Fun fact: as of writing this comment earth currently has TWO moons. An asteroid has recently entered an orbit around earth and is technically a new moon. But it will only be orbiting for the next two ish months.
Yeah but thats a very loose definition of the words moon and orbit. The asteroid's trajectory is simply being modified by earths gravity. To be called a moon I think you should have to complete at least one full orbit around the host object. And this asteroid is not doing that.
ok dumb question, why don't smaller masses clump together? like if you put 2 boulders next to each other they don't ever smoosh/fuse together but if you have large enough rocks in space they will fuse/merge?
I'm no expert but I believe it is because the force of gravity increases with mass so the boulders don't have a strong enough gravity to pull each other together
@kalmtraveler They do but scale matters. Larger objects with greater mass will always have a more obvious pull towards each other but every particle with mass in existence is pulling towards every other particle. Larger objects will always pull smaller stuff harder than the small stuff pulls on each other. The reason pebbles don't fuse is because they're trying to fuse with Earth and the natural processes of erosion are working to break them down. Out in space there is basically no forces to erode anything so things can clump without interference. Most objects in space are just clumped together and not actually fused, once you reach a large enough size the pressure and heat from all that stuff will eventually fuse it all into a bigger rock. The thing with gravity is that it has infinite reach but gets weaker and weaker over distance and weaker and weaker the smaller the thing with mass is.
Smaller masses clump. They just don't "merge together" like larger rocks do because the forces and pressures aren't large enough to break the molecular structure of the rocks and crush them into a unified structure.
I need to point out one glaring error that contradicts a later part of the video. In 2:31: "It's also orbiting its asteroid buddy in the wrong direction ... and that suggests that Selam didn't form alongside Dinkinesh, but that Dinkinesh captured it." The error here is that Selam does not orbit Selam retrograde *with respect to Dinkinesh's rotation.* Selam orbits Dinkinesh in the same direction as its rotation, so Selam is prograde ("in the correct direction") relative to Dinkinesh. However, Dinkinesh rotates retrograde with respect to its orbit around the Sun, therefore Selam also appears to orbit retrograde relative to Dinkinesh's orbit around the Sun (not Dinkinesh's rotation). I shall also mention that it is common for asteroids to rotate retrograde relative to their orbits around the Sun; this is true for Bennu and Didymos for example. Jumping to the conclusion that Dinkinesh captured Selam (i.e. an unrelated asteroid around the Sun into orbit around Dinkinesh) based on this mistake about Selam's orbital direction straight up contradicts the later fact that Selam formed out of material ejected from Dinkinesh. The Nature paper on Lucy's Dinkinesh flyby concludes that Selam most likely formed out of Dinkinesh---a capture origin is out of the question. I have no idea how the SciShow team managed to have this mistake slip by.
Building a planet from scratch might be easier then terraforming s planet such as mars . But seems doing a bit both. Would easiest adding more material to Mars. But that destroy evidence of mars past history
Wouldn't the Trojans make Jupiter not a planet by the same rules they used to demote Pluto? One of the rules is that it has cleared its orbit of other object. this is the rule that they used to justify demoting pluto.
The Trojans are locked in Jupiter's Lagrange points, and not in their own orbits. Due to Jupiter's massive gravity, not due to Jupiter failing to clear them from its orbit. The same is not true for Pluto. Claiming Lagrange point objects mean not a clear orbit, is like claiming a plant's moons do.
I think the whole SciShow channel should start using more B roll and animations to improve their videos visually, there’s a lot of standing and talking, i think adding animations would make your videos A LOT more engaging or maybe just more B Roll
I guess it means "no other bigger planets" as cleared :3 Real world just follows its own rules and some stay out of order. Like technically a language is its own but it can have so many dialects that it seems like other languages. You cant define every in standards :3
Thanks for the brilliant idea, I will make a rock snowman before it snows, and it'll be covered in snow and look like a regular snowman.
Fun fact: as of writing this comment earth currently has TWO moons. An asteroid has recently entered an orbit around earth and is technically a new moon. But it will only be orbiting for the next two ish months.
It hasn’t cleared its orbit and didn’t round itself by gravity, so it’s only a dwarf moon.
Yeah but thats a very loose definition of the words moon and orbit. The asteroid's trajectory is simply being modified by earths gravity. To be called a moon I think you should have to complete at least one full orbit around the host object. And this asteroid is not doing that.
@@elainebenes7971 it’s more fun to consider it a temporary new moon
Fun fact. That's actually earths third moon. Because 3753 Cruithne has been orbiting earth and discovered in 1986.
Great band name: "Space Potatoes".
Yet another great band name: "Ripped Asunder".
I think the late is lyrics to a 1985 song "Running Up That Road" by Kate Bush?🤔🤔
It's two, two, two moons in one!
Very nice and interesting Sci video! Great source of inspiration for us, thanks man
I WAS NOT READY for that opening jingle 😂😂
SciShow should do a blooper reel.
Yeah baby new scishow!!
Arrokoth's Brother?
Seems like it.
This seems to be very common with asteroids/small moons. A lot of roughly dumbbell shaped objects.
5:47
Deck the moons.
Tra-la la-la-la!
Hurry up! It's October.
Dinkinesh is a good name
Listen to Reid singing 😊
That moon has the power of a moon with the power of two moons!
nice
ok dumb question, why don't smaller masses clump together? like if you put 2 boulders next to each other they don't ever smoosh/fuse together but if you have large enough rocks in space they will fuse/merge?
I'm no expert but I believe it is because the force of gravity increases with mass so the boulders don't have a strong enough gravity to pull each other together
@kalmtraveler
They do but scale matters. Larger objects with greater mass will always have a more obvious pull towards each other but every particle with mass in existence is pulling towards every other particle. Larger objects will always pull smaller stuff harder than the small stuff pulls on each other. The reason pebbles don't fuse is because they're trying to fuse with Earth and the natural processes of erosion are working to break them down. Out in space there is basically no forces to erode anything so things can clump without interference. Most objects in space are just clumped together and not actually fused, once you reach a large enough size the pressure and heat from all that stuff will eventually fuse it all into a bigger rock. The thing with gravity is that it has infinite reach but gets weaker and weaker over distance and weaker and weaker the smaller the thing with mass is.
Smaller masses clump. They just don't "merge together" like larger rocks do because the forces and pressures aren't large enough to break the molecular structure of the rocks and crush them into a unified structure.
That's neat, and the pin is cute, though it's silly that it's limited edition. Does that really drive your sales more than regular pins? Hmmm.
Moon moon
Dammit Moon Moon
Nice.
Dude let go
You let go
No you let go
LET GO
YOU LET GO
never been this early! also cool and intresting vid
I need to point out one glaring error that contradicts a later part of the video.
In 2:31: "It's also orbiting its asteroid buddy in the wrong direction ... and that suggests that Selam didn't form alongside Dinkinesh, but that Dinkinesh captured it."
The error here is that Selam does not orbit Selam retrograde *with respect to Dinkinesh's rotation.* Selam orbits Dinkinesh in the same direction as its rotation, so Selam is prograde ("in the correct direction") relative to Dinkinesh. However, Dinkinesh rotates retrograde with respect to its orbit around the Sun, therefore Selam also appears to orbit retrograde relative to Dinkinesh's orbit around the Sun (not Dinkinesh's rotation). I shall also mention that it is common for asteroids to rotate retrograde relative to their orbits around the Sun; this is true for Bennu and Didymos for example.
Jumping to the conclusion that Dinkinesh captured Selam (i.e. an unrelated asteroid around the Sun into orbit around Dinkinesh) based on this mistake about Selam's orbital direction straight up contradicts the later fact that Selam formed out of material ejected from Dinkinesh. The Nature paper on Lucy's Dinkinesh flyby concludes that Selam most likely formed out of Dinkinesh---a capture origin is out of the question. I have no idea how the SciShow team managed to have this mistake slip by.
Why does SciShow let mistakes slip by? Because 100% accuracy is hard.
@@General12th True! I should've worded it differently, I was being too harsh because I was rushing to write this comment out... 😅
They should have named Dinkinesh's small moon Dinky-Moon.
Or Dinkidau 😊
Not Dinki-er?
Anyone else remember the Orcus-Porcus thing? Well, I think Selam’s name is well done, but if it wasn’t called that I would call it Pinkinesh.
Hi Reid!
Moon moon
Cool
Very Cool🌛🧡
Space Balls!
That's no man-moon!
1:00 Trojans and Greeks are at Jupiter's L4 & L5 LaGrange points.
Building a planet from scratch might be easier then terraforming s planet such as mars . But seems doing a bit both. Would easiest adding more material to Mars. But that destroy evidence of mars past history
Where will you get the mass from? Mars outweighs every moon and asteroid out to the Kuiper Belt by at least an order of magnitude.
Wouldn't the Trojans make Jupiter not a planet by the same rules they used to demote Pluto? One of the rules is that it has cleared its orbit of other object. this is the rule that they used to justify demoting pluto.
The Trojans are locked in Jupiter's Lagrange points, and not in their own orbits. Due to Jupiter's massive gravity, not due to Jupiter failing to clear them from its orbit. The same is not true for Pluto. Claiming Lagrange point objects mean not a clear orbit, is like claiming a plant's moons do.
Bro got a tan
You mean Jupiter didnt clear it's orbit?
I think the whole SciShow channel should start using more B roll and animations to improve their videos visually, there’s a lot of standing and talking, i think adding animations would make your videos A LOT more engaging or maybe just more B Roll
Useless!
Was there ANY point in sending that?
This might be a stupid question but if Jupiter didn’t clear it’s orbit how is it considered a planet I.e Pluto (ps don’t kill me)😂😂😂
I guess it means "no other bigger planets" as cleared :3
Real world just follows its own rules and some stay out of order. Like technically a language is its own but it can have so many dialects that it seems like other languages. You cant define every in standards :3
Other comments are saying it's a Lagrange point thing.