Greetings from Brazil! To those of you interested, read the Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson, besides being a very interesting story (covering many political futurist aspects), it's also really scientifically accurate, and teaches you a lot about Mars' geology and potential hurdles to life development. Just beware, it's quite descriptive sometimes, but totally worth it if you're interested in science and futurism.
I have to ask. Apart from scientific expeditions, if humans ever colonize other planets, shouldn't we first find a way to manipulate gravity? And I mean in a sci-fi way (as we see it in movies with floors that generate gravity or something similar). Will our bodies function well and stay healthy in planets with less or more gravity that Earth's?
It's a very good question! We are very familiar with the effects that weightlessness have on the human body, some of which are very serious. In terms of a place like Mars, where the gravity is a significant fraction of Earth's but a bit less, we don't know as well what would happen. It would take some studying, and I'm not sure how practical it would be to build massive structures that simulate Earth's gravity. Time will tell!
Mars has a day-night cycle about a half hour longer than an Earth day. With atmospheric pressures of a centibar, and no magnetic field, we'll have to live inside pressurized habitats and wear spacesuits when outside if we want to live on Mars!
Dave do you know the reasons why Mars had massive oceans on it, a working atmosphere and a magnetic field and then lost all three? in your video explaining the creation of the solar system, you didnt go into any detail about the migration of the planets during their evolution. this would've given your subscribers an insight into how Mars lost its place in the limelight and we (Earth) took its place.
Curious. How is the peak on Mars measured? is it the distance from the center? Or is it the distance from the average surface elevation? Does the fact that Mars doesn't have any oceans and we arbitrarily measure elevation from sea level mean that Olympus Mons is kind of "cheating?" If we drain the ocean and measured elevation from the bottom of the Mariana's trench, that would make Everest peak elevation at 12 miles (19 km).
At one point, they defined it as the sphere of equal atmospheric pressure equal to 610 Pascals, the triple point of water. At higher elevations (i.e. lower pressures), it would be impossible for water to exist in liquid form, and below which, there is a very narrow temperature window for liquid water to exist. So it is where there could be an ocean, if it A) had the water, and B) maintained that narrow temperature window. The modern definition of Matian "sea level" is based on an equipotential surface whose average value at the equator is equal to the average equatorial radius of the planet. Equipotential means that the gravitational plus rotational energy per unit mass, is the same across that surface. It is a surface where the planet shape would settle, if it were in liquid form.
I think a more useful definition would be distance from the center. That would take into account the fact that they're technically is no "sea level" on Mars, and it would also take into account the planet's mass and shape. By that definition, not Everest isn't the highest peak on the planet. It's somewhere in South America on the Andean range (I forget exactly where). That's because the Earth is "fatter" on the bottom making the distance there further from the center as opposed to measuring from sea level (which I think is an arbitrary measure).
@@AfricanElements Sea level or an equipotential datum, still is a useful way to define the zero point, because it shows how high above the hydrostatic equilibrium shape of the planet, that the mountain is able to grow. It shows how strong the mountain material and formative geological forces are, at withstanding the forces of nature that otherwise form the planet into the oblate sphereoid shape. It's true that Mt Chimborazo in Ecuador is the point farthest from the Earth's center, but it achieves its extreme because it has an assist from the rotation of the Earth. Everest by contrast, has a greater structural burden on its bedrock to achieve its height, and therefore indicates significantly greater geological forces that had to form it in the first place.
I have a doubt, why is there almost no greenhouse effect on marse if the atmosphere is 95% carbon dioxide. Does it have something to do with the fact that mars's atmosphere is only 1% as dense as earth's? 2:40
@@ProfessorDaveExplains If Mars' atmosphere had the same composition, but instead had a 100 kPa instead of a 1kPa atmosphere, how much hotter could it get?
MArs probably lost most of its atmosphere as part of the fallout from the formation of our moon or just getting hit far too often from the asteroid belt.
Greetings from Brazil! To those of you interested, read the Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson, besides being a very interesting story (covering many political futurist aspects), it's also really scientifically accurate, and teaches you a lot about Mars' geology and potential hurdles to life development. Just beware, it's quite descriptive sometimes, but totally worth it if you're interested in science and futurism.
I have to ask. Apart from scientific expeditions, if humans ever colonize other planets, shouldn't we first find a way to manipulate gravity? And I mean in a sci-fi way (as we see it in movies with floors that generate gravity or something similar). Will our bodies function well and stay healthy in planets with less or more gravity that Earth's?
It's a very good question! We are very familiar with the effects that weightlessness have on the human body, some of which are very serious. In terms of a place like Mars, where the gravity is a significant fraction of Earth's but a bit less, we don't know as well what would happen. It would take some studying, and I'm not sure how practical it would be to build massive structures that simulate Earth's gravity. Time will tell!
@@ProfessorDaveExplains thank you very much
What you can do to help with Zero G in orbit is to build a ship with a spinning ring on it that creates centrifugal force which can simulate gravity
Dave please do some more videos on space time
I just watched your debate with ken hovind.You are brilliant!
Did Kent Hovind ever define the word kind?
Mars has a day-night cycle about a half hour longer than an Earth day. With atmospheric pressures of a centibar, and no magnetic field, we'll have to live inside pressurized habitats and wear spacesuits when outside if we want to live on Mars!
In my head, Professor Dave has a closet like a cartoon character, the same shirt 30 times 😂
Love the series, thanks, Prof!
Grettins since Mexico.. I like so much yours videos are very interesting. Now I'm start to learn Italian.. Ciao and buona notte
Dave do you know the reasons why Mars had massive oceans on it, a working atmosphere and a magnetic field and then lost all three? in your video explaining the creation of the solar system, you didnt go into any detail about the migration of the planets during their evolution. this would've given your subscribers an insight into how Mars lost its place in the limelight and we (Earth) took its place.
Plz do any video in future about light pollution plz.
Hello Professor Dave, I love your videos
There's no dragon on Mars. It's perfectly save to colonize. If you do, you'd better also bring a whole bunch of red robes for no real reason.
I've never been great with science but I really appreciate your approach.
Curious. How is the peak on Mars measured? is it the distance from the center? Or is it the distance from the average surface elevation? Does the fact that Mars doesn't have any oceans and we arbitrarily measure elevation from sea level mean that Olympus Mons is kind of "cheating?" If we drain the ocean and measured elevation from the bottom of the Mariana's trench, that would make Everest peak elevation at 12 miles (19 km).
At one point, they defined it as the sphere of equal atmospheric pressure equal to 610 Pascals, the triple point of water. At higher elevations (i.e. lower pressures), it would be impossible for water to exist in liquid form, and below which, there is a very narrow temperature window for liquid water to exist. So it is where there could be an ocean, if it A) had the water, and B) maintained that narrow temperature window.
The modern definition of Matian "sea level" is based on an equipotential surface whose average value at the equator is equal to the average equatorial radius of the planet. Equipotential means that the gravitational plus rotational energy per unit mass, is the same across that surface. It is a surface where the planet shape would settle, if it were in liquid form.
I think a more useful definition would be distance from the center. That would take into account the fact that they're technically is no "sea level" on Mars, and it would also take into account the planet's mass and shape. By that definition, not Everest isn't the highest peak on the planet. It's somewhere in South America on the Andean range (I forget exactly where). That's because the Earth is "fatter" on the bottom making the distance there further from the center as opposed to measuring from sea level (which I think is an arbitrary measure).
@@AfricanElements Sea level or an equipotential datum, still is a useful way to define the zero point, because it shows how high above the hydrostatic equilibrium shape of the planet, that the mountain is able to grow. It shows how strong the mountain material and formative geological forces are, at withstanding the forces of nature that otherwise form the planet into the oblate sphereoid shape.
It's true that Mt Chimborazo in Ecuador is the point farthest from the Earth's center, but it achieves its extreme because it has an assist from the rotation of the Earth. Everest by contrast, has a greater structural burden on its bedrock to achieve its height, and therefore indicates significantly greater geological forces that had to form it in the first place.
Professor i get so anxious be quick maximum within 2 days lets see about Jupiter
that's coming next week, bud. i have a very specific release schedule.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains
Ok ,sorry
Post it. Post it now. 😂
Let's go to mars 😂
@Laviath yeah its soon
@Laviath wtf are you talkjng about
2:03 This is true but I think it would be nice to mention that at Mercurys transfer window to earth it’s the closest planet
Love you professor Dave ❤️💜
I have a doubt, why is there almost no greenhouse effect on marse if the atmosphere is 95% carbon dioxide. Does it have something to do with the fact that mars's atmosphere is only 1% as dense as earth's?
2:40
Yes. It’s extremely thin.
I love these
4:36 this is definitely to scale right?
Doesn’t CO2 cause greenhouse effect??
indeed it does, but on Mars that would be beneficial, because it's too cold.
Professor Dave Explains 2:34 inspite of high conc of co2?
well yes the atmosphere is mostly CO2, but it's also less than 1% as thick as earth's.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains If Mars' atmosphere had the same composition, but instead had a 100 kPa instead of a 1kPa atmosphere, how much hotter could it get?
MArs probably lost most of its atmosphere as part of the fallout from the formation of our moon or just getting hit far too often from the asteroid belt.
Seriously?.... Not even an obscure reference to the Total Recall movie? I would have suggested something from The Expanse as well.....
what if we smashed Mars with an artifical comet filled with water and microscopic organisms like tardigrades?
Mars is purple and orange
I love your intro is cute👍👍
Mars has 95 percent carbon dioxide which is a greenhouse gas and ur saying theres no green house effect on mars please explain
The atmosphere is around 1% the density of Earth's.
S
No
Corn
Dave because I am only human mars remember me always because I was wrong sometimes so I am sorry Jesus thank you amen 🙏🍎🤍🩷🍓