3:50 Answer: The telescope doesn't actually transmit detailed pictures of the planets. It transmits small shadows moving across the image of a star. These spherical shadows obscure a tiny part of light emitted by the star and move in an orbital trajectory (indicating they are planets). Based on the size of the shadow and the speed at which it orbits, they can tell how big the planet is and how close it is to the star. And based on that information, they can infer what the planet's rough average temperature will be, whether it falls into the "habitable zone" for liquid water, and whether it will be "tidally locked" (one side always facing the sun) or rotating on its own axis for different "days". Putting all of these factors together, they can produce a model of the planet (digital image representing what they think the planet should look like given what they know about it) and compare it to Earth.
First he has trouble pronouncing words, now he has problems remembering the months!! As long as he doesn't forget those that enjoy his videos, we'll let ride with a smile and a laugh!!😃🤣😉
The way they figure this stuff out is really fascinating. The only things we have to go off of when learning about these planets is the light that reflects off of them and goes into our telescopes, and so over hundreds of years scientists figured out several ways to interpret the light, through properties like it's wavelength, energy, color if it's visible light, and other things. The wavelength patterns of light get shifted redder or bluer when the object moves farther or closer to us, so they can use that to determine relative speed, rotation rate, and other things.
My Astrobiology professor at SDSU had to leave mid semester cuz he got a call from JPL and NASA to work on Kepler...knowing a guy that worked on this was just so cool. Shoutout William Welsh! My favorite class ever.
NASA is just amazing. We would not be watching you without them. I live in Florida and never been to Kennedy space center. I’m gonna plan that after the pandemic
As a physics major sophomore I should say that the info from this video is not thaqt complicated to deduce, the only kind of challenge is technological, as you need really precise telescopes. And about the names, they are codes with meaning. For example, the letters at the end indicate the planet's number in the system. For example, Proxima b is the second closest planet to the star Proxima Centauri, and Proxima a is the closest. If we used that notation in the Solar system, Earth would've been Sun c or Sol c
They have discovered hundreds of thousands of planets. Naming each one a creative name would actually slow down discovery. Using numbers and letters let scientists move on quickly.
It looks like just a little point of light to us, but if you know what you're looking at you can learn quite a lot about it. A lot of it comes from just looking at how the light behaves. The object may be tremendously distant but its light strikes our eyes directly, meaning it's right here with us. We can take that light and manipulate it, filter it, break it into smaller components etc.. Computers play a big role in understanding the stars as well. Much of our understanding of the stars would be impossible without them.
Really quickly, I’d like to make clear, we have never been able to directly observe an exoplanet’s surface. By this I mean we have never actually gotten a look at what these planets really look like. With the extreme distances alone, this would be basically impossible. Then, the real reason is that the stars of which the planets are orbiting, are incredibly bright compared to the reflected light of the planets. It’s basically the same as trying to take a picture of a star on the other side of the galaxy during the day with a cheap Walmart telescope. The renditions this video shows are artist renditions. The way we discover these exoplanets, is by pointing the Kepler telescope at a star, and waiting until a planet passes in front of the star. Which creates a transit shadow/a partial eclipse that we can observe. So we only see the shadows of these planets. Despite this, we are able to detect specific elements in these planets atmospheres. Which is how we know what the atmospheres are built of.
Yeah, these videos are very misleading. The mislead to the point that they really aren't educational at all. They need to label all the exoplanet graphics as either fake or conjecture, depending on how nice we want to be toward the producer.
Fun fact: Much of the Kepler data was reviewed by ordinary internet users (including me) to detect possible planets. You would look through the graphs and flag ones that demonstrated possible signatures that would indicate the presence of a plant. It would alert the staff that that particular graph should be further reviewed for confirmation.
You can't see the exoplanets like you can when you look through a telescope at mars or anything like that, Kepler detects planets by looking at stars for a long time and detecting when it's luminosity drops, if it occurs regularly we can assume that the thing causing it to become less bright is a planet passing between the star and the telescope, like a minieclipse. There's more math to it than that to figure out how big and far away the planet orbits it's star and all that, but that's the gist of it.
Many years ago, as a kid, I could go outside, look up and see the milky way. It looked like milk in the sky. Even in the countryside these days, I don't think you can see it with just your unaided eyes. I believe you can see more stars, but it's not the same. Used to see the whole sky lit up along with the milky way. Also, lookup Planet X on the web. It'll make you wonder, hmm...
It's the unique talents of individuals. It's likely rare for anyone to actually be stupid. Like the Einstein quote “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
Measure the brightness of a star through two filters and compare the ratio of red to blue light. Compare to the spectra of computer models of stellar spectra of different temperature and develop an accurate color-temperature relation.Basically just by looking at that star's atmosphere,we could see the temperature
fun fact, the James web telescope featured at the end of this video will have the ability to analyse the light that passes through a planets atmosphere during a transit. by looking at patterns in the measured light spectrum we can actually detect the composition of these planets atmosphere, possibly including certain traces that would be indicative of life or perhaps even industrialisation. however given the vast distance this light travels you have to remember, we would be looking at the planet as it was million or possibly billions of years ago. such a method used to examine earth would only show signs of life in the last few billion years and industrialisation only in the last 50-200.
We are able to know (or estimate) the properties of these planets because we know quite a bit about stars, thermodynamics, spectroscopy, and orbital dynamics: If you examine the spectrum of a star, you can determine its temperature, luminosity, and mass. Once you know the mass of the star, you can use some equations to combine this with the period of the planet's orbit and the shape of the light curve (the change in brightness as the planet passes in front of the star), to figure out the size of the planet and the size of the orbit. If you observe the spectrum of the star over time, you can detect it wobble as the planet orbits it. The Doppler shift from this wobble can be used (along with all of the other data) to estimate the mass of the planet. It's sometimes also possible to look at the spectrum to partially determine the chemical composition of the planet's atmosphere. After the basic equations have been used to get estimates, researchers can take the extra step of running simulations of the system. If the parameters of the simulation are tuned to reproduce the observations, the parameters are likely similar to the real thing....so then you try to get different sets of parameters that can reproduce the observed results and finally you determine the likelihood of each set of parameters; the most likely set of parameters is probably pretty close to the truth.
Bear in mind that finding these planets is one thing, actually getting to them in any reasonable amount of time is quite another challenge. We'd have to use generation ships to do it, most likely, if we can't figure out a _much_ faster way to traverse the cosmos. This means multiple generations of people would be born, live out a full life, and die on the ship. Not only that, but if we _were_ to figure out a much faster form of travel, especially if it approached lightspeed, we might be able to send that ship later and get there before the first one. Which would make everything the generation ship did for naught.
When you said you'd get your "wifi sorted" I truly thought you said you'd get your "wife and daughter ". I was like, man I missed a few weeks and now the dudes married with a kid?
7:14. Discussing Georgia Tech while showing a University of Georgia sign is like discussing Manchester United while showing a Machester City emblem. Additionally, Georgia Tech is not named Georgia Tech University. Its name is Georgia Institute of Technology.
As far as watching this kind of stuff and feeling dumb, try this out. My brother is one of the project leads on that upcoming James Webb Space Telescope. Try impressing anyone at a family get together when that is what you're stacked up against.
by the way, this is the easiest way to understand how far lightyears (ly) is. example: 300 ly you would need travel at a speed of light (approximately 300000 km/s, or 186000 mi/s) for 300 years.
you should watch this video called Universe Size Comparison 3D by Reigarw Comparisons (no, not the one with the stars that he already watched, this is a different one with similar title), this is more mind blowing to me in my opinion because it shows things from the smallest molecules, animals, insects, buildings, nature, man made ships and planes, and then it gets to astronomy and planets and stars too.
Funny thing, exoplanets are actually not very east to spot. They might be large, but at such vast distances, even planets are too small to see directly. Instead, we sometimes get lucky, when the planet passes between it's own star and us here on Earth. In this case, we can see it dim the star as it moves past, or "transits". There's other ways as well, such as noticing the effects of a planet and surmising it's position. We can't see the planet directly, but we can tell that something like a planet is having an effect on something we _can_ see, such as a star. It's kind of like estimating where a strong magnet is on the hidden side of the table by watching where the magnet on top is pulled. You can't see the bottom magnet (without looking under the table, you cheater), but you can easily approximate it's location if it is able to pull the magnet on the tabletop. Most of the planetary details are an educated guess, based on what information they can gather from the spectrometry, proximity to the star, type of star, etc. EDIT: Oh, I should have just kept watching before I made this whole comment.
You should watch some of Nick Johnson's videos. He does US videos, going over good and bad things about states, cities and/or counties. They're interesting and silly videos I think you'd like.
Scientists have wondered for decades whether we could survive on Johnny. Now that the Johnny rover has successfully determined that the planet is hospitable to human life, some day soon you or your children might possibly live on Johnny, setting up a colony that will take advantage of all that Johnny has to offer. Children born on Johnny will no longer be considered Earthlings but will ever be known as Jonathans.
Your question about how scientists know about the planets was answered twice in less than 5 mins. The telescope observes the star, and looks for a diminishing of light coming from the star. The amount of the diminish and the length of the diminish tell the scientist approximately how big the planet is and its orbit.
"Give it a cool name! What's a cool name? I don't actually know.." Now repeat that same process thousands of times and you'll see why they dont all have unique names lol
They don't actually see the surface of these far away planets But they can guess the conditions and compononts by calculating it's mass And observing hiw close it is to it's star
He should react to the enormous USS Ronald Reagan Carrier by Spark. It is a really interesting video about how the carriers work as well as military cooperation between Countries are done.
They can tell a lot about exoplanets not so much from the image or what we think of as the image. But from spectral analysis of the image & what is known about the image of the planet. You should research what images have been used & the information (guesses really) that can be assumed from the tiny bits of information they can get.
They do NOT see pictures of exoplanets. Everything shown are artists made pictures created by extrapolating data from the telescope. And by the way, you are not stupid. People that seek to understand things that are currently out of their reach of knowledge are the opposite of stupid. Thank you for the entertaining videos.
I've learned a fair amount of things about various kinds of science (Wasn't too far from a minor in physics), and I still think almost EVERYTHING we know about space is just a guess. Sure it's a scientifically backed guess, but still a guess due to how many assumptions it's based on. I don't buy that we KNOW how things change over thousands to millions to billions of years. We are simply using what we've observed over a few decades to give our best guess (IMO)
Thank you for sharing. I had the opportunity to view a rocket launch in 2018. Incredible experience. I posted a pretty fun montage of the trip to my page.
All the Georgia Tech students/alum that are completely outraged that this man showed a University of Georgia placard (7:13) while mentioning a Georgia Tech discovery report here! Lol
we allready live on earth 2.0; when the earth was first formed but had not "finished" calming down. it was hit by a rogue planet knocking a chuck of earth off which we call the moon. hence the reason the moon has a very tiny atmoshpere and some gravity.
in the video, the gentleman says Georgia Tech but shows a sign for the University of Georgia. These are 2 very different schools. Much more likely that the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) is the correct one.
I think the fact that you're so curious about science implies that you're very intelligent. Knowledge always begins with curiosity, so you're not stupid whatsoever. If you are-then we're all just as dumb lol!
You can determine almost everything from light and radiation. For example of you wanted to know the atmosphere of a different planet, all you have to do is wait so that the planet is infront of its star and then get detailed measurements of the light that passes through the planets atmosphere. The light will be reflected and refracted and thus we can decipher the atmosphere composition of a planet 100 light years away. Many other things are easily measured too, such as the planets distance from its star. All one needs to do is measure the light it blocks out as it revolves around its star. Because the stars size is know you can measure the amount of light as well as te intervals of blinking as the planet passes infront of its star. Using both time and size, you can surmise distance. Like these examples, there are tons of methods for decerning detailed information about far away places. Because the laws of physics as we know it is universal, we can apply our local solar system functions to other systems in tge galaxy/universe.
I hope one day we can retrieve Kepler and put it in the Kepler Museum in Prague. Nasa might want it back for the Smithsonian aerospace museum, but I disagree
"Why not give it a cool name?" Try coming up with 2,000 unique cool names lol And later 20,000 And eventually 200,000 And someday 2,000,000 And it'll keep growing We just can't really. Cool names will likely be given to really important planets, such as ones we've colonized or found life on.
The telescopes don't exactly "see" the planets in the traditional sense. It's actually kind of interesting to learn the science behind it. I'm very much paraphrasing here, but I can try to explain it. Keep in mind I don't have a degree in astronomy. The gist of it goes like this... From an early age, we are told the planets in our solar system rotate around the Sun, right? And the Sun rotates around what we think is a supermassive black hole called Sagittarius A* in the center of the Galaxy. But what is not always described is that the Sun actually rotates ever so slightly around the planets and other objects in the solar system, too. Or, at least, it "wobbles" based on these other solar system objects. In fact, some planets -- notably Neptune and Pluto -- were first theorized based on similar "wobbles" in the orbit of other planets long before we could actually "see" them. With galaxies, we have been able to record changes in the way their light changes to determine how fast they are moving away from us. We know we are seeing light that is sometimes billions of years old, but we do see it. One of the oldest known, GN-z11, is moving away from us, making it what is called a high redshift galaxy. With stars in our own galaxy, we can also measure their redshift to see just how fast they are moving away as well or blueshift to see how fast they are moving towards us. These are shifts in the spectrum of light that move toward either the red or blue ends of the spectrum based on direction. Shifts in light were part of the foundational basis behind the Big Bang theory at the time of its discovery and taught us that the universe was billions of years old. So going back to the "wobbles" of planets, we have a way to measure a similar type of "wobble" in redshift or blueshift that we sometimes see in stars. In fact, we know from the makeup of the Sun that a Red Giant should have a particular spectrum of light that it outputs, and based on the shift we can tell how fast such a star it is moving over time. But sometimes these measurements show very very tiny "wobbles" showing the star's movement in relation to the other objects in its solar system. From what we would expect to see from the light, these are sometimes confirmed as systems likely to harbor planets, but we don't always know much about them other than the density of these objects and a general idea of where they might be in the system. Still, this provides us with candidate stars that we could look at closer to determine if a planet is possibly visible when it passes between the star and a specialized telescope watching that star. In some cases while watching these stars, such as Tabby's Star, we will see outright obstruction of light or specific kinds of light that we have to explain away as either dust, a massive planetary collision within the system, or some other type of interference. In other cases, however, we can actually see a full and complete planet pass in front of the star. This is called the "transit method" and I believe it is the primary way that Kepler finds stars. Using transit photometry when a planet actually passes in front of a star, Kepler actually gets to do all sorts of interesting things, like analyzing the spectroscopy of light to determine the makeup of the atmosphere of the planet. Combining that with data we get from redshift or blueshift measurements, we can narrow down the details of many of these exoplanets such as how big they are, how Earthlike they are, whether they are in the Habitable Zone for that star, and what other planets are in their system. Right now we are very much limited in what we can actually observe with existing space telescopes. We can really only really "see" the atmospheres of very large objects like gas giants in systems with a star like our Sun using coronagraphs right now. There is a new telescope with this capability being launched this October called the James Webb Space Telescope that is capable of finding planets about three times the size of Earth in these same systems. When it comes to red dwarf stars, however, it will be able to see planets like Earth. As far as galaxies go, it will put Hubble to shame, being able to take an actual picture of GN-z11 and getting us data on early stars that we theorize exist containing only Helium and Hydrogen called pristine stars. If we could analyze them it would tell us more about the early universe.
bro, we can discover everything on space by using math and waves, that's how we guess there is a planet, star, asteroid or even bigger structures, we don't see them directly, we guess based on the numbers we read
Why is there hope for humanity because of this? It's not like we can make it there. It'd take us 70,000 years to reach the nearest star that's just 4 light years away.
they give the planets mediocre names because at a certain point they have named so many there just isn’t any good options left
jajdidodf if they start naming planets andrew or like sophie and stuff i swear
Planet BabaBooey
@@jartstopsign My home
Planety McPlanFace
Exactly. The cool name supply is exhausted; more will need to be manufactured.
"What's a cool name?"
Jeff
"I can't think of a name... Johnny"
Bruh
3:50 Answer: The telescope doesn't actually transmit detailed pictures of the planets. It transmits small shadows moving across the image of a star. These spherical shadows obscure a tiny part of light emitted by the star and move in an orbital trajectory (indicating they are planets). Based on the size of the shadow and the speed at which it orbits, they can tell how big the planet is and how close it is to the star. And based on that information, they can infer what the planet's rough average temperature will be, whether it falls into the "habitable zone" for liquid water, and whether it will be "tidally locked" (one side always facing the sun) or rotating on its own axis for different "days". Putting all of these factors together, they can produce a model of the planet (digital image representing what they think the planet should look like given what they know about it) and compare it to Earth.
First he has trouble pronouncing words, now he has problems remembering the months!!
As long as he doesn't forget those that enjoy his videos, we'll let ride with a smile and a laugh!!😃🤣😉
I relate so much though. Quarantine has done a number on us all lol
People on those planets are like "ok those assholes on Earth found us time to move"
Go Mountaineers! Even though I’m a badger lol
the human realizing aliens running away from them: ruclips.net/video/W6oQUDFV2C0/видео.html
@@wildlifeshorts3475 lol it's all good! Unless it's a pitt fan 🤮
@FIGHTFANNERD9 🤨🤫
Luka, stop calling yourself stupid. You're learning everyday. Not knowing something isn't stupid, and learning new things will always be fun.
The way they figure this stuff out is really fascinating. The only things we have to go off of when learning about these planets is the light that reflects off of them and goes into our telescopes, and so over hundreds of years scientists figured out several ways to interpret the light, through properties like it's wavelength, energy, color if it's visible light, and other things.
The wavelength patterns of light get shifted redder or bluer when the object moves farther or closer to us, so they can use that to determine relative speed, rotation rate, and other things.
My Astrobiology professor at SDSU had to leave mid semester cuz he got a call from JPL and NASA to work on Kepler...knowing a guy that worked on this was just so cool. Shoutout William Welsh! My favorite class ever.
NASA is just amazing. We would not be watching you without them. I live in Florida and never been to Kennedy space center. I’m gonna plan that after the pandemic
I worked there for McDonnell Douglas, was there when the Challenger was lost! Everyone out there was in shock!
As a physics major sophomore I should say that the info from this video is not thaqt complicated to deduce, the only kind of challenge is technological, as you need really precise telescopes. And about the names, they are codes with meaning. For example, the letters at the end indicate the planet's number in the system. For example, Proxima b is the second closest planet to the star Proxima Centauri, and Proxima a is the closest. If we used that notation in the Solar system, Earth would've been Sun c or Sol c
They have discovered hundreds of thousands of planets. Naming each one a creative name would actually slow down discovery. Using numbers and letters let scientists move on quickly.
Yup. Discovered thousands new planes but cannot discover a way to clean the shit from this world.... Science '' improved''....
It looks like just a little point of light to us, but if you know what you're looking at you can learn quite a lot about it. A lot of it comes from just looking at how the light behaves. The object may be tremendously distant but its light strikes our eyes directly, meaning it's right here with us. We can take that light and manipulate it, filter it, break it into smaller components etc.. Computers play a big role in understanding the stars as well. Much of our understanding of the stars would be impossible without them.
Really quickly, I’d like to make clear, we have never been able to directly observe an exoplanet’s surface. By this I mean we have never actually gotten a look at what these planets really look like. With the extreme distances alone, this would be basically impossible. Then, the real reason is that the stars of which the planets are orbiting, are incredibly bright compared to the reflected light of the planets. It’s basically the same as trying to take a picture of a star on the other side of the galaxy during the day with a cheap Walmart telescope. The renditions this video shows are artist renditions. The way we discover these exoplanets, is by pointing the Kepler telescope at a star, and waiting until a planet passes in front of the star. Which creates a transit shadow/a partial eclipse that we can observe. So we only see the shadows of these planets. Despite this, we are able to detect specific elements in these planets atmospheres. Which is how we know what the atmospheres are built of.
Yeah, these videos are very misleading. The mislead to the point that they really aren't educational at all. They need to label all the exoplanet graphics as either fake or conjecture, depending on how nice we want to be toward the producer.
Fun fact: Much of the Kepler data was reviewed by ordinary internet users (including me) to detect possible planets. You would look through the graphs and flag ones that demonstrated possible signatures that would indicate the presence of a plant. It would alert the staff that that particular graph should be further reviewed for confirmation.
never did the Kepler data, but did do a little mars mapping. good fun
Recommended RUclips video: "Better than the James Webb Space Telescope? The Upcoming Extremely Large Telescope."
One of these days we're gonna alert some other intelligent life forms of our existence & start something we cant finish.
we already have
Cool. Also you're a weirdo pretending to be a girl. You're gross.
NASA GIVE THIS MAN A TOUR ALREADY
You can't see the exoplanets like you can when you look through a telescope at mars or anything like that, Kepler detects planets by looking at stars for a long time and detecting when it's luminosity drops, if it occurs regularly we can assume that the thing causing it to become less bright is a planet passing between the star and the telescope, like a minieclipse. There's more math to it than that to figure out how big and far away the planet orbits it's star and all that, but that's the gist of it.
Many years ago, as a kid, I could go outside, look up and see the milky way. It looked like milk in the sky. Even in the countryside these days, I don't think you can see it with just your unaided eyes. I believe you can see more stars, but it's not the same. Used to see the whole sky lit up along with the milky way. Also, lookup Planet X on the web. It'll make you wonder, hmm...
By analyzing the light from objects, the temperature and common elements can be determined. Well, that's true for stars. Much harder for planets.
I'd check out a video where they go from the smallest possible unit of measurement, all the way to the largest. It'd blow your mind quite a bit.
Once you're above the atmosphere you'd be surprised what a telescope can find lavluka
It's the unique talents of individuals. It's likely rare for anyone to actually be stupid. Like the Einstein quote “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
You're not stupid. You're humble.
Could you react to "The secret history of the moon " by the melodysheep?
yesssss i’ve been asking for more melodysheep
I could listen to you having your mind blown all day
Measure the brightness of a star through two filters and compare the ratio of red to blue light. Compare to the spectra of computer models of stellar spectra of different temperature and develop an accurate color-temperature relation.Basically just by looking at that star's atmosphere,we could see the temperature
fun fact, the James web telescope featured at the end of this video will have the ability to analyse the light that passes through a planets atmosphere during a transit. by looking at patterns in the measured light spectrum we can actually detect the composition of these planets atmosphere, possibly including certain traces that would be indicative of life or perhaps even industrialisation.
however given the vast distance this light travels you have to remember, we would be looking at the planet as it was million or possibly billions of years ago. such a method used to examine earth would only show signs of life in the last few billion years and industrialisation only in the last 50-200.
We are able to know (or estimate) the properties of these planets because we know quite a bit about stars, thermodynamics, spectroscopy, and orbital dynamics: If you examine the spectrum of a star, you can determine its temperature, luminosity, and mass. Once you know the mass of the star, you can use some equations to combine this with the period of the planet's orbit and the shape of the light curve (the change in brightness as the planet passes in front of the star), to figure out the size of the planet and the size of the orbit. If you observe the spectrum of the star over time, you can detect it wobble as the planet orbits it. The Doppler shift from this wobble can be used (along with all of the other data) to estimate the mass of the planet. It's sometimes also possible to look at the spectrum to partially determine the chemical composition of the planet's atmosphere. After the basic equations have been used to get estimates, researchers can take the extra step of running simulations of the system. If the parameters of the simulation are tuned to reproduce the observations, the parameters are likely similar to the real thing....so then you try to get different sets of parameters that can reproduce the observed results and finally you determine the likelihood of each set of parameters; the most likely set of parameters is probably pretty close to the truth.
Based on the size and color (thus temperature) of a star, they can estimate the energy radiated by stars.
react to more Vsauce. He has juicy content
Yes love the VSauce channels. If ya like video games VSauce3 is all about bringing science to games.
Yes he needs to react to black hole by vsauce one of my favorite videos
I doubt Vsauce will ever kill me. It’s unlikely, but it’s never impossible.
Not vSauce irs destiny
Bear in mind that finding these planets is one thing, actually getting to them in any reasonable amount of time is quite another challenge.
We'd have to use generation ships to do it, most likely, if we can't figure out a _much_ faster way to traverse the cosmos. This means multiple generations of people would be born, live out a full life, and die on the ship. Not only that, but if we _were_ to figure out a much faster form of travel, especially if it approached lightspeed, we might be able to send that ship later and get there before the first one. Which would make everything the generation ship did for naught.
When you said you'd get your "wifi sorted" I truly thought you said you'd get your "wife and daughter ". I was like, man I missed a few weeks and now the dudes married with a kid?
7:14. Discussing Georgia Tech while showing a University of Georgia sign is like discussing Manchester United while showing a Machester City emblem. Additionally, Georgia Tech is not named Georgia Tech University. Its name is Georgia Institute of Technology.
As far as watching this kind of stuff and feeling dumb, try this out. My brother is one of the project leads on that upcoming James Webb Space Telescope. Try impressing anyone at a family get together when that is what you're stacked up against.
Real question is when is Luka going to activate windows?
pewdiepie and most youtubers haven’t activated windows what is the secret?
by the way, this is the easiest way to understand how far lightyears (ly) is.
example: 300 ly you would need travel at a speed of light (approximately 300000 km/s, or 186000 mi/s) for 300 years.
you should watch this video called Universe Size Comparison 3D by Reigarw Comparisons (no, not the one with the stars that he already watched, this is a different one with similar title), this is more mind blowing to me in my opinion because it shows things from the smallest molecules, animals, insects, buildings, nature, man made ships and planes, and then it gets to astronomy and planets and stars too.
Of course reaching them would be a challenge in itself and even a attempt at such is over a hundred years off
if u havent seen "how the universe is a lot bigger than u think!" u should 100% react to it!! gonna blow ur mind!
Day 58 of asking Luka to watch “The Medic Who Fought a War Without a Weapon” by Simple history
i hope ur dreams come true
Petition for this video ✍️
What perseverance my guy
Keep it up I support the cause.
Hacksaw Ridge was a great movie!!
Goddamn bruh
Everyone help him
Funny thing, exoplanets are actually not very east to spot. They might be large, but at such vast distances, even planets are too small to see directly. Instead, we sometimes get lucky, when the planet passes between it's own star and us here on Earth. In this case, we can see it dim the star as it moves past, or "transits". There's other ways as well, such as noticing the effects of a planet and surmising it's position.
We can't see the planet directly, but we can tell that something like a planet is having an effect on something we _can_ see, such as a star. It's kind of like estimating where a strong magnet is on the hidden side of the table by watching where the magnet on top is pulled. You can't see the bottom magnet (without looking under the table, you cheater), but you can easily approximate it's location if it is able to pull the magnet on the tabletop.
Most of the planetary details are an educated guess, based on what information they can gather from the spectrometry, proximity to the star, type of star, etc.
EDIT: Oh, I should have just kept watching before I made this whole comment.
Starship SN10 is launching in a few days, maybe you'd want to check that out?
Yessssssss hopefully Wednesday
wait Acutally? This True?
@@licansen3331 The plan right now looks to be Wednesday, yes. Could get pushed back to Thursday depending on weather.
You should watch some of Nick Johnson's videos. He does US videos, going over good and bad things about states, cities and/or counties. They're interesting and silly videos I think you'd like.
Scientists have wondered for decades whether we could survive on Johnny. Now that the Johnny rover has successfully determined that the planet is hospitable to human life, some day soon you or your children might possibly live on Johnny, setting up a colony that will take advantage of all that Johnny has to offer. Children born on Johnny will no longer be considered Earthlings but will ever be known as Jonathans.
Exoplanets start with a systematic name and once enough is known about them they may receive a common name provided by the discoverer.
Your question about how scientists know about the planets was answered twice in less than 5 mins. The telescope observes the star, and looks for a diminishing of light coming from the star. The amount of the diminish and the length of the diminish tell the scientist approximately how big the planet is and its orbit.
"Give it a cool name! What's a cool name? I don't actually know.."
Now repeat that same process thousands of times and you'll see why they dont all have unique names lol
There is no way we are alone.
Luka the G.O.A.T 🐐 keep up the gind 💪🏻
There are laws of nature that we can use to calculate a vast amount of information from a relatively small set of data.
They don't actually see the surface of these far away planets
But they can guess the conditions and compononts by calculating it's mass
And observing hiw close it is to it's star
In the future they will say "back in the day we lived at earth
"
He should react to the enormous USS Ronald Reagan Carrier by Spark. It is a really interesting video about how the carriers work as well as military cooperation between Countries are done.
They can tell a lot about exoplanets not so much from the image or what we think of as the image. But from spectral analysis of the image & what is known about the image of the planet. You should research what images have been used & the information (guesses really) that can be assumed from the tiny bits of information they can get.
They do NOT see pictures of exoplanets. Everything shown are artists made pictures created by extrapolating data from the telescope.
And by the way, you are not stupid. People that seek to understand things that are currently out of their reach of knowledge are the opposite of stupid. Thank you for the entertaining videos.
Kepler uses hydrazine as a fuel to change the orientation of its telescope/camera sensor.
you should watch stuff about wormholes. i had like a huggeeee obsession w them years ago but yea.. they’re interesting
I've learned a fair amount of things about various kinds of science (Wasn't too far from a minor in physics), and I still think almost EVERYTHING we know about space is just a guess. Sure it's a scientifically backed guess, but still a guess due to how many assumptions it's based on. I don't buy that we KNOW how things change over thousands to millions to billions of years. We are simply using what we've observed over a few decades to give our best guess (IMO)
Thank you for sharing. I had the opportunity to view a rocket launch in 2018. Incredible experience. I posted a pretty fun montage of the trip to my page.
love the space reactions ! React to some Carl Sagan videos
Glad to see someone admiring the beauty of the universe! -from a non human😊✨
All the Georgia Tech students/alum that are completely outraged that this man showed a University of Georgia placard (7:13) while mentioning a Georgia Tech discovery report here! Lol
we allready live on earth 2.0; when the earth was first formed but had not "finished" calming down. it was hit by a rogue planet knocking a chuck of earth off which we call the moon. hence the reason the moon has a very tiny atmoshpere and some gravity.
in the video, the gentleman says Georgia Tech but shows a sign for the University of Georgia. These are 2 very different schools. Much more likely that the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) is the correct one.
I am liking these astronomy videos.
I think the fact that you're so curious about science implies that you're very intelligent. Knowledge always begins with curiosity, so you're not stupid whatsoever. If you are-then we're all just as dumb lol!
5 million lights years technically means it’s delayed 5 million years. What we see happened 5 million years ago
Bring back the 2nd channel bro, the OGs miss the sports videos!
You can determine almost everything from light and radiation. For example of you wanted to know the atmosphere of a different planet, all you have to do is wait so that the planet is infront of its star and then get detailed measurements of the light that passes through the planets atmosphere. The light will be reflected and refracted and thus we can decipher the atmosphere composition of a planet 100 light years away.
Many other things are easily measured too, such as the planets distance from its star. All one needs to do is measure the light it blocks out as it revolves around its star. Because the stars size is know you can measure the amount of light as well as te intervals of blinking as the planet passes infront of its star. Using both time and size, you can surmise distance.
Like these examples, there are tons of methods for decerning detailed information about far away places. Because the laws of physics as we know it is universal, we can apply our local solar system functions to other systems in tge galaxy/universe.
This is my vote for a Luka live stream of SN10 on Wednesday
I hope one day we can retrieve Kepler and put it in the Kepler Museum in Prague. Nasa might want it back for the Smithsonian aerospace museum, but I disagree
"Why not give it a cool name?"
Try coming up with 2,000 unique cool names lol
And later 20,000
And eventually 200,000
And someday 2,000,000
And it'll keep growing
We just can't really.
Cool names will likely be given to really important planets, such as ones we've colonized or found life on.
I first thought it said May as well!
I think its very much possible that there is life on Planet Johnny.
The telescopes don't exactly "see" the planets in the traditional sense. It's actually kind of interesting to learn the science behind it. I'm very much paraphrasing here, but I can try to explain it. Keep in mind I don't have a degree in astronomy. The gist of it goes like this...
From an early age, we are told the planets in our solar system rotate around the Sun, right? And the Sun rotates around what we think is a supermassive black hole called Sagittarius A* in the center of the Galaxy. But what is not always described is that the Sun actually rotates ever so slightly around the planets and other objects in the solar system, too. Or, at least, it "wobbles" based on these other solar system objects. In fact, some planets -- notably Neptune and Pluto -- were first theorized based on similar "wobbles" in the orbit of other planets long before we could actually "see" them.
With galaxies, we have been able to record changes in the way their light changes to determine how fast they are moving away from us. We know we are seeing light that is sometimes billions of years old, but we do see it. One of the oldest known, GN-z11, is moving away from us, making it what is called a high redshift galaxy. With stars in our own galaxy, we can also measure their redshift to see just how fast they are moving away as well or blueshift to see how fast they are moving towards us. These are shifts in the spectrum of light that move toward either the red or blue ends of the spectrum based on direction. Shifts in light were part of the foundational basis behind the Big Bang theory at the time of its discovery and taught us that the universe was billions of years old.
So going back to the "wobbles" of planets, we have a way to measure a similar type of "wobble" in redshift or blueshift that we sometimes see in stars. In fact, we know from the makeup of the Sun that a Red Giant should have a particular spectrum of light that it outputs, and based on the shift we can tell how fast such a star it is moving over time. But sometimes these measurements show very very tiny "wobbles" showing the star's movement in relation to the other objects in its solar system. From what we would expect to see from the light, these are sometimes confirmed as systems likely to harbor planets, but we don't always know much about them other than the density of these objects and a general idea of where they might be in the system. Still, this provides us with candidate stars that we could look at closer to determine if a planet is possibly visible when it passes between the star and a specialized telescope watching that star.
In some cases while watching these stars, such as Tabby's Star, we will see outright obstruction of light or specific kinds of light that we have to explain away as either dust, a massive planetary collision within the system, or some other type of interference. In other cases, however, we can actually see a full and complete planet pass in front of the star. This is called the "transit method" and I believe it is the primary way that Kepler finds stars.
Using transit photometry when a planet actually passes in front of a star, Kepler actually gets to do all sorts of interesting things, like analyzing the spectroscopy of light to determine the makeup of the atmosphere of the planet. Combining that with data we get from redshift or blueshift measurements, we can narrow down the details of many of these exoplanets such as how big they are, how Earthlike they are, whether they are in the Habitable Zone for that star, and what other planets are in their system.
Right now we are very much limited in what we can actually observe with existing space telescopes. We can really only really "see" the atmospheres of very large objects like gas giants in systems with a star like our Sun using coronagraphs right now. There is a new telescope with this capability being launched this October called the James Webb Space Telescope that is capable of finding planets about three times the size of Earth in these same systems. When it comes to red dwarf stars, however, it will be able to see planets like Earth. As far as galaxies go, it will put Hubble to shame, being able to take an actual picture of GN-z11 and getting us data on early stars that we theorize exist containing only Helium and Hydrogen called pristine stars. If we could analyze them it would tell us more about the early universe.
Science is amazing. It's mostly determined based on light and our knowledge of physics.
I humbly request that you react to Falcon Heavy: Elon Musk's Engineering Masterpiece. Its beautiful.
Yes! Agreed, you need to react to this.
Humbly?
@@PHXNKVHXLIC Correction: Not so humbly XD
He demands*
@@Chippster Oof, he got me
Can you react to most amazing top 10 urban legends?
bro, we can discover everything on space by using math and waves, that's how we guess there is a planet, star, asteroid or even bigger structures, we don't see them directly, we guess based on the numbers we read
I have a dream, my dream is to get Luka to one day react to anime😂😌
I want to run away and never look back
another great reaction, thanks
Are you listening many big powerful telescopes!
we dont no i could be dinosaurs like creatuar it could my man
How they find them is mathematics and the electromagnetic spectrum.
Really Good Video Man !!
Ok, time for a quiz.
luka do a video on how telescopes can tell those things u mention, that way you wont be so dumbfounded
Could you react to more melodysheep videos? That would be awesome if you do and keep up with these videos man!
Just wait for the James Webss telescope its gonna be a blast
Every planet is now Johnny ‼‼
Not so sure we should take any water off our planet being that we have a hard time getting clean water as it is.
Why is there hope for humanity because of this? It's not like we can make it there. It'd take us 70,000 years to reach the nearest star that's just 4 light years away.
R.I.P keplar
* salutes* yo what’s up guys welcome back to another video
Johnny 1, Johnny 2, ... Johnny 500,003...
react to Geography King ranking the 50 state capitols
Said Georgia Tech then showed a UGA sign. We're not competing in Football rn so at least give us credit for academics xD
you should check out pbs space time, its great stuff