Somewhere an alien scientist is looking at Earth saying, "No life there. Too much liquid water, not enough sulfuric acid, no free isotopes in the atmosphere."
It's funny how we consider planets having "Extreme Conditions" comparing earth's habitat cuz it's perfect for humans. There might be aliens out there bathing daily in lava and die when they touch water.
there are such things at metal aliens. go watch nasa unexplained files. real files declassified from nasa due to govt letting light upon aliens and ufo in recent years
"Look at this planet. There are intelligent beings, but they die so fast because they evolved to breath oxygen, a highly destructive element. Because they are constantly oxidizing, they can't even live as long as what our species would consider a day. Planet uninhabitable. I'll check back personally in 10 million Earth years." -Some Alien
The craziest thing that comes to my mind when I think of other planets outside of our solar system. Is that we’re looking at that planet in the past, I’m always curious to see what the planet is like now.
It's funny to imagine that Earth could very well be the worst kind of environment for some species looking around (edit: for some extraterrestrial species looking around /searching for a habitable planet. Some interesting exchanges down there...)
I don’t think it will is literally perfect for any species is calm no worries of giant diamonds of fire storms happening no worries of pulsars or supernova so earth is a paradise
Scientists know that microbes can survive harsh conditions. The problem is intelligent species like humans or even mammals in general can't survive without food and water. That's just a fact. Until we find something proving otherwise then that's it. We've looked in alot of different places done alot of tests. Id love to find an alien that doesn't need water or food... Or even oxygen.
I really wish you would spend more time on each planet. I love this sort of stuff and could easily watch an hour or so long video on each of these planets and others. I love learning about exoplanets
@@ms.annthrope415 And what was said could only have been extrapolated by a few measurements of the distance between planet and stars, and maybe some spectral analysis of the light we can see pass between the star and the planet. How we could possibly know the actual weather patterns on these plants is beyond me. It sounded like fiction with the way it was detailed and read off.
The crazy part is that, with trillions of galaxies, and each galaxy having 100s of billions of stars, each star having potentially multiple planets, and those planets having moons and so on and so forth. I think it’s very likely that “intelligent life” is actually quite common in the universe. However, with the insane vastness, and the fact of each civilization probably looking for other planets that suite their needs… it’s entirely possible that they never encounter one another and probably never will unfortunately.
The really eerie part is you're absolutely right and you would think there'd be some civilization that created structures big enough for us to see with our telescopes, but there's nothing. Yes, the universe is vast but it still says something that even in the small part we can observe, that there's just nothing.
@@redknight9740 I mean the odds are highly in that favor yes, but as of now there's no empirical evidence to support your claim. Unless you have that evidence? And can we share the Nobel Prize?
To be honest, another world capable of supporting life might just be the most horrible planet for us, in terms of survival. If there's even a modicum of chance it has a species with intelligence on it and we ever manage to travel across the void of space, we might just find ourselves facing extinction. This is of course playing into the fact that we cant reach any of these planets so all of them are only "theoretically" terrible for us, including my own example.
The term extinction means being completely wiped out. By us deciding to accept a planet as our second home, we take responsibility to either ally with the intelligent as well non intelligent species of fauna and flora of the planet or cull them and replace with ones we are familiar with. Humans are far more superior of any species with capability to create mass genocide of a species we deem harmful. In past with just spears and no technology, we have managed to bring some of the strongest and powerful predatorial species on extinction. The ideology of Human weakness is derived from the inability to trust oneself and other of same species. When humans will start trusting and believing their capability and growth of their intellect we will see this civilization advanced. For now, it decays with thoughts that plague and promotes individuality while we are just one of the other species and we have yet a long way to go before another advanced cosmos faring civilization is able to lay their hands on us and utilize us as mere resources like how we use horses and other cattle.
I'm willing to bet if one were capable of traversing through all of space, they'd go mad after witnessing what they find. The universe is a vast chaotic unknown ocean which continually reveals more things once thought impossible.
Seeing all these planets with no life in it makes you think that earth was a "mistake/accident/coincidence". A once in a life time thing that only happens when all stars align,.... *giggles*
There's a technique called spectroscopy which let's you know what are the elements present in a star or a distant planet's surface or atmosphere, this can be measured with telescopes built with this purpose. And with other telescopes that allow you to measure the approximate mass, size and distance relative to their own stars, many of this conditions can be inferred by doing the math or the chemistry. It would obviously be better if we could go to each planet and study it's physical conditions once in there, but with objects as distant as any exoplanet, the data that we can gather with our telescopes and satellites it's the best option that we have to understand the physical and weather conditions of this distant worlds as of now. Yes, maybe the measurements are not exact, but we can understand a good deal of what's generally going on in distant planets with modern satellites and telescopes. ;)
@@astroman0500 that only gives them an Idea of some of the elements but what each actual planet looks like and is made of, size and distance from parent star is all hypothesis at this moment. not facts. I am an amateur astronomer that looks at the sky all the time and read on this constantly. I assure you it is all just educated guesses at this point, they are hoping the Webb will clear some stuff up but will be a few years before it gives any real answers.
Wouldn’t be surprised that there are already interplanetary intelligent species that are competing amongst themselves to see who can become the “first” intergalactic species while we are still on the way to become interplanetary.
Ye Im pretty sure that if there were some interplanetary superpowers, they would see us as some primitive tribe, or even just some smarter than average monkey
Planet Earth is a fly over state...the backward place of nothing of value there to aliens that have any ability to travel space... All media and stuff is always from the human mindset. Reality we are not important to bother with. This is further supported by the tech required. In order to travel space you need 2 things. Lots of Energy Or Time. If one of those are solved, what would be expected for space faring race. Matter becomes "Worthless." You think how much money you could make if you can teleport to that planet that had rubies and stuff and just sell them on earth. There are so many worlds FULL of any resources you need for anything you want to build. Coming here would be like travelling on foot around the entire earth to go piss on an ant.
A lot of people in this comment section are arguing that we are being egocentric, looking primarily at planets that have similar attributes as our own. The reason we are looking at Earthlike planets is because we know what to look for in these environments, in order to find carbon-based life. We have no idea where to look for life on a planet with sulphuric seas for example. So it's like looking at trees in order to find monkeys contra combing through the desert in order to find tiny animals you don't know the appearance of. Once we find life (plants and bacteria are lifeforms too) on an Earthlike exo-planet, it will become easier to find other kinds of lifeforms on planets with more foreign attributes than our own.
there's a reason there isn't any life on venus or any planet in our solar system. There's a reason life on earth arised from water and still all life depends on it. There's a reason all life is carbon based. Scientists are not stupid. In Miller - Urey Experiment of Origin of Life, they created conditions similar to the ones in early Earth and sure enough Amino Acids were formed from simpler molecules. Trying to find life that relies on sulfuric acid as people are stating here is a waste of resorces when we know for sure that earth like planets can support life. And Venus like planets can't for now.
At the part when you said “poltergeist” I died. The sound design on this is super sick! And the information that you always give is phenomenal! Keep up the good work!
Those "star-facing" planets are called eyeball stars. Just in case anyone wants to learn more knowledge about the different kind of planets out there, there's other channels with more info. For example, Anton Petrov covers lots of scientific papers about planets like these, in a way that is easy to understand. I think some of my playlists are public, including a list of a whole lot of his videos, if you can't find him with a search.
Actually GJ 436B isn’t cold at all and is entirely hot. The type of ice that comprises it’s surface isn’t the normal kind we are used to on Earth but a kind called Ice X, which is capable of maintaining a solid form while itself being blisteringly hot
Is there a way to replicate ice x on earth? We use hydraulic machines that use extreme pressure to make diamonds, surely we can make a similar machine to pressurize water into a solid?
@Mike it has to do with pressure. that planet has such intense gravity that the substance (is it actually water? i dunno) "freezes" in the sense that it's a solid, not in the sense that it's cold.
@Mike well, if it's not water, it might not be transparent. "Ice" is kind of a vague, colloquial description. You've heard of dry ice I'm sure, which is neither water nor transparent. Tho it is cold obviously. From what I've read on Wikipedia just now, ice is used to describe solid forms of "volatiles" (a substance that's more likely to exist as vapor) such as carbon dioxide, ammonia, methane, and others. Low temperatures are usually the cause of ice on Earth, but ridiculously extreme pressure can also do it.
@@spaceboy3249 unfortunately it can be too late, and it can also be bloody demanding, all you do is work hard and have determination to reach that goal, if youre doing it half assed then it wont do, but if you do mean it then it will come true
Im still just a space nerd and I think I wanna stay that way, can barely take care of myself so putting me in charge of a space mission is like asking an armless man to drive a car. Its a horrible idea
imagine if there was life out there living lives just like us, focused on their own drama, having their own cultures and beliefs, wondering if there's life out there just like us.
Go to you're principals office and request to talk to the board and tell them why you think this and more should be taught in you're school if they don't listen get you're friends and all parents involved
As of the request of someone I post this comment as an individual comment additionally to the reply it originally was. *Question by **_@R R:_** How do scientists know what's on the surface of a planet?* *Introduction:* I'm no astronomer. I studied electrical engineering and we touched on those topics in the physics courses. The reason why this is taught in physics lessons is because when you want to make tasks for the students to solve you want to have realistic examples to make the lesson more engaging. And it just so happens that astronomy has a few nice examples which represent those physics phenomena in a relatively pure way. I also attended one cosmology course where we looked at the different observations in history which shaped our understanding of the universe. And I occasionally watch a RUclips video about astronomy. If someone wants to go deeper into astronomy I can recommend Anton Petrov. If you have any questions feel free to ask. The only thing I can promise is that I will reply if RUclips gives me any notifications. By the way I split up the comment as it was longer than 10’000 characters. And now I will stop talking about me and start talking about the question. Planets are tiny. Stars are also tiny, but at least they glow in the dark. That's why we see stars with the naked eye and we didn't discover any planets outside of our solar system until recent history. Creative people found several ways with which we can discover planets. I will explain the few I'm aware off. There are most likely more. And each of those methods not only tell you something about the presence of the planet but also about some of the characteristics about the planet. *Classical mechanic approaches and what we can find out:* A lot of planets are discovered by either the *star swinging a little* or by the *star dimming in regular intervals.* If the star swings then we can judge the mass of the planet in comparison to the star. The larger it swing, the heavier the planet. If the star dims then we can guess the size of the planet in comparison to the star. After all it dims to the degree in which the surface is covered by the planet. If the dim is not always the same then there are either several planets which do not always cross at the same time or there are rings which are sometimes aligned in a way which cover the star and sometimes oriented in a way that it doesn't cover the star. It could also mean the planet is not perfectly round, but that is pretty much impossible from a certain size upwards. That only works with asteroids within our solar system. The dimming method only works if we are lucky because chances are pretty small that the orbit of the planet is precisely between us and that star. Another thing we can find out with both approaches mentioned above is the distance to the star. We do that by the frequency in which the star either swings or dims. The frequency of the dimming is determined by the distance which the planet has to the star. If we both know the size and the mass of the planet we can find out the density of the planet. And with the density we can make some guesses about the materials in that planet. *Spectroscopy:* Spectroscopy is basically looking at the different frequencies of the light coming from the star and looking how much of each frequency of light is present. There are two types of lightsources in this universe. One generates light by being hot _(for example the light bulb)_ and all other approaches _(For example the LED)_. Most stars shine because they are hot. Pulsars are the exception. Just think of them as lasers. That's not really accurate, but I don't know more than that. Whatever I write from now on doesn't work with pulsars as we don't know what kind of light they send out. But it works with everything else. If any material gets hot then they start to glow. And the color of the glow is always the same at the same temperature, no matter the material. This is described with the *black body curve* _(image-search it for better understanding my description)._ The black body curve describes the interaction of three values. Each of those curved lines within the graph represents a different temperature of the object. The x-axis represents the wavelength in which the object shines _(or in other words the color)_ and the y-axis is the brightness. There are two noteworthy things. - The hotter the object is the brighter it gets over all frequencies. - The peak of the curve moves to shorter wavelength when the object get's hotter. This means it turns from red to blue. That's why hot iron first starts to glow a dim red and then it turns orange and then yellow the hotter it gets. But if you cool the peace of iron _(or any other material including us humans)_ down to room temperature then we very slightly glow in a specific color. And that color is infrared. That's how certain type of night vision works. FLIR cameras work like that. They look at the peak of that curve for each pixel and determine the temperature with that. And when we go back to the stars, we find out that red giants are way colder than the white dwarfs. But there is more to it. If we have a hot core then we basically have a very specific and more importantly a known brightness for each frequency. Stars normally have gasses surrounding that bright core. Each chemical element and molecule absorbs different wavelengths. So let's say a pure nitrogen absorbs the frequency of 550nm. That would be a type of green. So if we have a star which shines white, and the green is absorbed then it looks pink. That way if we have a pink star it has nitrogen on it. The absorption is normally not just one line and the frequency they absorb is very narrow. To get an understanding of how it looks like image search _"star spectroscopy"._ But you can also find out what type of atmosphere a planet has. And for that the planet has to move in front of the star and it has to have a big enough atmosphere then we can also see a bit of color absorption. That way we can determine the content of the atmosphere of a planet. *Supernovas:* The base material of most stars is hydrogen and Helium. This makes sense as those two elements make up 99.9% of the mass of the universe. Stars can make some of the lighter elements as well with fusion. But that only works up to a certain point. Heavier elements like iron or even uranium can't be made in a star. They are created via a Supernova. Supernovas are stars that exploded and this creates a new gas cloud, but this time with heavier elements in it. The explosion is strong enough to rearrange lighter atoms into heavier ones. If now a new planetary system starts to be created from that gas cloud then this new planetary system is now capable of making rock planets. This obviously means before our own solar system, there was a supernova here. If I'm not mistaken then it isn't too difficult to see if there was previously a Supernova as there are gas clouds lingering around or because the composition of the star is different. But that is speculation on my part. _Please continue reading in my reply to this comment…_
*Simulations and Artistic freedom:* As you can see we can find out stuff about planets with observations alone. There are most likely more methods of finding stuff about planets, I'm just not aware of them. But if we really get down to it the information on most planets is pretty sparse. After all swinging stars is a pretty common method of finding planets. And that only works with massive planets, aka, gas planets. Then we know the speed and the mass and can make good educated guesses on the composition. But we don't just have observation in our toolbelt. Astronomers use a lot of advanced models to *simulate* what they think should happen. Let's just illustrate it with the example of the planet at 5:15 in this video. I will make speculations here as the only thing I know about that planet is what is told in this video. So be aware of that. The scientists found out that there is a planet with a certain size, mass and distance to the star. Whit that they found out the density of that planet. Thanks to the knowledge on density and their knowledge that there was a supernova in the past, they know it is a rock planet. Because of simulations they found out that it has an iron core of around 40% of the planets mass and the rest is silicon. And when they create other simulations they find out that the planet is so close to the star that the silicon vaporizes and fall down as rain. The results of those simulations are obviously only as good as the physical models behind the simulation. Some of the models could be tested by comparing what we think asteroids look like and what we actually find when we go to them. The models can also be tested with new findings thanks to better telescopes. In my opinion the simulations are pretty decent, at least when it comes to normal stars and planets. When it is about pulsars and other oddities then they are not really that great. But I'm no astronomer and the entire field of astronomy is only a side interest of mine. So my judgement is probably not that valid. Until now I mostly tried to look at the findings and the theory. But even though science should only be about those two, *there are still humans involved.* If they want to get the money to build a huge telescope or if they want to have a salary for themselves and their staff for the next ten years they need to present what they are doing to the guy who gives them money. That causes a bit of bias into the direction of making things appear more than it actually is. I think _(and hope)_ that this is mostly limited abstract and the conclusion within the paper and not in the main body of the paper. Where the scientist still try to present the truth. The journalists normally don't have enough knowledge to actually understand the truth. So for them it is way easier to blow things out of proportion. The artistic representation of a planet, as you can see a few in this video, normally have a few guidelines and then the artist can make up the rest as he wants to. As physics is the same in the entire universe the artistic representations might not even be that wrong. But they more or less just speculate and fill in the blanks. Also, epic images sell better. *Earth like planets and the beginning of life:* But putting findings in a better light and selling it to the masses is not the only thing which influences the opinion on the findings. There is a thing called the *Drake equation.* This is an equation which tries to quantify how many civilizations are in the universe. As all the variables in it are pretty much unknown it is a pretty useless equation. But it was mostly made that we have a reference point to orientate ourselves in this question. One factor is "fraction of stars that have planets". The more planets there are the more likely it is that there are civilizations out there which we can communicate with. Another thing influencing that equation is the amount of planets which are capable of supporting life. Most people know the habitable zone. This is basically an area around a star which allows water to be liquid. And when you read about a newly found earth in the newspaper it most likely is just that. But the habitable zone is just one of many requirements. For example the Jupiter catches a lot of asteroids which would have fallen on earth. The presence of the moon and it's size allow for the perfect height in tides and it also allowed the early humans to invent math. If the planet is too close or too far from the star then there is a lot of radiation which kills all life. Same if they are in the wrong position in the galaxy. Or if some pulsar accidentally throws a huge beam of radiation and fries everything in its path. There are many more. If you are interested in that stuff then the *finetuning of the universe* might be of interest to you. An earth 2.0 is if you take all those different parameters and take the best case of them. For example scientists speculate that if the planet is somewhat bigger then it would be better for life. So they say the earth 2.0 has to be bigger than earth. And then they go through other requirements and look what the optimal value is. Why do I mention the beginning of life? Isn't it obvious that the entire universe is full of life? One might think so. But it isn't really that obvious. There are quite a few astronomers who say our planet is a very special planet and only because of it’s uniqueness can life survive here. And some biologists say that the question of "How did the first cell evolve from chemistry?" *_(aka abiogenesis)_* is so tough that it is more likely that life came from space than that it started here on earth. And if the existence of life is so tough then it can mean one of two things. Either we are a freak accident or there are way more planets out there with suitable environments than we currently know off. As scientists prefer to assume we are relatively average, they think there have to be a lot of earth like planets out there. But if life comes form space that brings other problems. Like how did it find us in such a vast space and how did it survive the radiation and coldness in space? Also how did it get thrown into space and how did it survive the impact of landing here on earth? *Life unlike ours* I hear a lot that life doesn't have to be like the one we know off. And that is true. Even though we don't really know what a consciousness is, we at least know what intelligence is. Both the brain and the computers have in common that they have a complex interaction of small "logic units". Of all we know that only works with certain materials. For example in a place where only hydrogen gas is around there is most likely not a possibility of creating those logic units which interact with each other on a reliable basis. Of course if someone believes in non-material minds or consciousnesses that is a different question and then it is possibly not dependent anymore on the materials in a region. But then it turns into an area of knowledge which is difficult to test with the scientific process. That's why most scientists stay away of these sorts of assumptions and they prefer going with life based on carbon. At least there we have an example of it working.
@@benrex777productions9 i just wanna say thank you for taking time and typing all of this for us, even tho not many people are gonna read this. Thank You!
@@saahilshaikh6548 No problem. The other comment already gave me so many replies and thank you's that this was a simple thing to do. I like typing out text walls on RUclips and either learn something myself from people or bring knowledge to other people.
It's not earth-like, it's just of a similar size to earth and rests within the habitable zone of it's parent star, it's theorized that liquid water could exist there but the planet is being bombarded by huge amounts of radiation so it's uninhabitable by humans.
Imagine a civilization that could only live in the middle part of that planet and built massive cities around the band in one area. This is a book waiting to be written.
Especially if they have to contend with creatures or another race from the hot/cold regions, who can perhaps wander into their zone but whose home they cannot access.
I can't think of a book written about life there, but there's several of these star-facing worlds in sci-fi. Two I can think of off the top of my head are Mordia from Warhammer 40k and Verces from Starfinder.
That would be cool to have a book on that. These planets are called tidally locked as one side is to hot and the other too cold while the middle ring is the only habitable spot on the planet
The "rarity" of earth like planets is also limited to our ability to detect planets mostly by dimming or wobble of stars, which means the more massive gas giant planets will be much easier to find, We really don't have the means to know exactly how rare earth like planets would be.
Considering there are more galaxies in the universe than there are grains of sand on earth it’s very difficult to even estimate how many earth like planets are in the universe. We’ll probably never know, either.
I would say, between 2 and a lot, like probably more than 10 and surely less than a trillion. Seriously though, given that we found 2 rn, and we didn't saw a decent percentage of all planets, it's possible that they are a shit ton of them, thousands even millions. But with this data, it could be that we were extremely lucky and found the only two in the whole universe, unlikely, but possible
I think they are pretty common. But none of them will fully suit our needs. We evolved to be in symbiosis with our own planet on so many levels, the slightest change in gravity, vibration, flora, bacterial life, viruses, breatable gas, seasons, moon effect, sun light, radiations..... could kill us in no time. We would have to find a way to rapidly evolve/adapt so the next generation would be able to run naked on the surface. This would result with every colonised planet having it's own human branch of evolution.
@@rosiecollins4099 Get an education. We can read the light from them and from this determine the chemical makeup of said planet. It's not quite the same as having a live stream but it's impressive considering the vast distances and relative size of the celestial bodies we observe. It's no magic, but I can understand why someone with absolutely no frame of reference for modern science would be suspicious. Education is really important friend.
Imagine if aliens weren't advanced civilizations but just huge macro organisms. No conscience or any discernable features. What if we're the bacteria and earth is our petri dish?
We spread like it, move like it, reproduce like it... that's all we really are. Imagine a zoomed-out time lapse video of any side of land-bearing Earth. We just "vibrate" and "bump into things" all over the surface and shed ourselves/materials off the surface- it's not much more than that
Imagine life that wasn’t evolved around water, and then sees earth “alien riddle: this planet 50ly away from ours, we nicknamed sea, It has deadly rain storms and vast oceans that would melt your skin in an instant.” I know water is theorized to be the main source of all life. Don’t fact check me, I’m just speaking in a sci-fi setting
Hey, I agree. Basing the possibility of life on our own is rather limiting. What could be inhospitable to us may prove to be more like paradise to another sentient xenoform.
There's no way to tell what's out there bro, water is carbon based lifeforms, and I doubt all life is carbon based. Even the sci Fi views are possible, especially if there's infinite universes
I wonder whether a moon in orbit around a giant planet like this could be habitable. Could the magnetic field from the planet protect the atmosphere of an Earth-sized moon from being stripped away by the solar wind (as happened to Mars) & also protect any life on the moon from radiation?
It is theorized that some moons' conditions might be favourable to life. Titan, a moon of Saturn, and Europa and Callisto, two moons of Jupiter, are rocky like Earth and have ice, it is thought that they might have subterranean lakes or oceans, and are considered as the places in the solar system more likely to have life (other than Earth ofc).
If it's a gas giant anything like our Jupiter then it would probably put off too many rads for any moons orbiting it to be habitable without considerable radiation shielding
Wait could we live on Jupiter's moon if we were able to replicate a hydrogen and oxygen atmosphere? Edit: Giving it a second thought it would be way too cold...
I love the thought of a rogue planet - they always seem so intriguing and wondrous. Even the name seems dark and interesting. Can't remember one being in a film though.
Yknow, our human bodies may prevent us from ever going to any of these places, curse these fleshy suits... but if technology progresses far enough, we can make robots and/or AI to go to these distant places to explore the universe. Whether it be us piloting a very complex machine, or it's just a sentient/highly intelligent AI. That would be so cool.
Id like to think thay when humanity ever go extinct (cuz it will one day or another, even if its in millions of years) there will be remaining of our civilizations that will be able to live on their own thanks to AI, perhaps making colonization of planets easier for the next space explorers of this galaxy
Sad News: He Died just 2 Hours Ago. Doctors say it is because of the Special Radiation he Experienced while he was Photographing a Star called "Olar-46b-R1"
Aliens: You humans have explored planets and galaxies several light-years away from your own home planet. You guys must've finished exploring your own oceans, right? Humans: ... Aliens: Right? Humans: _nervously sweats_
That huge diamond that has liquid diamond oceans and rains diamonds still takes the cake for me, alongside the tiny star system where five habitable planets nearly the size of Earth pass by each other much closer than the moon.
I have a feeling that if there are people who came to Earth who can travel lightyears away, they'd be able to blend with everyone here due to their adaptability and point out these findings on a distant planet; essentially, they'd be showing off how different that area is.
It's important to remember that a lot of the ideas surrounding many of these planets and what they may look like are merely guesses. Mind you, they are very educated guesses but we really don't know for certain. That said, it's fun to let the imagination run wild with these guesses and imagine what these insane worlds must be like.
I mean, calling years of scientific testing and experimentation “just a guess” is very misleading. That’s akin to calling atomic theory just an guess because we can’t touch or see it for sure
@@jeromedavis7816 I do believe they were called "very educated guesses", which isn't misleading at all, especially since we CANT prove it to be 100% true, at least not yet
Whenever I watch these kinda videos I always feel so small and lost. I also get very curious about what if, any human being from our history has ever visited those planets and died there in total solitude and in agony. What if I was left alone on these planets? What if I get lost in outer space. I could never imagine what that could feel like. My imagination succumbs to the horrors of the enormity of outer space. As I fall slowly asleep and wake up in the morning and continue living my life everyday, I think the person who visited and died in outer space might feel consoled that someone ever gave a thought to their situation, even though for a little while and even in anonymity. I just feel so small, this universe is sooo vast, we have so much yet to discover.
Play Elite Dangerous. Closest one will get without actually going out there. The entire Milky Way is represented in a 1 to 1 scale. As I type I'm sitting at a star port not far from Sol. (our sun)
As much as I loved the video, great visuals, info, and sound design, I wish the thumbnail hadn’t been a clickbait “crystal-core” that was never mentioned. You had so many good planets to choose from too!
With all the current advancements/activities in space exploration, it's so curious we haven't gone beyond! I know the human body probably can't withstand the speed in ly, but it would be nice to be able to see humanity exploring another planet in my lifetime.
In my opinion lightspeed is a terrible way to travel. Lightspeed has this huge weakness of having a speed limit and anything beyond that punishes you by making time relatively slower. Regardless, if you had an appointment and you are running late you will never get there in time no matter how "Fast" you go. Now warp travel... Now thats the stuff!
What is said in the video title vs what's in the actual video is actually false advertisement. That'll quicklly turn people away if they have any sense.
And those different planets know what resources we have on earth and know those resources can’t produce any means to see or ever contact them , and there just sitting there laughing or whatever they do
As a mathematician working for an astronomical observatory, the fact that there are such a diversity of planets is not shocking... it's to be expected.
I'm actually really sad were probably part of the generation that won't get to see people find civilization in other planets and won't be able to learn about their species
I don't think humanity is ready for interstellar contact. Humans in general can't even stand learning about the cultures here on Earth without bigotry and warfare. Learning about a culture on a different planet would probably make our heads explode. I always wanted to live in a society like the one in Futurama, too
It's scarier if we're alone imo. It would give me comfort to know that when all life on earth is dead, there will be other intelligent creatures somewhere out there just doing their own thing.
Imagine an alien from these planets saying- one of the weirdest planet we found is Earth, it has WATER and SOIL which can kill you in seconds. Even a super suit can’t protect you from the depth of the salty ocean.
Imagine us visiting a planet one day for more research and the actual aliens sees us and starts theories and making their own recording of "alien" sightings and WE'RE the alien for them
@@BLACKMAMBA-og1lf how can they see the interior of a planet with a telescope again, and before you say James Webb it’s not even active yet it’s still moving
@@skelta8383 same way we know what the center of the earth is like? lots of different indirect measurements. which is to say, we don't know, but use probability, and say "wow this planet is heavy and small, so it's probably dense! and if it's dense, it probably has a lot of pressure-based geology going on, which we've been modelling for decades." . videos like this often gloss over things like uncertainty as they stretch the truth to simplify a dozen pieces of research into a couple sentences.
@@nubnubbud yeah and how to we know it “rains glass on some planets” not sure if that was said in this video but all these kinds of videos are 90% bullcrap, and how to we know a planet has an ocean, we can’t just see that
Meanwhile an alien scientist looking at Earth: "These creatures aren't made of metal? They have to eat and drink to live? They don't die when they breathe oxygen???"
Someone please show this to No Man's Sky developers and other developers of similar games, because they definetely lack imagination in terms of variety of planets they create. Space is huge and full of mind-blowing stuff, yet in many science fiction products planets are too similar and don't require different approaches in terms of gameplay or character behavior.
I've always had one question, how do scientists know what's on the surface of a planet? even though the distance is very far and it is difficult to ascertain what is on the surface of the planet
I'm no astronomer. I studied electrical engineering and we slightly touched on those topics. So I will try to give an answer. Like BetterDegree7 already said, spectroscopy is a way. In case you don't know how that works I give a little description. If I'm not mistaken there are two types of stars in the universe. The ones which are bright because they are hot and then there are pulsars. Pulsars are like lasers and we have little knowledge on how the radiation physics of them work. Obviously we have speculations, but their physics are very unusual. So everything I say doesn't apply to them. If any material gets hot then they start to glow. And the color of the glow is always the same with the same temperature, no matter the material. This is described with the black body curve _(image-search it for better understanding my description)._ The black body curve has three values. Each of those curved lines within the graph represents a different temperature of the object. The x-axis represents the wavelength in which the object shines _(or in other words the color)_ and the y-axis is the brightness. There are two noteworthy things. - The hotter the object is the brighter it gets over all frequencies. - The peak of the curve moves to shorter wavelength when the object get's hotter. This means it turns from red to blue. That's why hot iron first starts to glow a dim red and then it turns orange and then yellow the hotter it gets. So with that we can determine the temperature of an object. But we can find out more. If we have a hot core then we basically have a very specific and more importantly a known brightness for each color. Stars normally have gasses surrounding that bright core. Each chemical element and molecule absorbs different wavelength. So let's say a pure nitrogen absorbs the frequency of 550nm. That would be a type of green. So if we have a star which shines white, and the green is absorbed then it looks pink. That way if we have a pink star it has nitrogen on it. And if the planet moves in front of the star and has a big enough atmosphere then we can also see a bit of color absorption. So we can determine the content of the atmosphere of a planet by that. A lot of planets are discovered by either the star swinging a little or by the star dimming in regular distances. If the star swings then we can judge the mass of the planet in comparison to the star. The larger it swing, the heavier the planet. If the star dims then we can guess the size of the planet in comparison to the star. After all it dims to the degree in which the surface is covered by the planet. If the dim is not always the same then there are either several planets which do not always cross at the same time or there are rings which are sometimes aligned in a way which cover the star and sometimes oriented in a way that it doesn't cover the star. It could also mean the planet is not perfectly round, but that is pretty much impossible from a certain size upwards. That only works with asteroids within our solar system. Another thing we can find out with the two things mentioned above is the distance to the star. And we do that by the frequency in which the star either swings or dims. The frequency of the dimming and speed in which the planet travels is determined by the distance which the planet has to the star. If we know the distance and the atmosphere then we can know the temperature of the planet. If we know the mass and size then we can know the density. And with the density we can also make guesses on the materials which the planet is made out of. There is another thing we know about starts. The base material of most stars is hydrogen and Helium. Stars can make some of the lighter elements as well. But only to a certain point. Heavier elements like Iron or even Uranium can't be made in a star. They are created via a Supernova. Supernovas are stars that exploded and this creates a new gas cloud, but this time with heavier elements in it. If now a new planetary system starts to be created from that then this new planetary system is now capable of making rock planets. This obviously means before our solar system, there was a supernova here. If I'm not mistaken then it isn't too difficult to see if there was previously a Supernova as there are gas clouds lingering around or because the composition of the star is different. But that is speculation on my part. Those are all the ways I personally know off to determine what a plantet looks like. There are most likely more. But as I said I only touched the topic on the sideline. A lot of it is also putting the little data we have though physical simulations and taking the best guesses of how it should look like. And in the end we hear it from journalists and they also add a bit of artistic interpretations to everything. One place where I see the most artistic interpretation is when it comes to live permitting planets. They assume if the planet is in the habitual zone _(water is liquid on that planet),_ then live is possible. But there are many other things to consider as well. If the star is too close or too far then there is a lot of radiation which destroys molecules. If there is no Jupiter then all the Asteroids hitting him would hit us. If there was no moon then there would be no tides, which help with water flow on this planet and many, many more. But it sounds cool to the masses that we know that there are not only planets out there which are similar to us, but that there are even planets better than ours out there. By the way lots of earth like planets and earth 2.0 planets are very important. The science of how live developed from chemicals is called abiogenesis. And that is such a tough question that many scientists speculate that life didn't origin from earth but from outer space. And as you can imagine, there are two problems with that. Problem nr1: How likely is it that a simple cell can survive travel through outer space. And it also needs to survive the impact of both being torn from the initial planet and crash-landing on earth. The fourth transportation aspect is that habitable planets are tiny in comparison to the entirety of the universe. So chances are very low that it lands exactly here. Problem nr2: We know that there are many lucky circumstances which needed to cooperate that life is possible to survive here on earth. The more of them there are, the less likely is it that a random planet permits the existence of life. But the creation of life is most likely more finicky. To increase chances of it to happening we need a lot of earth like planets or even better there need to be planets which are even more suited for that (earth 2.0). If we find loads of life permitting planets then abiogenesis is not that surprising anymore. If we find few life permitting planets then we are just a freak accident. _edit: the RUclips deleted my Supernova paragraph. I added that again._
@@RR-bc9ed No problem. I'm interested in all natural sciences and I'm interested in world views. Naturally astronomy falls under that umbrella. But it isn't my main point of interest. Since there are loads of people finding that interesting, there is more good information out there about astronomy than other fields of science.
@@RR-bc9ed I read through my comment again and noticed that RUclips didn't commit one of my paragraphs. It only left the word Supernova there. _(I hate it when RUclips does that)_ I edited the comment so that this is present again. If you are interested you can read it again as it has an additional interesting information.
Would love to see the space exploration I dreamt about as a kid, I wish I could be around to see certain things but I know I will not in my lifetime. Who knows, maybe in 100 years the tech might be there to get to that 2nd earth.
There are times when I think about how we were born at a perfect time with advanced technology and medicine that people didn’t have access to before, and sometimes I think about how we were born too early and won’t see the future discoveries
@@rafvardanyan94 I hear that, sometimes videos like these get my mind whirrling. Imagining the vastness of space and how far space truly reaches or if there is an end at all. The earth is so large yet we are a spec of sand in the universe.
Something that is always omitted is the fact that red dwarfs emit insane amounts of radiation in random intervals that would kill off most life / make it very improbable for life to evolve on planets or bitting red dwarfs
"This planet feels like home" "That's the part that worries me..." The funny thing is; in technicality, the most Earth like planets are the most potentially dangerous - if it can support us; it can support "them" (maybe) Especially if those Earth 2 Planets have Hyena looking space cow things
i feel like i wanna believe that alien exist. I found an old book at my grandma’s and i read a lot of it. It was a story of him and his friends. It also had pictures of ufos and etc. it was amazing and gave me chills it’ll be so cool if they ever come here in earth again (if that book happens to be true)
The star's gravity "pulling me up" from WASP-12B may be a slightly misleading expression. I presume that while the gravity at the bulge peak is low, it is still positive, and the mass loss can only happen with the assistance of the other natural powers prevailing on and around the planet, so I would be "swept away" rather than "pulled up". If the gravity were genuinely negative, I think the planet would begin to disintegrate immediately and lose mass at a much greater rate.
@@roguedrones, planet-size objects are very weak, in practice completely unable, to withstand any negative gravity affecting them - even more so, if the substance of the planet is very hot. The only thing slowing down a destruction of a planet skimming the Roche limit is that the deeper layers of the planet may still be far enough from the other planet to have enough positive gravity to keep the layers down against the tidal pull plus the pressure from the hot innards of the destructing planet. Therefore I was expecting a faster mass loss if the surface gravity is negative.
@@roguedrones it's 1000 x the pyramids in weight per second, which is 86400000 per day. The pyramids weigh something like 5 million tonnes so times that by 86400000 per day, and they reckon the planet would last up to 10 million years, I can't even wrap my head around that math.
@Twiddly Stosh In Greek we call planet earth «γη» (pronounced “yee”) which is the modern Greek version of “gaia” (the correct pronunciation in Greek for that is close to “yeh-AH”). I think the word “earth” comes from the germanic roots of English, “Erde” in modern German.
@Twiddly Stosh I live in Gaia😅 For real, in Porto, Portugal, when you cross the bridge to the other side of the river you arrive at Vila nova de Gaia wich means New village of Gaia.
Doesn’t seem necessary tho. We aren’t at all facing a huge extinction soon, and it would be too hard to locate civilizations to another planet. We’d be wasting money, time, and resources so far.
Never thought exoplanets would be presented in clickbait fashion. High pressure solid ice is not cold. Half the planets you described standing on have no solid surface. The thumbnail is missing from the video. Nice animations though.
Measuring radiation and comparing the light spectrum they receive from it. All materials reflect light with a certain frequency/wavelength. By measuring reflected light you can see what a planet is made up of
Literally have dozens of thoughts on this but decided to type this one down. I was thinking of the saying that always makes me sad when it comes to space. Too late to explore the earth, too early to explore the universe. That right now, the best we can do is "find" suitable planets that can sustain life. But then again, even if we do... just how much more can people evolve? How much more of science can we utilize? Like, most movies about space / aliens etc. always depict humans in the future to have developed some technology that right now as impossible impossible. Typed that twice to mean the "crazy" impossible, like spawning food out of thin air. But what if there will actually never be a time when people can go further than our own solar system? Alternatively, or the more interesting thought, is that what if humans have technologically evolved enough that in a saying... the universe becomes their oyster? Like, go 164 LY away, spend some time camping on a very cold planet. Go 4492 LY away, spend some time surfing on water only planet. Go 938 LY away, swim in lava. And you know, there's always the possibility that there are "other humans" out there that already have this type of technology, and that we're like the tribal people who are cut off from the rest of the universe... not knowing what "modern" science is.
I wonder which wish you guys wud prefer. 1) allowing your mind to go into the past and see all the major events that happened.. The supervolcanos erupting, pompeii, the end of the dinosaurs etc 2) allowing your mind to go into the future and see the fate of earth
Just my opinion but I'd rather see the past. The past is safe, you generally know what's coming and there's some comfort in the idea that you can't change anything. The future? Could be fun, could be incredibly depressing. Imagine watching the series of events unfold that leads to the total annihilation of your own species, probably at their own hands, and then go back to daily life knowing that it's coming closer with each passing day. And you can't do anything about it. Best case scenario, nobody listens to you, worst case scenario people think you're insane. Oh and if you see until the very end of the earth's physical lifespan it's going to be incredibly boring for a while. Once the sun starts heating up and up everything dies, leaving behind a scorched barren wasteland for who knows how many millions/billions of years, then followed by total darkness as the sun dies. Then after many more years it all gets eaten by a black hole. The past is much more fun to watch
Somewhere an alien scientist is looking at Earth saying, "No life there. Too much liquid water, not enough sulfuric acid, no free isotopes in the atmosphere."
Correct
Lmao 😂
Best comment
This might be actually true because there are billions of planets n millions of galaxies.. And aliens are way too talented so
maybe they were looking for life as they know it. just like we do.
It's funny how we consider planets having "Extreme Conditions" comparing earth's habitat cuz it's perfect for humans. There might be aliens out there bathing daily in lava and die when they touch water.
those aliens would probably be just microscopic
Settle down M Night Shamylan
there are such things at metal aliens. go watch nasa unexplained files. real files declassified from nasa due to govt letting light upon aliens and ufo in recent years
@@blackred1032 thanks for telling me I'll watch right away👍
I guess the Wicked Witch of the West was an alien
"Look at this planet. There are intelligent beings, but they die so fast because they evolved to breath oxygen, a highly destructive element. Because they are constantly oxidizing, they can't even live as long as what our species would consider a day. Planet uninhabitable. I'll check back personally in 10 million Earth years." -Some Alien
@Infernal 777 he basically reworded the top comment so not really best comment.
@Infernal 777 the top comment.
@Infernal 777 the one that has more than 3k likes
@Infernal 777 and it's older
Be original don't steal comments
The craziest thing that comes to my mind when I think of other planets outside of our solar system. Is that we’re looking at that planet in the past, I’m always curious to see what the planet is like now.
You must unlearn. That is a bunch of bull youve been taught to believe. Lol smh.. say it slow and erased that youve been taught that.
@@TheTruthIsLaw Elaborate at a complete truth that is able to explain all there is in one working system.
@@TheTruthIsLaw light takes time to travel. it’s not instant and its a scientific fact
@@TheTruthIsLaw so what's really going on pharoh?
@@TheTruthIsLaw lol Tinfoil hat on too tight.
Huge respect to the Cameraman for travelling across the universe
The most overused and unoriginal comment ever 🙄 🤢
@@LS-us1jm cry
@@LS-us1jm cope
@@LS-us1jm what'chu gonna do? Tell your dad? Oh wait he might be prolly out to get some milk.
@@hiddenshaggy9258 ngl you ruined it, you could've gone with the two people saying cry and cope but you had to be original 😒
It's funny to imagine that Earth could very well be the worst kind of environment for some species looking around (edit: for some extraterrestrial species looking around /searching for a habitable planet. Some interesting exchanges down there...)
I don’t think it will is literally perfect for any species is calm no worries of giant diamonds of fire storms happening no worries of pulsars or supernova so earth is a paradise
Or ones that need ultra high heat
@Wolf. exe We don't know if such an animal exists.
@Wolf. exe. If there was such an animal though I’m sure that our Mother Earth has somewhere to accommodate it.
@@gamers-xh3uc your forgetting the fact that oxygen levels, pressure, gravity and temperatures are factors too
I think it's bold and egoccentric of us humans to assume that extraterrestrial life has to have the same planet weather as us to live.
And must have oxygen when we found lifeforms on Earth that lives without oxygen
These assumptions atm are for more complex life forms
Scientists know that microbes can survive harsh conditions. The problem is intelligent species like humans or even mammals in general can't survive without food and water. That's just a fact. Until we find something proving otherwise then that's it. We've looked in alot of different places done alot of tests. Id love to find an alien that doesn't need water or food... Or even oxygen.
@@chrisoreilly3481 They found worms living in methane caves
@@chrisoreilly3481 thats organic life, who’s to say inorganic life doesn’t exist ?
I really wish you would spend more time on each planet. I love this sort of stuff and could easily watch an hour or so long video on each of these planets and others. I love learning about exoplanets
Probably because we don't know anymore than what has been said.
@@ms.annthrope415 And what was said could only have been extrapolated by a few measurements of the distance between planet and stars, and maybe some spectral analysis of the light we can see pass between the star and the planet. How we could possibly know the actual weather patterns on these plants is beyond me. It sounded like fiction with the way it was detailed and read off.
The crazy part is that, with trillions of galaxies, and each galaxy having 100s of billions of stars, each star having potentially multiple planets, and those planets having moons and so on and so forth. I think it’s very likely that “intelligent life” is actually quite common in the universe. However, with the insane vastness, and the fact of each civilization probably looking for other planets that suite their needs… it’s entirely possible that they never encounter one another and probably never will unfortunately.
The Fermi Paradox... some cool shit!
If you believe that shit .
The really eerie part is you're absolutely right and you would think there'd be some civilization that created structures big enough for us to see with our telescopes, but there's nothing. Yes, the universe is vast but it still says something that even in the small part we can observe, that there's just nothing.
@@Eggy79 soul-Lure system . Space is laden with life
@@redknight9740 I mean the odds are highly in that favor yes, but as of now there's no empirical evidence to support your claim.
Unless you have that evidence? And can we share the Nobel Prize?
To be honest, another world capable of supporting life might just be the most horrible planet for us, in terms of survival. If there's even a modicum of chance it has a species with intelligence on it and we ever manage to travel across the void of space, we might just find ourselves facing extinction. This is of course playing into the fact that we cant reach any of these planets so all of them are only "theoretically" terrible for us, including my own example.
It doesn't just have to be intelligent, it could be a virus or mold, some kind parasitic bacteria.
@@Mike-xp8zc you do know how immune system works, right?
@@lefisheauchocolate9346 A number of uncurable autoimmune diseases are strongly linked to viral infections
NASA means 'to deceive'..
The term extinction means being completely wiped out. By us deciding to accept a planet as our second home, we take responsibility to either ally with the intelligent as well non intelligent species of fauna and flora of the planet or cull them and replace with ones we are familiar with. Humans are far more superior of any species with capability to create mass genocide of a species we deem harmful. In past with just spears and no technology, we have managed to bring some of the strongest and powerful predatorial species on extinction. The ideology of Human weakness is derived from the inability to trust oneself and other of same species. When humans will start trusting and believing their capability and growth of their intellect we will see this civilization advanced. For now, it decays with thoughts that plague and promotes individuality while we are just one of the other species and we have yet a long way to go before another advanced cosmos faring civilization is able to lay their hands on us and utilize us as mere resources like how we use horses and other cattle.
I'm willing to bet if one were capable of traversing through all of space, they'd go mad after witnessing what they find. The universe is a vast chaotic unknown ocean which continually reveals more things once thought impossible.
After the things I've seen already, either I'm immune or I already am mad. I don't see which it is as being consequential .
@@rachdarastrix5251 The madness of the earth is nothing compared to the madness of the universe.
@@mitchellscanga747 Perhaps, but which madness induces the more suffering?
In a quantitative sense? The universe since there are exponentially more beings there than on Earth.
@@mitchellscanga747 Doubt they could be harder not to offend than humans.
Seeing all these planets with no life in it makes you think that earth was a "mistake/accident/coincidence". A once in a life time thing that only happens when all stars align,.... *giggles*
I'm always curious how they analyze these planets to this detail without even touching it ._.
they do not
All sorts of telescopes.
And math. Lots, and lots of math
There's a technique called spectroscopy which let's you know what are the elements present in a star or a distant planet's surface or atmosphere, this can be measured with telescopes built with this purpose. And with other telescopes that allow you to measure the approximate mass, size and distance relative to their own stars, many of this conditions can be inferred by doing the math or the chemistry. It would obviously be better if we could go to each planet and study it's physical conditions once in there, but with objects as distant as any exoplanet, the data that we can gather with our telescopes and satellites it's the best option that we have to understand the physical and weather conditions of this distant worlds as of now. Yes, maybe the measurements are not exact, but we can understand a good deal of what's generally going on in distant planets with modern satellites and telescopes. ;)
@@astroman0500 that only gives them an Idea of some of the elements but what each actual planet looks like and is made of, size and distance from parent star is all hypothesis at this moment. not facts. I am an amateur astronomer that looks at the sky all the time and read on this constantly. I assure you it is all just educated guesses at this point, they are hoping the Webb will clear some stuff up but will be a few years before it gives any real answers.
Because it’s made up astronomy religion
Wouldn’t be surprised that there are already interplanetary intelligent species that are competing amongst themselves to see who can become the “first” intergalactic species while we are still on the way to become interplanetary.
Ye Im pretty sure that if there were some interplanetary superpowers, they would see us as some primitive tribe, or even just some smarter than average monkey
just like a kid going to grade 5 when another is going to grade 6
@@kyle_ken_the_kitty Except, we earthings haven't even reached pre-school level yet.
Planet Earth is a fly over state...the backward place of nothing of value there to aliens that have any ability to travel space...
All media and stuff is always from the human mindset. Reality we are not important to bother with.
This is further supported by the tech required. In order to travel space you need 2 things.
Lots of Energy Or Time. If one of those are solved, what would be expected for space faring race. Matter becomes "Worthless." You think how much money you could make if you can teleport to that planet that had rubies and stuff and just sell them on earth. There are so many worlds FULL of any resources you need for anything you want to build. Coming here would be like travelling on foot around the entire earth to go piss on an ant.
This is actually very accurate.
10 years from know it’ll be common knowledge
A lot of people in this comment section are arguing that we are being egocentric, looking primarily at planets that have similar attributes as our own. The reason we are looking at Earthlike planets is because we know what to look for in these environments, in order to find carbon-based life. We have no idea where to look for life on a planet with sulphuric seas for example.
So it's like looking at trees in order to find monkeys contra combing through the desert in order to find tiny animals you don't know the appearance of.
Once we find life (plants and bacteria are lifeforms too) on an Earthlike exo-planet, it will become easier to find other kinds of lifeforms on planets with more foreign attributes than our own.
Why are you explaining common sense? If anyone needs that explained to them, they are a lost cause and should be tossed into the "defective" pile.
Maybe
there's a reason there isn't any life on venus or any planet in our solar system. There's a reason life on earth arised from water and still all life depends on it. There's a reason all life is carbon based. Scientists are not stupid. In Miller - Urey Experiment of Origin of Life, they created conditions similar to the ones in early Earth and sure enough Amino Acids were formed from simpler molecules. Trying to find life that relies on sulfuric acid as people are stating here is a waste of resorces when we know for sure that earth like planets can support life. And Venus like planets can't for now.
Not a single comment I see says shit about being egocentric except you, shitter.
That was a load of nonsense
At the part when you said “poltergeist” I died. The sound design on this is super sick! And the information that you always give is phenomenal! Keep up the good work!
Szia:)
Those "star-facing" planets are called eyeball stars. Just in case anyone wants to learn more knowledge about the different kind of planets out there, there's other channels with more info. For example, Anton Petrov covers lots of scientific papers about planets like these, in a way that is easy to understand. I think some of my playlists are public, including a list of a whole lot of his videos, if you can't find him with a search.
Its basically ryloth
It’s called tidal locking
How do you find him
Anton is amazing I agree with that.
Love me some Anton Petrov.
Actually GJ 436B isn’t cold at all and is entirely hot. The type of ice that comprises it’s surface isn’t the normal kind we are used to on Earth but a kind called Ice X, which is capable of maintaining a solid form while itself being blisteringly hot
Just call it Hot Ice or Burning Ice instead. We already have "dry ice" so why the hell not? [Lazy shrug]
Like the hot ex who is cold AF
Is there a way to replicate ice x on earth? We use hydraulic machines that use extreme pressure to make diamonds, surely we can make a similar machine to pressurize water into a solid?
@Mike it has to do with pressure. that planet has such intense gravity that the substance (is it actually water? i dunno) "freezes" in the sense that it's a solid, not in the sense that it's cold.
@Mike well, if it's not water, it might not be transparent. "Ice" is kind of a vague, colloquial description. You've heard of dry ice I'm sure, which is neither water nor transparent. Tho it is cold obviously. From what I've read on Wikipedia just now, ice is used to describe solid forms of "volatiles" (a substance that's more likely to exist as vapor) such as carbon dioxide, ammonia, methane, and others. Low temperatures are usually the cause of ice on Earth, but ridiculously extreme pressure can also do it.
I used to love space as a kid and still do, wanted to be an astronaut it’s amazing how these things exist out there.
@@spaceboy3249 unfortunately it can be too late, and it can also be bloody demanding, all you do is work hard and have determination to reach that goal, if youre doing it half assed then it wont do, but if you do mean it then it will come true
Me too but I gave up 5 year ago but I still interested
Im still just a space nerd and I think I wanna stay that way, can barely take care of myself so putting me in charge of a space mission is like asking an armless man to drive a car.
Its a horrible idea
I love space :0 but I won't strive to be an astronaut, instead, I'd prefer to try being an astronomer
Same
imagine if there was life out there living lives just like us, focused on their own drama, having their own cultures and beliefs, wondering if there's life out there just like us.
Bro why aren't you my teacher I would love to learn more stuff like this
He is
@@anthonyman8008 wait...wait
Go to you're principals office and request to talk to the board and tell them why you think this and more should be taught in you're school if they don't listen get you're friends and all parents involved
LOL
Ooooo look and original comment 😒 maybe if you get off your phone and tik tok and pay attention in school you woul learn something
As of the request of someone I post this comment as an individual comment additionally to the reply it originally was.
*Question by **_@R R:_** How do scientists know what's on the surface of a planet?*
*Introduction:*
I'm no astronomer. I studied electrical engineering and we touched on those topics in the physics courses. The reason why this is taught in physics lessons is because when you want to make tasks for the students to solve you want to have realistic examples to make the lesson more engaging. And it just so happens that astronomy has a few nice examples which represent those physics phenomena in a relatively pure way. I also attended one cosmology course where we looked at the different observations in history which shaped our understanding of the universe. And I occasionally watch a RUclips video about astronomy. If someone wants to go deeper into astronomy I can recommend Anton Petrov. If you have any questions feel free to ask. The only thing I can promise is that I will reply if RUclips gives me any notifications. By the way I split up the comment as it was longer than 10’000 characters.
And now I will stop talking about me and start talking about the question. Planets are tiny. Stars are also tiny, but at least they glow in the dark. That's why we see stars with the naked eye and we didn't discover any planets outside of our solar system until recent history. Creative people found several ways with which we can discover planets. I will explain the few I'm aware off. There are most likely more. And each of those methods not only tell you something about the presence of the planet but also about some of the characteristics about the planet.
*Classical mechanic approaches and what we can find out:*
A lot of planets are discovered by either the *star swinging a little* or by the *star dimming in regular intervals.* If the star swings then we can judge the mass of the planet in comparison to the star. The larger it swing, the heavier the planet. If the star dims then we can guess the size of the planet in comparison to the star. After all it dims to the degree in which the surface is covered by the planet. If the dim is not always the same then there are either several planets which do not always cross at the same time or there are rings which are sometimes aligned in a way which cover the star and sometimes oriented in a way that it doesn't cover the star. It could also mean the planet is not perfectly round, but that is pretty much impossible from a certain size upwards. That only works with asteroids within our solar system.
The dimming method only works if we are lucky because chances are pretty small that the orbit of the planet is precisely between us and that star. Another thing we can find out with both approaches mentioned above is the distance to the star. We do that by the frequency in which the star either swings or dims. The frequency of the dimming is determined by the distance which the planet has to the star.
If we both know the size and the mass of the planet we can find out the density of the planet. And with the density we can make some guesses about the materials in that planet.
*Spectroscopy:*
Spectroscopy is basically looking at the different frequencies of the light coming from the star and looking how much of each frequency of light is present. There are two types of lightsources in this universe. One generates light by being hot _(for example the light bulb)_ and all other approaches _(For example the LED)_. Most stars shine because they are hot. Pulsars are the exception. Just think of them as lasers. That's not really accurate, but I don't know more than that. Whatever I write from now on doesn't work with pulsars as we don't know what kind of light they send out. But it works with everything else.
If any material gets hot then they start to glow. And the color of the glow is always the same at the same temperature, no matter the material. This is described with the *black body curve* _(image-search it for better understanding my description)._ The black body curve describes the interaction of three values. Each of those curved lines within the graph represents a different temperature of the object. The x-axis represents the wavelength in which the object shines _(or in other words the color)_ and the y-axis is the brightness. There are two noteworthy things. - The hotter the object is the brighter it gets over all frequencies. - The peak of the curve moves to shorter wavelength when the object get's hotter. This means it turns from red to blue.
That's why hot iron first starts to glow a dim red and then it turns orange and then yellow the hotter it gets. But if you cool the peace of iron _(or any other material including us humans)_ down to room temperature then we very slightly glow in a specific color. And that color is infrared. That's how certain type of night vision works. FLIR cameras work like that. They look at the peak of that curve for each pixel and determine the temperature with that. And when we go back to the stars, we find out that red giants are way colder than the white dwarfs. But there is more to it. If we have a hot core then we basically have a very specific and more importantly a known brightness for each frequency. Stars normally have gasses surrounding that bright core. Each chemical element and molecule absorbs different wavelengths. So let's say a pure nitrogen absorbs the frequency of 550nm. That would be a type of green. So if we have a star which shines white, and the green is absorbed then it looks pink. That way if we have a pink star it has nitrogen on it. The absorption is normally not just one line and the frequency they absorb is very narrow. To get an understanding of how it looks like image search _"star spectroscopy"._ But you can also find out what type of atmosphere a planet has. And for that the planet has to move in front of the star and it has to have a big enough atmosphere then we can also see a bit of color absorption. That way we can determine the content of the atmosphere of a planet.
*Supernovas:*
The base material of most stars is hydrogen and Helium. This makes sense as those two elements make up 99.9% of the mass of the universe. Stars can make some of the lighter elements as well with fusion. But that only works up to a certain point. Heavier elements like iron or even uranium can't be made in a star. They are created via a Supernova. Supernovas are stars that exploded and this creates a new gas cloud, but this time with heavier elements in it. The explosion is strong enough to rearrange lighter atoms into heavier ones. If now a new planetary system starts to be created from that gas cloud then this new planetary system is now capable of making rock planets. This obviously means before our own solar system, there was a supernova here. If I'm not mistaken then it isn't too difficult to see if there was previously a Supernova as there are gas clouds lingering around or because the composition of the star is different. But that is speculation on my part.
_Please continue reading in my reply to this comment…_
*Simulations and Artistic freedom:*
As you can see we can find out stuff about planets with observations alone. There are most likely more methods of finding stuff about planets, I'm just not aware of them. But if we really get down to it the information on most planets is pretty sparse. After all swinging stars is a pretty common method of finding planets. And that only works with massive planets, aka, gas planets. Then we know the speed and the mass and can make good educated guesses on the composition. But we don't just have observation in our toolbelt. Astronomers use a lot of advanced models to *simulate* what they think should happen. Let's just illustrate it with the example of the planet at 5:15 in this video. I will make speculations here as the only thing I know about that planet is what is told in this video. So be aware of that. The scientists found out that there is a planet with a certain size, mass and distance to the star. Whit that they found out the density of that planet. Thanks to the knowledge on density and their knowledge that there was a supernova in the past, they know it is a rock planet. Because of simulations they found out that it has an iron core of around 40% of the planets mass and the rest is silicon. And when they create other simulations they find out that the planet is so close to the star that the silicon vaporizes and fall down as rain.
The results of those simulations are obviously only as good as the physical models behind the simulation. Some of the models could be tested by comparing what we think asteroids look like and what we actually find when we go to them. The models can also be tested with new findings thanks to better telescopes. In my opinion the simulations are pretty decent, at least when it comes to normal stars and planets. When it is about pulsars and other oddities then they are not really that great. But I'm no astronomer and the entire field of astronomy is only a side interest of mine. So my judgement is probably not that valid.
Until now I mostly tried to look at the findings and the theory. But even though science should only be about those two, *there are still humans involved.* If they want to get the money to build a huge telescope or if they want to have a salary for themselves and their staff for the next ten years they need to present what they are doing to the guy who gives them money. That causes a bit of bias into the direction of making things appear more than it actually is. I think _(and hope)_ that this is mostly limited abstract and the conclusion within the paper and not in the main body of the paper. Where the scientist still try to present the truth. The journalists normally don't have enough knowledge to actually understand the truth. So for them it is way easier to blow things out of proportion. The artistic representation of a planet, as you can see a few in this video, normally have a few guidelines and then the artist can make up the rest as he wants to. As physics is the same in the entire universe the artistic representations might not even be that wrong. But they more or less just speculate and fill in the blanks. Also, epic images sell better.
*Earth like planets and the beginning of life:*
But putting findings in a better light and selling it to the masses is not the only thing which influences the opinion on the findings. There is a thing called the *Drake equation.* This is an equation which tries to quantify how many civilizations are in the universe. As all the variables in it are pretty much unknown it is a pretty useless equation. But it was mostly made that we have a reference point to orientate ourselves in this question.
One factor is "fraction of stars that have planets". The more planets there are the more likely it is that there are civilizations out there which we can communicate with. Another thing influencing that equation is the amount of planets which are capable of supporting life. Most people know the habitable zone. This is basically an area around a star which allows water to be liquid. And when you read about a newly found earth in the newspaper it most likely is just that. But the habitable zone is just one of many requirements. For example the Jupiter catches a lot of asteroids which would have fallen on earth. The presence of the moon and it's size allow for the perfect height in tides and it also allowed the early humans to invent math. If the planet is too close or too far from the star then there is a lot of radiation which kills all life. Same if they are in the wrong position in the galaxy. Or if some pulsar accidentally throws a huge beam of radiation and fries everything in its path. There are many more. If you are interested in that stuff then the *finetuning of the universe* might be of interest to you.
An earth 2.0 is if you take all those different parameters and take the best case of them. For example scientists speculate that if the planet is somewhat bigger then it would be better for life. So they say the earth 2.0 has to be bigger than earth. And then they go through other requirements and look what the optimal value is.
Why do I mention the beginning of life? Isn't it obvious that the entire universe is full of life? One might think so. But it isn't really that obvious. There are quite a few astronomers who say our planet is a very special planet and only because of it’s uniqueness can life survive here. And some biologists say that the question of "How did the first cell evolve from chemistry?" *_(aka abiogenesis)_* is so tough that it is more likely that life came from space than that it started here on earth. And if the existence of life is so tough then it can mean one of two things. Either we are a freak accident or there are way more planets out there with suitable environments than we currently know off. As scientists prefer to assume we are relatively average, they think there have to be a lot of earth like planets out there.
But if life comes form space that brings other problems. Like how did it find us in such a vast space and how did it survive the radiation and coldness in space? Also how did it get thrown into space and how did it survive the impact of landing here on earth?
*Life unlike ours*
I hear a lot that life doesn't have to be like the one we know off. And that is true. Even though we don't really know what a consciousness is, we at least know what intelligence is. Both the brain and the computers have in common that they have a complex interaction of small "logic units". Of all we know that only works with certain materials. For example in a place where only hydrogen gas is around there is most likely not a possibility of creating those logic units which interact with each other on a reliable basis. Of course if someone believes in non-material minds or consciousnesses that is a different question and then it is possibly not dependent anymore on the materials in a region. But then it turns into an area of knowledge which is difficult to test with the scientific process. That's why most scientists stay away of these sorts of assumptions and they prefer going with life based on carbon. At least there we have an example of it working.
Waiting for the TL:DR version.
@@benrex777productions9 i just wanna say thank you for taking time and typing all of this for us, even tho not many people are gonna read this. Thank You!
@@saahilshaikh6548 No problem. The other comment already gave me so many replies and thank you's that this was a simple thing to do. I like typing out text walls on RUclips and either learn something myself from people or bring knowledge to other people.
Thank you for this :)
The scale of distance and size of space makes us feel smaller than a speck of dust.
Oh its more real than just a feeling.
More like atoms. If you think about it solar systems are set up similar to atoms.
Smaller, the universe is infinite
Dust? More like we are closer to plankton length than just a speck of dust.
That's exactly what they want you to believe.
The fact that there’s an earth-like planet is just baffling. Just imagine whatever living there is like
Honestly I don't want to lol
It's not earth-like, it's just of a similar size to earth and rests within the habitable zone of it's parent star, it's theorized that liquid water could exist there but the planet is being bombarded by huge amounts of radiation so it's uninhabitable by humans.
Imagine a civilization that could only live in the middle part of that planet and built massive cities around the band in one area.
This is a book waiting to be written.
Especially if they have to contend with creatures or another race from the hot/cold regions, who can perhaps wander into their zone but whose home they cannot access.
I can't think of a book written about life there, but there's several of these star-facing worlds in sci-fi. Two I can think of off the top of my head are Mordia from Warhammer 40k and Verces from Starfinder.
HALO
Drew Wagar's The Shadeward Saga is pretty much this but with a pre-industrial society living on it instead. It's a good series I fully recommend it
That would be cool to have a book on that. These planets are called tidally locked as one side is to hot and the other too cold while the middle ring is the only habitable spot on the planet
For those who dont know how much a light year is lets just say 1 light year equals to 37,000 human years in the fastest rocket known
I mean, if you’re USING rockets…
Think closer to 30-40 years with a solar sail
Does this Mean shinra Can Beat Za Warudo
@@clintivanorsolino9518 actually brain dead 💀
@@clintivanorsolino9518 imma act like ive watched jojo
@@zackmafia3735 I Giorno Giovanna Will Turn Your Pants Into A Woman LMFAO!!
props to the camera person who risked their life travelling to all these planets.
Original joke 🥱
"Funny" and "original"
😂😂😂😂
Very funny and not overused
hahahaahahahahaha…….. funni joke, probably not overused 😱
3:19 “Be sure to take the high ground” 😂😂😂
The "rarity" of earth like planets is also limited to our ability to detect planets mostly by dimming or wobble of stars, which means the more massive gas giant planets will be much easier to find, We really don't have the means to know exactly how rare earth like planets would be.
Considering there are more galaxies in the universe than there are grains of sand on earth it’s very difficult to even estimate how many earth like planets are in the universe. We’ll probably never know, either.
Hhh
I would say, between 2 and a lot, like probably more than 10 and surely less than a trillion.
Seriously though, given that we found 2 rn, and we didn't saw a decent percentage of all planets, it's possible that they are a shit ton of them, thousands even millions. But with this data, it could be that we were extremely lucky and found the only two in the whole universe, unlikely, but possible
I think they are pretty common.
But none of them will fully suit our needs.
We evolved to be in symbiosis with our own planet on so many levels, the slightest change in gravity, vibration, flora, bacterial life, viruses, breatable gas, seasons, moon effect, sun light, radiations..... could kill us in no time.
We would have to find a way to rapidly evolve/adapt so the next generation would be able to run naked on the surface. This would result with every colonised planet having it's own human branch of evolution.
I don't know what is more impressive: that these planets exist, or that we somehow have discovered them and know how they are
We have not, and we don’t.
@@rosiecollins4099 another RUclips genius 😂
@@rosiecollins4099 Sounds like a you problem.
U watching a cgi with a storytell ... u dont know shit
@@rosiecollins4099 Get an education. We can read the light from them and from this determine the chemical makeup of said planet. It's not quite the same as having a live stream but it's impressive considering the vast distances and relative size of the celestial bodies we observe. It's no magic, but I can understand why someone with absolutely no frame of reference for modern science would be suspicious. Education is really important friend.
Imagine if aliens weren't advanced civilizations but just huge macro organisms. No conscience or any discernable features. What if we're the bacteria and earth is our petri dish?
We spread like it, move like it, reproduce like it... that's all we really are. Imagine a zoomed-out time lapse video of any side of land-bearing Earth. We just "vibrate" and "bump into things" all over the surface and shed ourselves/materials off the surface- it's not much more than that
Cosmic horror as a genre is dedicated to this very idea.
Holy molly
*Annihilation*
i'm pretty sure Star Trek TOS has an episode about that
“There are either many aliens or no aliens at all, both are equally terrifying”
We're observing these planets using light from tens of millions of years ago, so the scary thought is some of these planets may have changed
Must of these planets light is than than
these are not millions of light years away
The narrator literally said that it's 20 light years away from Sol...
the star Beatlegeuse exploded millions of light years ago but we wont see the light from the explosion for like a hundred years
Actually you are very wrong. These planets are *tens to thousands* light years away. So they may not have changed that much.
Imagine life that wasn’t evolved around water, and then sees earth “alien riddle: this planet 50ly away from ours, we nicknamed sea, It has deadly rain storms and vast oceans that would melt your skin in an instant.”
I know water is theorized to be the main source of all life. Don’t fact check me, I’m just speaking in a sci-fi setting
Hey, I agree. Basing the possibility of life on our own is rather limiting. What could be inhospitable to us may prove to be more like paradise to another sentient xenoform.
There's no way to tell what's out there bro, water is carbon based lifeforms, and I doubt all life is carbon based. Even the sci Fi views are possible, especially if there's infinite universes
I wonder whether a moon in orbit around a giant planet like this could be habitable. Could the magnetic field from the planet protect the atmosphere of an Earth-sized moon from being stripped away by the solar wind (as happened to Mars) & also protect any life on the moon from radiation?
It is theorized that some moons' conditions might be favourable to life. Titan, a moon of Saturn, and Europa and Callisto, two moons of Jupiter, are rocky like Earth and have ice, it is thought that they might have subterranean lakes or oceans, and are considered as the places in the solar system more likely to have life (other than Earth ofc).
yavin 4. lol.
If it's a gas giant anything like our Jupiter then it would probably put off too many rads for any moons orbiting it to be habitable without considerable radiation shielding
Wait could we live on Jupiter's moon if we were able to replicate a hydrogen and oxygen atmosphere?
Edit: Giving it a second thought it would be way too cold...
Space is literally just the backrooms irl
I really appreciate the camera man's hard work for taking these beautiful planet shots
Wow so funny.
Such a Shameful sentence!
It’s too bad he destroys them afterwards.
@@Druggy-Doggo beerus is the camera man
look up SpaceEngine, it's the program used. it has the entire known and unknown universe catalogued.
I love the thought of a rogue planet - they always seem so intriguing and wondrous. Even the name seems dark and interesting. Can't remember one being in a film though.
There is a Chinese movie where earth itself becomes a rogue planet
Lars Von Trier’s Melancholia
Now I remember hellstar remina
@@creativohugo The Wandering Earth. Entirely man-made, tho.
@@strider117aldo9 Oh I'm going to watch that actually, it's on Netflix. 👍
Yknow, our human bodies may prevent us from ever going to any of these places, curse these fleshy suits...
but if technology progresses far enough, we can make robots and/or AI to go to these distant places to explore the universe.
Whether it be us piloting a very complex machine, or it's just a sentient/highly intelligent AI.
That would be so cool.
Id like to think thay when humanity ever go extinct (cuz it will one day or another, even if its in millions of years) there will be remaining of our civilizations that will be able to live on their own thanks to AI, perhaps making colonization of planets easier for the next space explorers of this galaxy
I suggest you watch "The Beyond" It's a very good movie in my opinion and has all that robot AI stuff.
Or maybe evolution beyond our fleshy suits if we're lucky
a few more revolutions till we get to this point.
humans are just blob of flesh called brain, controlling a suit called skeleton covered with flesh armor
thumb up for this one, no lengthy explanation of anything, just straight to the point....... love it
props to the brave camera man! all in the name of science
Sad News: He Died just 2 Hours Ago. Doctors say it is because of the Special Radiation he Experienced while he was Photographing a Star called "Olar-46b-R1"
Ahhhh more original comments
Drones
Animation
When I get some time for vacation I'll go visit some of these interesting planets
Aliens: You humans have explored planets and galaxies several light-years away from your own home planet. You guys must've finished exploring your own oceans, right?
Humans: ...
Aliens: Right?
Humans: _nervously sweats_
I'd rather fight an alien monster than a giant squid, just sayin
Aliens being laughing at us for the past few centuries cause we haven't even built one Dyson sphere yet 🤣👌
@@akaededeval374 who cares? We have Dyson vacuums
I’d tell them they’re welcome to try and explore it themselves and watch them get crushed by the pressure
“If you don’t want to get burned like anakin skywalker you best take the high ground” that was bars
dun kno
Keplar 10B: I'm so hot!
KELT-9b: That's cute.
Imagine there is just a bunch of heat monsters looking at us thinking damn no way life could exist there
That huge diamond that has liquid diamond oceans and rains diamonds still takes the cake for me, alongside the tiny star system where five habitable planets nearly the size of Earth pass by each other much closer than the moon.
Can you take me with you next time you visit all these planets?
Infinite diamond pickaxes
How can liquid diamond exist
@@soul0172 Likely that they're present in an environment that has a temperature past their melting point.
My idea of heaven is being able to time travel and space travel instantly and see if Riddle is just pulling my leg.
says: "Hot and cold."
actually means: "Hot and dense."
That ice would NOT be cold.
I have a feeling that if there are people who came to Earth who can travel lightyears away, they'd be able to blend with everyone here due to their adaptability and point out these findings on a distant planet; essentially, they'd be showing off how different that area is.
It's important to remember that a lot of the ideas surrounding many of these planets and what they may look like are merely guesses. Mind you, they are very educated guesses but we really don't know for certain. That said, it's fun to let the imagination run wild with these guesses and imagine what these insane worlds must be like.
I mean, calling years of scientific testing and experimentation “just a guess” is very misleading. That’s akin to calling atomic theory just an guess because we can’t touch or see it for sure
@@jeromedavis7816 I do believe they were called "very educated guesses", which isn't misleading at all, especially since we CANT prove it to be 100% true, at least not yet
Whenever I watch these kinda videos I always feel so small and lost.
I also get very curious about what if, any human being from our history has ever visited those planets and died there in total solitude and in agony.
What if I was left alone on these planets?
What if I get lost in outer space. I could never imagine what that could feel like.
My imagination succumbs to the horrors of the enormity of outer space.
As I fall slowly asleep and wake up in the morning and continue living my life everyday, I think the person who visited and died in outer space might feel consoled that someone ever gave a thought to their situation, even though for a little while and even in anonymity.
I just feel so small, this universe is sooo vast, we have so much yet to discover.
Play Elite Dangerous.
Closest one will get without actually going out there. The entire Milky Way is represented in a 1 to 1 scale.
As I type I'm sitting at a star port not far from Sol. (our sun)
watch “another life” really good show about outer space
That’s the entire point of these types of “scientists confirmed” presentations. Don’t give in to despair amigo
As much as I loved the video, great visuals, info, and sound design, I wish the thumbnail hadn’t been a clickbait “crystal-core” that was never mentioned.
You had so many good planets to choose from too!
With all the current advancements/activities in space exploration, it's so curious we haven't gone beyond! I know the human body probably can't withstand the speed in ly, but it would be nice to be able to see humanity exploring another planet in my lifetime.
In my opinion lightspeed is a terrible way to travel. Lightspeed has this huge weakness of having a speed limit and anything beyond that punishes you by making time relatively slower. Regardless, if you had an appointment and you are running late you will never get there in time no matter how "Fast" you go.
Now warp travel... Now thats the stuff!
We are too busy infighting 😒
Speed Doesn't kill you No Matter how fast you Go.
Now *"ACCELERATION"* IS a different story.
Its not a question of when, its a question of how much we're willing to spend.
true. id love to witness extraterrestial being or other lifeforms on other planets before i go 6ftundergr
The videography and your explanation is everything needed to make people sit and watch 🔥❤
Wanna be friends?
@@dr.shahedbinkomor2978 I’ll be your friend!
What is said in the video title vs what's in the actual video is actually false advertisement. That'll quicklly turn people away if they have any sense.
Truee
@Cody Simpson 🤷🏾♂️
Imagine learning about different planets not ever knowing that different planets have been studying our planet since the beginning of time...
And those different planets know what resources we have on earth and know those resources can’t produce any means to see or ever contact them , and there just sitting there laughing or whatever they do
As a mathematician working for an astronomical observatory, the fact that there are such a diversity of planets is not shocking... it's to be expected.
Just as there are exoplanets less habitable than Earth, there are exoplanets *more habitable than Earth too*
Trees that grow cooked serloin steak
I'm actually really sad were probably part of the generation that won't get to see people find civilization in other planets and won't be able to learn about their species
If and only if humanity as a whole can survive that long, which i doubt it can
I don't think humanity is ready for interstellar contact. Humans in general can't even stand learning about the cultures here on Earth without bigotry and warfare. Learning about a culture on a different planet would probably make our heads explode. I always wanted to live in a society like the one in Futurama, too
2:37
"There's 🅱️enis in our solar system"
- Ridddle 2022
Rogue planet SIMP -0136.
Ah finally a planet where onlyfans consumers can feel at home.
I'm always amazed at how much information scientists can obtain from planets hundreds of light-years away just from the light waves.
3:17 lol I wasn't expecting a prequel meme in here
Kudos to the cameraman and scientists for risking thier lives going to this horrifying planet.
What’s scarier, we’re alone in the universe or there’s intelligent life out there?
It's scarier if we're alone imo. It would give me comfort to know that when all life on earth is dead, there will be other intelligent creatures somewhere out there just doing their own thing.
Imagine an alien from these planets saying- one of the weirdest planet we found is Earth, it has WATER and SOIL which can kill you in seconds. Even a super suit can’t protect you from the depth of the salty ocean.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Imagine us visiting a planet one day for more research and the actual aliens sees us and starts theories and making their own recording of "alien" sightings and WE'RE the alien for them
Like animals see us here on earth
Someone ought to make a video on how astronomers figured out how these planets behave.
They don’t that’s the thing
TELESCOPE
@@BLACKMAMBA-og1lf how can they see the interior of a planet with a telescope again, and before you say James Webb it’s not even active yet it’s still moving
@@skelta8383 same way we know what the center of the earth is like? lots of different indirect measurements. which is to say, we don't know, but use probability, and say "wow this planet is heavy and small, so it's probably dense! and if it's dense, it probably has a lot of pressure-based geology going on, which we've been modelling for decades." . videos like this often gloss over things like uncertainty as they stretch the truth to simplify a dozen pieces of research into a couple sentences.
@@nubnubbud yeah and how to we know it “rains glass on some planets” not sure if that was said in this video but all these kinds of videos are 90% bullcrap, and how to we know a planet has an ocean, we can’t just see that
Meanwhile an alien scientist looking at Earth: "These creatures aren't made of metal? They have to eat and drink to live? They don't die when they breathe oxygen???"
If you ever read the John Wyndham short story "Meteor" you'll see that Earth can be an horrific place if you're the wrong kind of life form.
Someone please show this to No Man's Sky developers and other developers of similar games, because they definetely lack imagination in terms of variety of planets they create. Space is huge and full of mind-blowing stuff, yet in many science fiction products planets are too similar and don't require different approaches in terms of gameplay or character behavior.
I'm an Elite cmdr. and I agree with this.
Because real space is much more fascinating and rich than fictional space.
These planets are really scary! Glad none of them would reach our solar system and kill us from a distance!
About 5 more months
@@anthonyman8008 Oh hell no!
@@theleoninaulus1423 😆
No I mean the new telescope
Yeah, these planets are some real bad boys. Glad we won't have to see them close up.
what about earth 2.0
Its a NNN advice,
If there r Aliens, they're probably looking at each of us right now.
Planets that have rings especially thick ones, are intimidating.
Nah. I reckon they just like their personal space
@@KristiContemplates actually ironic because those rings orbit the planet because of the attraction of gravity
I've always had one question, how do scientists know what's on the surface of a planet? even though the distance is very far and it is difficult to ascertain what is on the surface of the planet
Look up astronomical spectroscopy
I'm no astronomer. I studied electrical engineering and we slightly touched on those topics. So I will try to give an answer.
Like BetterDegree7 already said, spectroscopy is a way. In case you don't know how that works I give a little description. If I'm not mistaken there are two types of stars in the universe. The ones which are bright because they are hot and then there are pulsars. Pulsars are like lasers and we have little knowledge on how the radiation physics of them work. Obviously we have speculations, but their physics are very unusual. So everything I say doesn't apply to them.
If any material gets hot then they start to glow. And the color of the glow is always the same with the same temperature, no matter the material. This is described with the black body curve _(image-search it for better understanding my description)._ The black body curve has three values. Each of those curved lines within the graph represents a different temperature of the object. The x-axis represents the wavelength in which the object shines _(or in other words the color)_ and the y-axis is the brightness. There are two noteworthy things.
- The hotter the object is the brighter it gets over all frequencies.
- The peak of the curve moves to shorter wavelength when the object get's hotter. This means it turns from red to blue. That's why hot iron first starts to glow a dim red and then it turns orange and then yellow the hotter it gets.
So with that we can determine the temperature of an object. But we can find out more. If we have a hot core then we basically have a very specific and more importantly a known brightness for each color. Stars normally have gasses surrounding that bright core. Each chemical element and molecule absorbs different wavelength. So let's say a pure nitrogen absorbs the frequency of 550nm. That would be a type of green. So if we have a star which shines white, and the green is absorbed then it looks pink. That way if we have a pink star it has nitrogen on it. And if the planet moves in front of the star and has a big enough atmosphere then we can also see a bit of color absorption. So we can determine the content of the atmosphere of a planet by that.
A lot of planets are discovered by either the star swinging a little or by the star dimming in regular distances. If the star swings then we can judge the mass of the planet in comparison to the star. The larger it swing, the heavier the planet.
If the star dims then we can guess the size of the planet in comparison to the star. After all it dims to the degree in which the surface is covered by the planet. If the dim is not always the same then there are either several planets which do not always cross at the same time or there are rings which are sometimes aligned in a way which cover the star and sometimes oriented in a way that it doesn't cover the star. It could also mean the planet is not perfectly round, but that is pretty much impossible from a certain size upwards. That only works with asteroids within our solar system.
Another thing we can find out with the two things mentioned above is the distance to the star. And we do that by the frequency in which the star either swings or dims. The frequency of the dimming and speed in which the planet travels is determined by the distance which the planet has to the star.
If we know the distance and the atmosphere then we can know the temperature of the planet. If we know the mass and size then we can know the density. And with the density we can also make guesses on the materials which the planet is made out of.
There is another thing we know about starts. The base material of most stars is hydrogen and Helium. Stars can make some of the lighter elements as well. But only to a certain point. Heavier elements like Iron or even Uranium can't be made in a star. They are created via a Supernova. Supernovas are stars that exploded and this creates a new gas cloud, but this time with heavier elements in it. If now a new planetary system starts to be created from that then this new planetary system is now capable of making rock planets. This obviously means before our solar system, there was a supernova here.
If I'm not mistaken then it isn't too difficult to see if there was previously a Supernova as there are gas clouds lingering around or because the composition of the star is different. But that is speculation on my part.
Those are all the ways I personally know off to determine what a plantet looks like. There are most likely more. But as I said I only touched the topic on the sideline. A lot of it is also putting the little data we have though physical simulations and taking the best guesses of how it should look like. And in the end we hear it from journalists and they also add a bit of artistic interpretations to everything.
One place where I see the most artistic interpretation is when it comes to live permitting planets. They assume if the planet is in the habitual zone _(water is liquid on that planet),_ then live is possible. But there are many other things to consider as well. If the star is too close or too far then there is a lot of radiation which destroys molecules. If there is no Jupiter then all the Asteroids hitting him would hit us. If there was no moon then there would be no tides, which help with water flow on this planet and many, many more. But it sounds cool to the masses that we know that there are not only planets out there which are similar to us, but that there are even planets better than ours out there.
By the way lots of earth like planets and earth 2.0 planets are very important. The science of how live developed from chemicals is called abiogenesis. And that is such a tough question that many scientists speculate that life didn't origin from earth but from outer space. And as you can imagine, there are two problems with that.
Problem nr1: How likely is it that a simple cell can survive travel through outer space. And it also needs to survive the impact of both being torn from the initial planet and crash-landing on earth. The fourth transportation aspect is that habitable planets are tiny in comparison to the entirety of the universe. So chances are very low that it lands exactly here.
Problem nr2: We know that there are many lucky circumstances which needed to cooperate that life is possible to survive here on earth. The more of them there are, the less likely is it that a random planet permits the existence of life. But the creation of life is most likely more finicky. To increase chances of it to happening we need a lot of earth like planets or even better there need to be planets which are even more suited for that (earth 2.0). If we find loads of life permitting planets then abiogenesis is not that surprising anymore. If we find few life permitting planets then we are just a freak accident.
_edit: the RUclips deleted my Supernova paragraph. I added that again._
@@benrex777productions9 . since childhood I was obsessed with what was up there, thank you for the explanation, I really appreciate it.
@@RR-bc9ed No problem.
I'm interested in all natural sciences and I'm interested in world views. Naturally astronomy falls under that umbrella. But it isn't my main point of interest. Since there are loads of people finding that interesting, there is more good information out there about astronomy than other fields of science.
@@RR-bc9ed I read through my comment again and noticed that RUclips didn't commit one of my paragraphs. It only left the word Supernova there. _(I hate it when RUclips does that)_ I edited the comment so that this is present again. If you are interested you can read it again as it has an additional interesting information.
Would love to see the space exploration I dreamt about as a kid, I wish I could be around to see certain things but I know I will not in my lifetime. Who knows, maybe in 100 years the tech might be there to get to that 2nd earth.
There are times when I think about how we were born at a perfect time with advanced technology and medicine that people didn’t have access to before, and sometimes I think about how we were born too early and won’t see the future discoveries
@@rafvardanyan94 born too late to explore the world and too soon to explore space
@@rafvardanyan94 I hear that, sometimes videos like these get my mind whirrling. Imagining the vastness of space and how far space truly reaches or if there is an end at all. The earth is so large yet we are a spec of sand in the universe.
@@JakeTechReviews ikr I fiel the same .
Something that is always omitted is the fact that red dwarfs emit insane amounts of radiation in random intervals that would kill off most life / make it very improbable for life to evolve on planets or bitting red dwarfs
anyone else find it hard to believe that you can get this much information on a planet, that far away in our galaxy from just a few pixels
I heard someone say that even when we come across life in the universe we might not even recognize it as life.
That makes me so excited!
so, just invisible aliens
"This planet feels like home"
"That's the part that worries me..."
The funny thing is; in technicality, the most Earth like planets are the most potentially dangerous - if it can support us; it can support "them" (maybe)
Especially if those Earth 2 Planets have Hyena looking space cow things
Whats that in reference to?
thanks , actually made me laugh man. cant imagine a dinosaur with my dog face too
Hyena looking space cow things will be the next marvel villain 😂
Are you talking about the shifty cow from mass effect?
Or they get sick and die like E.T.
How is it possible that people think we have discovered more about space than the ocean?
People think that space end after 8th planet
@@zbychulatara 🤣🤣😅
Very true explanation
it's simple, pressure can reach thousands atmospheres in the ocean and in space there is no pressure.
technology matter
space is easier to explore than the oceans
i feel like i wanna believe that alien exist. I found an old book at my grandma’s and i read a lot of it. It was a story of him and his friends. It also had pictures of ufos and etc. it was amazing and gave me chills it’ll be so cool if they ever come here in earth again (if that book happens to be true)
Crazy how they can tell me the weather on a planet 1000 light years away, but they can’t tell me if it’s going to rain on earth tomorrow.
That's quite simple actually. What we're seeing today -- occurred "1000 years ago"
Not really. First case they're observing, second case predicting.
The star's gravity "pulling me up" from WASP-12B may be a slightly misleading expression. I presume that while the gravity at the bulge peak is low, it is still positive, and the mass loss can only happen with the assistance of the other natural powers prevailing on and around the planet, so I would be "swept away" rather than "pulled up". If the gravity were genuinely negative, I think the planet would begin to disintegrate immediately and lose mass at a much greater rate.
1000 x the pymids of Egypt a day not enough 'mass' at a 'greater rate' for you?
@@roguedrones, planet-size objects are very weak, in practice completely unable, to withstand any negative gravity affecting them - even more so, if the substance of the planet is very hot.
The only thing slowing down a destruction of a planet skimming the Roche limit is that the deeper layers of the planet may still be far enough from the other planet to have enough positive gravity to keep the layers down against the tidal pull plus the pressure from the hot innards of the destructing planet.
Therefore I was expecting a faster mass loss if the surface gravity is negative.
@@roguedrones it's 1000 x the pyramids in weight per second, which is 86400000 per day. The pyramids weigh something like 5 million tonnes so times that by 86400000 per day, and they reckon the planet would last up to 10 million years, I can't even wrap my head around that math.
Once again props to the camera man
You confused cgi with camera guy
@@CharetteOfficial it’s a joke oh my gosh
It was camera drone
NASA reunions must be like "Alright guys seems like Kepler has found ANOTHER one this week, he's on a roll"
We really need to take better care of Earth, seems like everything else is pure hell.
The demons among us are hellbent on making it their own.
two planets missed that woulda been cool to see:
The planet that rains molten metal, and the planet made of diamonds.
Fun fact... We don't have enough technology right now...... So knowledge about these planet might be wrong.
That is possible. Despite a hypothesis or theory being incorrect, scientists learn from mistakes
Riddick fans hearing about the planet with three suns: 👁👄👁
i always wonder where did they get those planet names, until now still wondering who named EARTH.
@Twiddly Stosh i remember gaia in the 100
@Twiddly Stosh In Greek we call planet earth «γη» (pronounced “yee”) which is the modern Greek version of “gaia” (the correct pronunciation in Greek for that is close to “yeh-AH”). I think the word “earth” comes from the germanic roots of English, “Erde” in modern German.
@Twiddly Stosh I live in Gaia😅 For real, in Porto, Portugal, when you cross the bridge to the other side of the river you arrive at Vila nova de Gaia wich means New village of Gaia.
@@brunovieira4630 lmao
@Twiddly Stosh ohh thankyou brother
We need to seriously put more resources into space exploration.
Doesn’t seem necessary tho. We aren’t at all facing a huge extinction soon, and it would be too hard to locate civilizations to another planet. We’d be wasting money, time, and resources so far.
@@MajinJustin872 the trouble is we really don't know if we'll face an extinction soon, not guaranteed, just highly unlikely.
Killer content from Ridddle once again!
How can it be ice cold and hot at the same time?
Einstein: "put frozen nuggets in the microwave for 3 minutes and you will see my friend..."
Never thought exoplanets would be presented in clickbait fashion.
High pressure solid ice is not cold. Half the planets you described standing on have no solid surface. The thumbnail is missing from the video. Nice animations though.
I KNOW LOOK HOW HOT DIANA TROI WAS PICARD'S CREW .
It's crazy how we've managed to use things on earth to go into space and look at planets so far that it would take generations to get to ....
Magic of light travel, and a bunch of big ass magnifying glasses
I wish we could teleport to these planets with the technology that could survive in any conditions
Give it about 150 years and your great great grand kids will live in your wish.
"ice cold and extremely hot at the same time"
...sounds like the new comforter i got from Amazon. 😭
I just wanna know how can they work out that a planet rains glass when it’s 20 light years away. That astounds me the most
Measuring radiation and comparing the light spectrum they receive from it. All materials reflect light with a certain frequency/wavelength. By measuring reflected light you can see what a planet is made up of
Facts
Literally have dozens of thoughts on this but decided to type this one down.
I was thinking of the saying that always makes me sad when it comes to space. Too late to explore the earth, too early to explore the universe.
That right now, the best we can do is "find" suitable planets that can sustain life.
But then again, even if we do... just how much more can people evolve? How much more of science can we utilize?
Like, most movies about space / aliens etc. always depict humans in the future to have developed some technology that right now as impossible impossible. Typed that twice to mean the "crazy" impossible, like spawning food out of thin air.
But what if there will actually never be a time when people can go further than our own solar system?
Alternatively, or the more interesting thought, is that what if humans have technologically evolved enough that in a saying... the universe becomes their oyster?
Like, go 164 LY away, spend some time camping on a very cold planet. Go 4492 LY away, spend some time surfing on water only planet. Go 938 LY away, swim in lava.
And you know, there's always the possibility that there are "other humans" out there that already have this type of technology, and that we're like the tribal people who are cut off from the rest of the universe... not knowing what "modern" science is.
Seems like me and u are the only ones who still watching this video,good tought tho I like it it kinda make since
Seems like me and u are the only ones who still watching this video,good tought tho I like it it kinda make since
I wonder which wish you guys wud prefer.
1) allowing your mind to go into the past and see all the major events that happened.. The supervolcanos erupting, pompeii, the end of the dinosaurs etc
2) allowing your mind to go into the future and see the fate of earth
I kept thinking of this too and I still don't have an answer
Future because the past is past. No point in ever going back. But the future? It would be good to find things out in advance.
Just my opinion but I'd rather see the past. The past is safe, you generally know what's coming and there's some comfort in the idea that you can't change anything. The future? Could be fun, could be incredibly depressing. Imagine watching the series of events unfold that leads to the total annihilation of your own species, probably at their own hands, and then go back to daily life knowing that it's coming closer with each passing day. And you can't do anything about it. Best case scenario, nobody listens to you, worst case scenario people think you're insane.
Oh and if you see until the very end of the earth's physical lifespan it's going to be incredibly boring for a while. Once the sun starts heating up and up everything dies, leaving behind a scorched barren wasteland for who knows how many millions/billions of years, then followed by total darkness as the sun dies. Then after many more years it all gets eaten by a black hole.
The past is much more fun to watch
People: It would be a disaster if a rogue asteroid would hit the Earth.
Some random planet 130 times bigger than Earth: Hello there.