The Planets Are Weirdly In Sync



The first 1000 people to use this link will get a free trial of Skillshare Premium Membership: https://skl.sh/stevemould02211

You can also discuss this video on REDDIT: https://stvmld.com/m4fnhvcw

Orbital Resonance
Incredibly, three of the four largest moons of Jupiter (Ganymede, Europa and Io) have orbital periods that are whole number ratios with each other (1:2:4). The big gap in Saturn’s rings is caused by a moon much further out that has an orbital period double that of the gap! We’ve even found exoplanet systems with these patterns. They’re all the result of orbital resonance. This video explains how that mechanism works.

CORRECTION: In the video I say that Ganymede, Europa and Io are the largest moons are jupiter. Actually here are the 4 largest moons from largest to smallest:

Ganymede
Callisto
Io
Europa

Here’s my video on resonance:

Here’s my video about bad maths:

This is Dr Becky Smethurst’s channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYNbYGl89UUowy8oXkipC-Q

This is Beardyman’s channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/beardyman

This is Jay Foreman’s channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/jayforeman51

This is the Veritasium video mentioned at the start:

Here’s the paper I found that explains orbital resonance:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1976ARA%26A..14..215P

Image credits:
Picture of Dwayne Johnson – Aarón Sánchez

You can buy my books here:
https://stevemould.com/books

You can support me on Patreon here:
https://www.patreon.com/stevemould

just like these amazing people:

GMatthew Cocke
Glenn Watson
Joseph Rocca
Joël van der Loo
Doug Peterson
Rashid Al M
Paul Warelis
Will Ackerly
Heather Liu
Alnitak
Twitter: http://twitter.com/moulds
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/stevemouldscience/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/stevemouldscience/
Buy nerdy maths things: http://mathsgear.co.uk

source

34 Comments

  1. You can also discuss this video on REDDIT: https://stvmld.com/7enfg47s

    I say "in other words" about 300 times in this video. But what's the alternative?!

    CORRECTION: In the video I say that Ganymede, Europa and Io are the largest moons are jupiter. Actually here are the 4 largest moons from largest to smallest:

    Ganymede

    Callisto

    Io

    Europa

  2. I have also noticed a resonance that when someone is in their 20s they are curious, active, adventurous, while when they enter their 30s all they think about is sex

  3. My brain: "How can this video get any better?"

    This video: enter Beardy Man

    Shall never forget seeing him live and loving every second, but I'm not gonna lie – I had to double take to recognise that Steve couldn't make those sounds – even though you do look similar haha.

    Thanks for breaking down the knowledge as always Steve and send my regards to Beardy Man and family!

  4. There is something here that doesn't make sense, on its own terms.

    If we look at the vectors of force shown at 9:40 , we are correctly shown that the gravitational force is smaller when it is slowing the outer moon, and greater when it is accelerating it. That is to say, the force is less when the inner moon approaches, and more when it overtakes.

    This makes inherent sense, because gravity diminishes proportional to the square of distance. Clearly, just looking at the distances of the moons, the force must be significantly more as it recedes.

    So, the vectors we are shown at 9:40 are wrong, because the force is not directly proportional to the distance, but rather proportional to the distance squared, but even so the general idea is correct. Gravity, a force of attraction, must be less on the approach and more on the departure. As Steve notes, this means there is more force speeding it up, than slowing it down, with each cycle.

    But there's the big problem. By the time we get to 11:00 , we are now suggesting the opposite. Now the outer moon is speeding up on the approach of the inner moon, and slowing down as it recedes. This is why, Steve tells us, the system equilibrates into a resonance orbit.

    It cannot be both. Either the claims at 9:40 are correct, and the force is greater when the masses are more proximate to each other (i.e gravity), or else 11:00 is correct, and it works the opposite way.

    If the claims at 9:40 are correct, the result must be that the outer moon is relentlessly accelerated, presumably until the reverse relationship is reached. Then it will slow down until it reaches equilibrium. Then, if there is any further disturbance to the orbit, it will do the same thing. That is to say, if the outer moon slows down, it will enter a negative feedback loop, and will become slower and slower, until it flips it's orientation on the ellipse. If the outer moon speeds up, for whatever reason, it will enter a positive feedback loop, and will accelerate until it reaches the opposite orientation on the ellipse.

    This cannot be "explained" with reference to angular momentum, because we know the force of gravity is much stronger with a shorter distance between masses. So, the analyses at 9:40 is roughly correct, albeit presented as linear and not geometric. The later analyses actually asks us to imagine that, despite being closer together, the moons exert less force of gravity. It's contrary to everything we know about gravity.

    Curiously, the reasoning and mechanism presented here would work if the force being discussed were opposite, for example if both objects had the same electric charge, and repelled each other, instead of attracting each other.

    I'm not saying celestial bodies have negative charge.

    Other people say that, not me.

    EDIT: Regarding the angular momentum:

    We know from the analysis of force at 9:40 that the speed around the orbit increases. If angular momentum is preserved, this means the orbital radius will decrease.

    Steve observes that the inner moon imparts "angular momentum" to the outer moon, and then posits that this means a reduction in speed and a very small increase of orbit radius.

    Leaving to one side how he makes this leap of which variables change and why, let's just look at the result he claims. He claims that, despite one mass being closer to another, the net force is repulsive. This is the opposite of gravity.

    To be clear, he claims that the orbit of the outer moon increases due to the proximity of the inner moon. How? How can a mass on one side of a thing cause it to move in the other direction, increasing its orbital distance?

    Then there is the orbital speed, addressed above. We are being told that when the two masses are closest to each other, moving in the same general direction, the net result is to slow the following mass, not accelerate it.

    This is contrary to the way attractive forces are supposed to work.

  5. 2;36 YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THAT THE REASON THE SPACE IS THERE IN THE RINGS OF SATURN IS BECAUSE OF A ROCK; FAR AWAY, NOT PHYSICALLY IN THE PATH?! WHEW!

  6. WEIRLDLY WAS THE CLICK BAIT WORD, IF ITWAS CLICK BAIT, WHICH IT WASN'T, BUT GOOD INTERESTING SOLID SCIENCE, SCIENCE AND NOTHING BUT SCIENCE, SO HELP ME G-D {i had to. :>)} But the word, WEIRDLY;YAH, that's what drew me…on with the video.

  7. What if aliens, if & when they visit us, try to interact with us (linguistically) and fail miserably as our linguistic constructs may differ indescribably, but in the meantime discover that our auditory senses are better developed to recognise patterns and we end up interacting with each other (initially) solely based on sound and when we ask them where they’re from, they’d play the Trappist-1 chord structure and repeat a particular note to signify the planet they’re from?

  8. Astronomers have forgotten that the solar system was designed (yes, designed) to be viewed from where human beings live: Earth.

    Why do the orbital periods of the planets come out in simple ratios *when viewed from Earth*?

    What natural law explains that phenomena? And if there are no natural laws that explain it, what are the implications of that?

    John P. Pratt is somebody who explored these ideas, for those who are interested.

  9. Nice job. thanks. At 21:09 when the pitches are removed high to low, shouldn't the planets disappear in the opposite order, e.g. highest or fastest number of cycles to lower number of cycles? Highest frequency correlates to most orbits in a period. Just asking.

  10. If orbits naturally sync on a smaller scale (moons around a planet), and we have observed this synchronized in other star systems (with 5 planets being in some kind of sync with each other), do you think it would be possible for our own solar system to eventually reach synchronization?

  11. Very good explanation. But I would like to make some questions. This mechanism would work in moons ORBITING in elliptical orbits and in the same plane, I guess. Isn't it? But our Moon-Selene's plane is tilted 5 degrees , so how did it get locked in 1:1 resonance? Additionaly, the spin axis tilt would also have some influence on the locking mechanism, and Moon's tilt is 1.5 degrees whiles ours is 23.5. How would that affect it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *