Venus may no longer be the closest planet to Earth

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, as to what forum this should belong to.

GIZMODO
Mercury, Not Venus, Is the Closest Planet to Earth

An image of the surface of Mercury.
Image: NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie Institution of Washington (Wikimedia Commons)

A team of scientists just demonstrated something that might shock you: Mercury, not Venus, is the closest planet to Earth on average.

The researchers presented their results this week in an article in the magazine Physics Today. They explain that our methods of calculating which planet is “the closest” oversimplifies the matter. But that’s not all.

“Further, Mercury is the closest neighbor, on average, to each of the other seven planets in the solar system,” they write. Wait—what?

Our misconceptions about how close the planets are to one another comes from the way we usually estimate the distances to other planets. Normally, we calculate the average distance from the planet to the Sun. The Earth’s average distance is 1 astronomical unit (AU), while Venus’ is around 0.72 AU. If you subtract one from the other, you calculate the average distance from Earth to Venus as 0.28 AU, the smallest distance for any pair of planets.

But a trio of researchers realized that this isn’t an accurate way to calculate the distances to planets. After all, Earth spends just as much time on the opposite side of its orbit from Venus, placing it 1.72 AU away. One must instead average the distance between every point along one planet’s orbit and every point along the other planet’s orbit. The researchers ran a simulation based on two assumptions: that the planets’ orbits were approximately circular, and that their orbits weren’t at an angle relative to one another.

It sort of makes sense—if you were getting seats to a football game, you’d prefer one near the 50 yard line rather than one of the end zones in order to see the most action, even if you’d occasionally be much closer to the players from the end zone. That’s sort of what’s going on here.

Indeed, they found that Mercury was the planet closest to the Earth for the most time, on average—and to every other Solar System planet. Pluto’s inclined and eccentric orbit does not work with their assumptions, but it’s not a planet anyway, as defined by the International Astronomical Union.

You can read about the mathematical nitty-gritty at Physics Today(physicstoday.scitation.org...) or watch an explainer of the math on YouTube.

But provided there are no glaring errors in the analysis, I think it’s time we say “bye!” to Venus and welcome our new closest neighbor, the best planet, Mercury. 

From recent discoveries, like that of Earths upper atmosphere extending beyond our moon, to Mercury now being the closest planet to Earth, what is next? The sun is cold to the touch?
What do you think, ATS?


Link to post; and where you can find the data and graphs that back all this up: gizmodo.com...

? closest mean minimal distance. Not minimal Average distance I think ... I believe...

or is it....

orbit fluidity...

a reply to: LtFluffyCakes96



Interesting, but I don’t care about the closest planet. First thing first, the same scientist took away our farthest planet “Pluto” few years ago and I personally want it back in chart.

Then we can discuss the closest.

a reply to: LtFluffyCakes96

physicstoday.scitation.org...

NASA literature even tells us Venus is “our closest planetary neighbor,” which is true if we are talking about which planet has the closest approach to Earth but not if we want to know which planet is closest on average.

Well that's the difference! Do you want to know which has the closest approach, or which is closest on average?

Venus still has the closest approach. NASA is not thinking in terms of sending a probe to Venus through the sun to reach Venus when it's at the opposite side of the sun as Earth, so yes of course they would be thinking in terms of closest approach, which also seems is the thinking of some of the other websites they say are "wrong". And yes of course Venus is a lot further than Mars when it's on the opposite side of the sun so of course that affects the "average" distance.

I don't see any reference to anywhere that NASA calculated the wrong average distances, but they obviously know how to do accurate orbital calculations given the accuracy with which they can put probes on Mars for example.

originally posted by: Qboneq
a reply to: LtFluffyCakes96
Interesting, but I don’t care about the closest planet. First thing first, the same scientist took away our farthest planet “Pluto” few years ago and I personally want it back in chart.

Then we can discuss the closest.

If you give Pluto its planet status back, do you also call Ceres, Eris, Haumea, and Makemake planets? If not, why not? If so, do you also give planet status to probably at least another 100 other objects in that region of the Solar system? The line has to be drawn somewhere or else we have hundreds pf "planets" instead of 8 or 9.

This is just a pun, a play with words - "average distance" being the problem.

Earth is rotating around the sun, everyone knows that.

Lets define "north" = direction from the sun to the center of our galaxy, the milkyway. "South" = 180° outbound, pointing away from Sag A*, the black hole at the center of our galaxy.

Once a year, earth is pointing towards north. Once a year, earth is point towards south. Simplified, everyone!

Okay.

Earth goes around the sun, venus, mars, every other planet, too. And they take different times for a cycle around the sun, too.

Sometimes in its' own cycle, venus is the closest planet to earth. Sometimes it lies beyond the sun, seen from earth. Then, venus is far more distant than mercury, as mercury is very much closer to the sun, but venus is beyond mercurys orbit.

If you look at all possible locations and distances between earth and venus, venus is a large part of the year in a greater distance to earth than mercury to earth.

Thats the solution: venus is "On Average" no the closest planet to earth, as mercury is orbiting very much closer to the sun, our anchor around the earth is orbiting, too.

Sounds stupid and is worded to surprise the reader, but has no real value.

Venus is FLAT, the EARTH is flat, that would make them the closest by way of parking distance. Make no mistake....

originally posted by: Plotus
Venus is FLAT, the EARTH is flat, that would make them the closest by way of parking distance. Make no mistake....

And Pluto the Magnificent is on Hiatus thats all.

a reply to: Plotus

That's a given, obviously. Or is Venus a hologram? I can't remember.

I think she was married to a Texan

S&F

Curious, wouldn't Voyager or Hubble have been able to photograph the Planets in their locations ? And very likely have, either agreeing or dismissing the location claim ?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
NASA is not thinking in terms of sending a probe to Venus through the sun...

What about if they sent it in winter when it's colder?

a reply to: LtFluffyCakes96
This news, along with the downgrading of Pluto and the upgrading of our atmosphere to now include the moon...
It’s all a warm up to the flat earth awakening.

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

You forgot Niburu.

a reply to: oldcarpy
Yes niburu. When that planet gets close enough, all the ammo that Walmart has in stock wouldn’t be enough to save you.

a reply to: LtFluffyCakes96

OK, this is just stupid. The average distance is not the closest distance, it is simply the average distance. If we wanted to go look at mercury in a vehicle, we would plot the planet's trajectory and leave early enough that we would meet it, covering the "shortest" distance possible. Venus still has the shortest possible distance no matter how you twist your titties. Is this some new justification for one's career, an example of dumbing down the edumacation system or simply some new progressive crap to show planets are discriminated against due to their circular (corkscrew) orbits?

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

You being serious or sarcastic?

How is this even news?

Anyone that paid attention in school understands the basics of orbital mechanics and knows actual distances of separation depend on orbiting bodies' locations within their individual orbits.

I hope this "trio of researchers" (probably named Moe, Larry and Curly) didn't burn through a $500K government grant to make this amazing discovery.

I'll bet they ate in nice restaurants during their study.

It's a good example of being pedantic.

a reply to: oldcarpy

seriously sarcastic