16:09)
-
I'm happy to make a note of the mis-estimate of the undersea pressure. Although it's not "off- scale" or off by an order of magnitude... maybe a factor of 3 or 4, which for astronomers is par for the course. As for the American-accented pronunciation of Italian astronomer names, I make no excuses. "Sch" is commonly pronounced "SH" in American English.
-
@ 26:23 and @ 29:20 The guy's name is pronounced "Skjaparelli". You make it sound like Charlie Chaplin.
-
@ 15:58 "The weight of the athmosphere of Venus would be like going several miles under the ocean". No Sir, it would not be several miles, but rather half a mile. It strikes me how many times I hear these of-scale wrong guesstimates in US-University Lectures on Youtube. Don't get me wrong, this is an excellent Lecture and the Professor is top notch. So this is even more puzzling. The only explanaition I can come up with for the lack of solid guesstimates is the "Imperial" System.
-
Yes, because the only reason anyone believes in global climate changes is because of a powerpoint by a failed presidential candidate from 3 elections ago. You are making a fool of yourself. Go watch some more videos about psychic alien Nazis or something.
-
You are a zombie, doing the work of Al Gore, another pseudoscientist! Too much fluoride in your drinking water!
-
Wrong - the essence of conspiracy-thinking is that the ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE is itself evidence of a coverup. It is backwards-logic at its finest.
-
If you can't see the conspiracies, then you must be blind, deaf and very stupid!
-
You seem pretty hung up on Al Gore (whom i haven't seen in public for like five years) as opposed to say, every reputable and qualified scientist that actually studies the atmosphere. I didn't answer your question because a) it wasn't a question and b) it was nonsense. Global warming has nothing to do with the Earth's core. And all terrestrial planetary cores are cooling down, not heating up.
0m 0sLenght
599Rating