• billwashere
      link
      English
      426 days ago

      This is awesome and 🤯 at the same time.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2727 days ago

    Right because it goes round so fast. I feel like this is somehow misleading tho, to be real

    • @blackbelt352
      link
      English
      3427 days ago

      Sort of, basically because mercury has the small orbit it spends the most time closer on average to any other planet. The CGP Grey video someone else posted is a really good explanation as to what’s going on.

    • @lunarul
      link
      English
      1127 days ago

      I don’t think it’s misleading. I think a lot of people who think of Mars as the closest don’t realize that it’s only close once every 2 years or so and unimaginably far away on average (further than Mercury).

  • @expatriado
    link
    English
    1627 days ago

    when it is the furthest from earth, it is the least further

    • @prime_number_314159
      link
      English
      3227 days ago

      If you take the sun out of the equation, the planets fly apart in all directions. Hope that helps ;)

        • @Kethal
          link
          English
          13
          edit-2
          27 days ago

          By the reasoning given for why Mercury is the closest for each planet, the Sun is the closest object for each planet, on average, excluding satellites of the planets.

          • @mecfs
            link
            English
            127 days ago

            I would agree but unsure because there are the intricacies of orbit cycles and timings and the 3d plane of space

            • rockerface 🇺🇦
              link
              fedilink
              English
              427 days ago

              I mean, the Solar System isn’t all that 3D. Inside of the Oort Cloud, almost every notable object is on or close to the ecliptic

        • @NJSpradlin
          link
          English
          1
          edit-2
          27 days ago

          I am not a scientist, or mathematician, or STEM in any way, but if we assume that mercury has a circular orbit, and the sun has a stationary position within everyone’s orbit… and that every planet has a circular orbit, instead of elliptical, then we can assume… that the sun and mercury (edit: or ANY planet) are equal, since mercury is half of the time further and half of the time closer.

          I hope that helps. I know the first rule of the internet is that stating something wrong will immediately result in being corrected by a SME, so either way my comment will get you* the correct answer.

          Edit: this reasoning would only apply to planets that have circular orbits and are on the same plane.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            6
            edit-2
            27 days ago

            Thanks for the attempt but your calculation is wrong, as it considers distance only on a one axis and not a two axis plane. With your circle assumption, mercury would be further than the sun on average.

            I wonder if anyone has the data without the circle assumption, and also correcting for the various other complexities.

            • @NJSpradlin
              link
              English
              227 days ago

              Thanks, you fell into the trap. But, how would Mercury be further on average if we assumed circular orbits and the planets were on the same plane?

              • @mecfs
                link
                English
                827 days ago

                hope my shitty drawing helps

                (replying from my alt)

                • @NJSpradlin
                  link
                  English
                  4
                  edit-2
                  27 days ago

                  Your bar napkin math has convinced me.

                  Edit: original commenter, here is your answer.

      • @eyeon
        link
        English
        227 days ago

        I don’t think that would help, I quite like our relative location.