3 ms·

Prepare to openly and unabashedly hate on me and hit your downvote button: Some post here at some point did some analysis that concluded that Mercury was "the

Prepare to openly and unabashedly hate on me and hit your downvote button: Some post here at some point did some analysis that concluded that Mercury was "the closest" or something for every planet for some analysis or other because Mercury is closest to the Sun. Both Mercury and Venus are closer to the Sun than Earth is and if you study astrology this means Mercury is never more than one sign away from your Sun sign and Venus is never more than two signs away and both very regularly appear to "run backwards" (called retrograde in astrology). Which is where you got those bizarre and complicated geocentric models of the solar system from before someone said "Oh, wait, if you assume the Sun is at the center of this, not the Earth, then it vastly simplifies everything and makes sense a la Occam's Razor/find the simplest explanation." Astrology and astronomy used to both be studied as one subject under the heading astrologia and astrology means "the study of the stars" and astronomy just means "the naming of the stars" presumably because when the two split it was sort of a pointless hobby for people rich enough to own a telescope and if you found a new one, you got to name it. Anyway, the point being, Venus and the Earth are -- shockingly -- both locked in orbit around the Sun, thus the phrase "solar system," and as a wild assed guess from some ignoramous who mostly is interested in astrology, not astronomy, that there is your so-called "tidal locking" mechanism.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
d1sxeyes 3y ago
It's a known fact that the point all bodies in the solar system orbit around is not actually the centre of the sun, but some point close to the sun, known as the barycentre of the solar system[0]. This moves around based on the exact configuration of the planets (where they are in their orbits).[1] By definition, this barycentre can only be considered 'locally'. For example, there is another 'barycentre' for the whole milky way, and presumably for the whole universe. Mercury is the 'closest' to all planets on average over time due to the fact it is closest to the sun (or more accurately, this barycentre), and due to an unintuitive but completely logical consequence of Mercury having a small orbit[2]. The last paragraph of your comment I was not able to properly understand. It is certainly true that the 'solar system' is made up of objects which rotate around the sun. But that's the definition of 'solar system'. Just as the 'milky way' is made up of objects which rotate together... including the solar system. It's just useful for us to have a term for our local corner of the universe. [0]: https://www.skymarvels.com/gallery/Vid%20-%20Solar%20System%20Barycenter.htm https://www.skymarvels.com/gallery/Vid%20-%20Solar%20System%... [1]: Satellites (both natural and artificial) also orbit this point when you map their path over the course of a full orbit of the body they primarily orbit: e.g. the moon orbits the Earth, but over the course of a year, the moon and Earth together orbit the barycentre of the solar system. [2]: This GIF shows it quite logically: https://engaging-data.com/pages/scripts/orbits/mercury-faster.gif https://engaging-data.com/pages/scripts/orbits/mercury-faste...
- DoreenMichele 3y ago
  Thank you. Barycentre is a new concept for me. My point is people have trouble mentally modeling the solar system and seem to do a poor job of distinguishing a geocentric model from a sun-centered model and sometimes sloppily mix the two which goes weird places.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

d1sxeyes 3y ago

It's a known fact that the point all bodies in the solar system orbit around is not actually the centre of the sun, but some point close to the sun, known as the barycentre of the solar system[0]. This moves around based on the exact configuration of the planets (where they are in their orbits).[1] By definition, this barycentre can only be considered 'locally'. For example, there is another 'barycentre' for the whole milky way, and presumably for the whole universe. Mercury is the 'closest' to all planets on average over time due to the fact it is closest to the sun (or more accurately, this barycentre), and due to an unintuitive but completely logical consequence of Mercury having a small orbit[2]. The last paragraph of your comment I was not able to properly understand. It is certainly true that the 'solar system' is made up of objects which rotate around the sun. But that's the definition of 'solar system'. Just as the 'milky way' is made up of objects which rotate together... including the solar system. It's just useful for us to have a term for our local corner of the universe. [0]: https://www.skymarvels.com/gallery/Vid%20-%20Solar%20System%20Barycenter.htm https://www.skymarvels.com/gallery/Vid%20-%20Solar%20System%... [1]: Satellites (both natural and artificial) also orbit this point when you map their path over the course of a full orbit of the body they primarily orbit: e.g. the moon orbits the Earth, but over the course of a year, the moon and Earth together orbit the barycentre of the solar system. [2]: This GIF shows it quite logically: https://engaging-data.com/pages/scripts/orbits/mercury-faster.gif https://engaging-data.com/pages/scripts/orbits/mercury-faste...

DoreenMichele 3y ago
Thank you. Barycentre is a new concept for me. My point is people have trouble mentally modeling the solar system and seem to do a poor job of distinguishing a geocentric model from a sun-centered model and sometimes sloppily mix the two which goes weird places.