• casmael@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    3 months ago

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

    • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      3 months 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 months 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).

        • Kethal@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months 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@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

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

            • rockerface 🇺🇦@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              3 months 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months 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.

          • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months 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@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months 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?