There are no known habitable exoplanets
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 05. 2024
- Everywhere you look, there are people claiming NASA found "Earth 2.0" or "planets better for life than Earth". But this isn't true. Kepler-22 b, Kepler-186 f, Gliese 667 Cc, Proxima Centauri b, the TRAPPIST-1 system, K2-18 b, and all other potentially habitable exoplanets likely can't host alien life. Even with things like the James Webb Space Telescope, we have yet to find any habitable exoplanets.
If you enjoy, please like and subscribe
Footage in this video taken using Space Engine
![Everything NASA Discovered from James Webb's First Year in Space [4K]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nbDQEo0uA0Q/mqdefault.jpg)
edit: i changed it
ok so this video has been out for about a week now and a lot of the comments are mad at me for making clickbait, so i’m gonna try to clear that up in one comment
when i was writing this script a few months ago, i had just gotten recommended a bunch of ai generated clickbait bs that inspired me to make this. I put “there are no habitable exoplanets” as the title as a direct response to the titles of the other videos, which were saying stuff like “these are the most habitable exoplanets”
this video sat on the back burner for a few months until i finally got around to publishing it, and I didn’t bother to change the title
the title is not arguing that habitable exoplanets don’t exist. I say in the video that they probably do. If anything I should’ve added quotation marks to the title (there are no “habitable” exoplanets) to make it more in line with what i actually wanted the video to say (which was meant as a direct counter to the ai misinformation that’s everywhere)
but I forgot to do that, and overnight this became my best performing video ever, and now i’m scared to change the title for fear that the whole thing will just die
my goal isn’t to misinform people. I actively try to avoid clickbait as much as possible, and I research my videos for months before publishing them. When I made this title, clickbait genuinely wasn’t even on my mind, “there are no habitable exoplanets” was just my first automatic thought
(and if you check my other videos you’ll hopefully find this is true, my other video titles are usually very simple and non-clickbait. This video is very much an outlier)
So sorry if you feel clickbaited, but that honestly wasn’t my intention. I had no intent of making the video clickbait, and at this point i’m scared to change it because it could kill the video’s performance, and I feel as though this is an important video to get out to as many people as possible, since it’s directly countering popular misinfo
i’m not trying to make excuses, i need to hold myself up to a higher standard so i don’t become the exact thing i’m trying to stop, and ig i’ll just remember to revise video titles in the future
essay over
I don't think you are making excuses but you are choosing to leave a clickbait title up at this point, even if not originally, to get money despite the fact you know that this is misleading.
You do what you want but it is disheartening to see that you care more about getting money than being honest.
Option one: change the title & risk losing some views.
Option two: Keep the title & gain the wrong kind of views.
Just my two cents.
I don't think the title is clickbait. There aren't currently any habitable exoplanets that we know of. There are some that we think could be, but that's not helpful. Please don't change the title.
@@davidstocker2278 the problem though is exactly in what you said. There are no habitable exoplanets planets that we know of. Which is wholly different than there are not any habitable exoplanets.
It is dishonest, because we don't know and it is framed as an absolute. He admitted to that which I think is pretty brave and intelligent but then chose not to change it which is quite selfish.
Oh and please elaborate on the that's not helpful aspect of your argument. I don't understand.
yeah, the reality is that Venus, Mars, type planets seems to be the norm in the habitale zone. It's like earth has all the elements needed. planets detectable to us requires large amounts of work to make habitable. I have my own personal propossal that would require alot of work. it would require using asteriod dust to blanket the plants surface. This would lock in the gases that causes the runaway green house. as many rocky worlds is missing a upper surface layer like earth. if mars had this surface layer, mars would be the size of earth.
A majority of humans died on earth
Conclusion: Earth is the deadliest planet
Earth is not the deadliest planet. There are a lot more planets that are *IMPOSSIBLE* to live on. (A.K.A Venus-Like planets and Gas Giants.)
@@PlanetGuy901 and how many casualties are in those planets?
r/wooooooooosh@@PlanetGuy901
@@PlanetGuy901but absolutely ZERO people died on those planets
however entire species died on earth
TL;DR: earth is the most deadliest planet in the universe
@@PlanetGuy901Bruh
The funniest joke in the universe would be that theres another intelligent lifeform out there, but they see Earth as unfit for life because they think non-ammonia breathing lifeforms an impossibility.
😂
I wonder if somewhere in the universe, there are aliens sitting on a frozen, radioactive hellscape with crushing gravity thinking "damn, the fact that this planet is so perfect for life is such a miracle it shouldn't even be possible"
Yes, probably. Also, we always assume life evolves only on planets. I've always thought that was a little odd.
@@Dan-dy8zp Yeah, we all know the ancient aliens of Atlantis actually inhabited a star.
@@CookieIcecream-dj5fu Oh. Right. Of course. *slaps forehead*.
@@CookieIcecream-dj5fu Why not float in space? It could inhabit the nebula where new stars are forming out of the gasses and photosynthesis while collecting up matter to reproduce. Why not live in the rings of gas giants ?
@@Dan-dy8zpI think that wouldn’t be dense enough to support more than proto-organisms without DNA or any sort of analog for it
Even those I’d expect to go extinct in a few seconds as there isn’t enough pressure to hold anything together
instead of terraforming other planets to make them habitable, we should look a bit closer to home and terraform Detroit.
Going to need significantly more than additional fauna
😂😂😂😂😂
You don't know what you're saying 😂
There is no easter bunny, there is no tooth fairy, and there are no habitable exoplanets
And also there is no Queen of England.
For all intents and purposes, yes.
@@jeb123 he's right now
There is no war in Ba Sing Se
@@retrogaussgun2296 I left my heart in San Francisco.
After taking a look at housing prices they still seem more habitable than Earth
that makes no sense, even if you were trying to be funny.
@@Curt_RandallIt does make some sense, you have no funny bone
tee hee
The commute to work would be brutal.
@@markg.7865 You could just work remotely... with several hour delay on zoom calls
Remember: The Moon is also within the habitable zone of our star.
Too small
So?
I think op meant that just because its in the habitable zone, doesn't mean its habitable, like clickbaity channels say they do
well its not a planet🤷♂️
Venus is in the habitable zone too
There’s no girlfriend, there’s no half life 3, and there are no 100% habitable exoplanets.
no girlfriend? become the girlfriend 😈😈
And technically Earth isn't 100% habitable 😄
@@AthosZ92thats what you think *falls into the core of the earth*
I refuse to believe that
@@logan8963 i did become the gf ¥~¥
As a resident from Keplar 22B, I'm glad our guise keeps eveyone away.
Your cover's been blown, bud!
What do you guys call your planet?
Keplar 22C
A probe will be arriving to your planet shortly.
@@asiamies9153we call it among us red is susskibidiy
AI generated "education" content on CZcams is genuinely a huge issue, and a giant tragedy. I sincerely thank you for noticing the issue and attempting to fight it off. I also entirely agree with your point.
Do habitable exoplanets exist? I can say with near absolute certainty, that yes, they do
But when our sample size of "well understood exoplanets" is like, 4, with everything else being basically guesses, of course we haven't found any Earth clones yet.
I’ve had to block so many AI channels. It’s like the few things I enjoy online eventually turn to shit.
A lot of topics are getting overwhelmed with AI bullshit, be it long videos or shorts, and those videos get spammed with likes from bots so it has a higher reach
The dead internet theory is no longer a theory
Heck I could say this, although we know such exoplanets exist with small possible clues of habitablity, we know little to nothing about them in reality. The same goes for fossils, we know how they looked like, but we'll never know thow they behaved in life.
They all have the black white logo on their profiles. Its easy to spot the redflag.
@@JuniAkuHey there,
I enjoy countryballs a lot, and unfortunately, all I get recommended is pure waste.
Today I just got a video on my recommendations of Poland’s asscheeks getting slapped.
You know it’s going to be bad when a genuinely mature community gets turned to absolute shit as nearly everything’s quality is so bad that I had to focus on a tiny pool of CZcamsrs who don’t even upload much just so I can enjoy the actual good things.
"Are you habitable because you're earth or are you earth because you're habitable"
"Throughout the milky way and solar system, I alone am the habitable one"
I alone am the Terran one
Perhaps the real exoplanets are the friends we made along the way.
Its funny because nobody would give a fuck, we want exo planets that are habitable, not friends, we can find those any day
@@battlebox5297maybe the real friends were the exoplanets we found along the way
Nice Anti phantom forces pfp
@@battlebox5297 Actually for normal people, they want friends more than exoplanets, cause only a dork would say otherwise
@@bower31 boring people
This video is far better than most largely because the narrator is more interested in practical facts and scientific accuracy rather than self-promotion via BS and clickbaiting. How refreshing, thank you.
You mean I don't need to keep hiding under my bed waiting for Betelgeuse to pop?
@@MusicClips2000 You got that right, because of course there's human time and star time, which have almost nothing in common. But it would be a grand show!
Indeed
@@MusicClips2000 Goads! You had me laff for real there. Self promotion user said above - yeah the only reason to make this comment is to lure you to my channel and find proof I cannot sing. Which is more to the fact than city lights on Proxima B or that they found Dyson spheres around a handful of M-dwarf stars. That claim whimpered and died so fast the researchers involved must be hiding under their own beds in embarrassment. No wait, the claim came from Sweden. The country who do not believe in science (remember the no lockdown and no facemask during Covid which had the country rated as the worst among the nordic countried for fatalities and ½ a million of serious long-covid cases.) ....dammit I need to stop soapboxing. =)
He openly admitted that he is using a clickbait title in his message to draw you in. He also stated fear in changing it because it might be less popular. I don't know what you are talking about.
'Planets don't have to be habitable to be interesting.'
I know it, you know it, everyone in this comment section knows it. But for the vast majority of people, they don't care unless it's habitable.
Well, yeah. I mean we have plenty of gaseous or rocky orbs around us, life is far more significant
@@oldyladmore but not so much more as to completely ignore any other planet
I want aliens :(
@@HenryMiller-ox1xuStop forcing people to care about your stupid useless planets!!
@@HenryMiller-ox1xu...we don't ignore them, in fact we've spent billions studying them!!
Anyone else feel like the Black Parade was about to kick off every time a new planet was introduced and a little disappointed when it didn't?
Yes. I felt that pain the whole way through.
WHEN I WAS
@@ISHIDDEDANDFARDEDA YOUNG BOY
@@MetigArtMY FATHER
@@lacunaereversed TOOK ME INTO THE CITY
This video is unfortunately attracting all the people who watch the 3 hour AI future civilisation videos and actually take them seriously.
It's really unfortunate, because most people who comment here either didn't read the pinned comment about the video's title or that they didn't watch the full video.
isn’t the end goal to reach those who have been misinformed? like for those of us who already get it yeah it’s entertaining but for someone who’s been fooled, even if this video won’t help everyone it’ll at least help some people
@goldencheeze yes, but being misinformed is "wholly different", as one would put it, than being borderline schizophrenic. There's a reason he has people attacking him for literally doing nothing but providing the factual information we know and giving his thoughts about the things we don't. People are saying he's a liar and made this video to "clickbait people for money" like it's a fuckin ActionLab video. I like ActionLab, but *that's* what clickbait is. Not a dude making a no frills video criticizing people making videos that *actually* clickbait people into thinking there are other planets we could live on.
bright side
@Evil_jyan 🤮
What scares me is eventually when we find the PERFECT habitable planet, we'll discover it has an alien ecosystem that would kill us instantly due to no immunities.
Or even develop sapience...
Would you like to hear the good word of human supremacy?
if the answer to the fermi paradox is "all species are hostile supremacists who nuke eachother to death upon first contact" i wont be surprised, just disappointed
That scenario can play out on any "habitable"planet! We could be the infection. We would have to tame the exoplanet anyway.....
luckily or immunesystem has millions opun milllions of random combinations to protect us from foreign bacteria, so we would most likely be completely fine, and our immunesystem adapts very quickly so it would probably create a cure
even if theres water, life, and a magnetic field, i guarantee you we cant breathe any exoplanet atmosphere
I think Isaac arthur brought a good point if you think about it: What if aliens smell really bad? Like they breathe out or sweat capsaicin or even thiols (the chemicals that make skunk spray so bad)?
What if they smell... Toxicly bad?
As in, the chemical they emit, perhaps even pheromones, can straight up kill earth life.
I mean heck, oxygen itself is deadly toxic to what used to be the dominate life forms on earth.
Even if the planet has oxygen, the levels of concentration would probably be pure poison to us
100% chance you took a breath while typing this
So much has to be right to get a breathable atmosphere that it is just unlikely to find
@@TheGingerMale probably
Its so refreshing to find an astronomy channel that isnt AI, misinformation, and clickbait
Amen! I must block an average of 3 a day.
It is clickbait
@@Elyzeon. not as baity as your mom
@@Elyzeon.How so
Dude the g note, you're tormenting every 2000s emo kid so much😭
When I was a young boy
My father took me to a habitable exoplanet
I doubt your father is an astronaut
Every time my ears perked up 😭
I keep thinking of a song from persona 4 when the victim acknowledges their other self.
The 'G' note when you start the topic on the next planet is triggering the My Chemical Romance part of my brain.
for me I think of the NSMB Wii theme
WHEN I WAS A YOUNG BOY
Okay so im not alone
glad to see I'm not alone
gang
No one talks about it enough that mars and venus are also in the habitable zone. It's really not the only factor that's important for habitability.
Venus and Mars are both outside of the habitable zone
Venus is barely in the inner edge lol. Mars is too small and on the outer edge. If it were earth sized I'd probably be an iceshell world.
@@yalexander9432Currently mars during the summer reaches up to 20°C and did have liquid water at one point (keep in mind the sun was even smaller back when it did), so if it had an atmosphere like Earth it would probably not be completely covered in ice.
@@SaladofStonesNo they aren’t. With an earth-like atmosphere, they would be livable, just very cold and very warm respectively.
Both are on the bare edges and both were briefly habitable.
Random people: "Wow look how cool this planet is. It orbits a red dwarf."
The red dwarf: DIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>habitable planet orbiting the goldilocks zone
>it orbits a Red Dwarf
Every time...
I wish life could survive being microwaved😔
@@FleshWizard69420 You should watch the documentary extraterrestrial it shows a planet called Aurelia ( Fictional ) With alien life adapted to survive living near a red dwarf, It's pretty cool!
I’m so tired of headlines screaming “NEW EARTH FOUND CLOSE TO US!” First, it usually at least 40 light years away (which is close astronomically but 50,000 years away with our current technology.). I have a feeling that bacterial life might be fairly common, but having bacteria is not the same as having intelligent life. (That requires an environment that is suitable to complex life, and that environment must be fairly stable - not given to extreme swings in temperatures.)
With the same AI voice
Yeah plus bacteria kills so if that’s the life then not impressed
True, but having bacteria means there's potential for more life down the line. Proof of bacteria on an exoplanet would be HUGE.
I bet they have cool alien looking creatures
Could life have evolved and adapted specifically for those environments -- ones which WE find inhospitable?
Some people are getting confused. He's not saying there aren't no habitable planets, he's saying we haven't found any yet. And may never find any. Or it might happen tomorrow. We just don't know yet. Sometimes "we don't know" makes people uncomfortable, but there's nothing wrong with it.
The reason people are getting confused is because he decided to title the video "There are no habitable exoplanets"
It's the inevitable consequence of clickbaiting. People will react to the clickbait title.
Bro, he literally titled the video "There are no habitable exoplanets"
@@sal_277 Oh it is definitely clickbait. There's no denying that.
"We don't know" is science's best friend. And then when we know, we do. It's not about popularity/politics, but objective truth. Reminds me of Don't Look Up lol.
Even if some of these far off exoplanets were seemingly habitable….. we’d have no way of getting there with the propulsion systems we have, nor do we know how to preserve biological entities even if we could travel at relativistic speeds!
Colonize them anyway. The stars are our birthright.
hell yeah
Based and humanitypilled
People might doom-post but... Let's be real, if it has a thick enough atmosphere and the temperature's good, I'm down. Just need to carry around your own oxygen. (and maybe some UV protection depending on the star).
WTF IS A KILOMETERRRRRR🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅🦅
Good fucking lord what is wrong with you people
Probably the reason we didn't find any Earth-Like worlds is because we're not very good at finding exoplanets (yet). If you check an exoplanet mass distribution graph, you'll notice most of them tend to be massive, and there's almost none under earth's mass. Exoplanets that are not too large for life are pretty easy to miss.
Exactly. Our very best telescopes are just at the very edge of, in the most optimal conditions, being able to just about theoretically detect an Earth-sized planet. Some other commenters here have talked about how we've surveyed thousands of planets and found none habitable, but that really isn't an interesting statistic considering that we're not surveying planets fairly and equally. Hot, massive planets with tight orbits are extremely over-represented.
Almost all earth-sized exoplanets found so far orbit red dwarf stars, which we have now realized are very bad for life (frequent super-flares that strip away volatiles). But this happens only because telescopes aren't yet sensitive enough to spot earth-sized planets around bigger, more luminous G-type stars (like the Sun). The next decades will be so exciting! :)
If we would see our system from a different star we'd probably only really see the four gas giants and deem the solar system uninhabitable.
@@drew8443The best candidate for life: K-type stars aka Orange Dwarfs. A hair bit smaller than the Sun but much more forgiving and friendly than Red Dwarf stars since they don't emit as much solar flares.
Yeah, I don't see this getting mentioned enough. The data collection bias is always something to keep in mind. The two main methods used depend upon either the relative masses of the star versus the planet or the size/luminosity of the star compared to the size of the planet, along with limited orbital angles. All including the planet's orbital distance. With the technology used to find exoplanets, the available data is heavily biased towards large planets. Especially those close to the star. Which likely rules out detection of many earth-sized planets unless they're near a small red dwarf.
I rarely see this bias mentioned, but it's an important point to keep in mind. I think habitable earth-like planets are likely to be very rare but we're also not currently able to work with a full picture due to the detection limits.
About 2 years ago, I got in a spat with some random arguing that the AI generated images were the actual planet and what it looks like, after i told them we don't have the tools to actually see the true exo planets and what it truly looks like.
This channel is such a breath of fresh air. I love it.
Planets are the coolest thing space has to offer and no one can change my mind. Inhabitable or not, every planet is awesome
ok
I disagree, mercury is pretty hot
@@dominikrniLol
Also, have you forgotten about Quasars, blue stars, neutron stars, galaxies esc? Those are really cool as well.
"Yay, we finally found a habitable planet!"
...
"How do we reach it?"
Astral projection or dreams
"Why do we reach it? We have a habitable planet right under our feet."
I think the reason we haven't found any viable habitable exoplanets is simply due to the lack of data we have. We've only been observing exoplanets for a little over 3 decades, with most of those planets orbiting perilously close to their parent stars (primarily red dwarfs), and/or are Gas Giants and Super Earths/Sub-Neptunes, mainly so because they are very easy to detect. We have little data on Earth-sized exoplanets orbiting Sun-like stars because they're so much harder to detect, due to their much longer orbital periods which makes it hard to verify their existence via transit methods (which is the most common method).
Our exoplanet catalogue will continue growing over the next couple decades with more powerful telescopes, and as telescopes become more powerful and our observational periods grow longer we will probably have more data on habitable exoplanet candidates.
People also have a huge misconception in thinking we should know everything by now. It's arrogance, or hubris, to think we already know everything. I was told by someone once that we know everything there is to know about stars and studying them further would be pointless. To me, that's blasphemous because even if we think we know it all, we should still continue to research to ensure it holds.
So to me, the primary issue is people think we can do way more than we actually can. The reality is we base a lot of our findings on a telescope that realistically can only see most planets as no more than a few pixels on a screen along side some very limited data. Many feel we should at least have identified every planet in the milky way and know for sure whether life exists at any given area. Fact is, we can't even confirm microbial life in our own solar system much less another solar system. Now, as far as intelligent life goes, yes, we definitely should have detected something if it were out there at least within a vicinity. But that doesn't mean they're not here either. It's a bit easier to tell with intelligent life since they can create things that are unnatural you wouldn't find anywhere else, also generate heat and potentially signatures in the atmosphere would be more dominant than early life / microbial life.
@WildWombats For someone to say that we know all there is to know about stars is complete ignorance. From what we know as the observable universe it's specilulated that as big as that is, it's barely a fraction of the rest of the universe we can't even see. The scale is just too large to comprehend..
And the James Webb might be the last big telescope we've put out in space. Cutting budget again. And then the is the Kessler syndrome. We're in kind of a hurry.
Good to remember always.
Exoplanets aren't going to adjust themselves to us, so we need to adapt to them
Or terraform
@@alexstromberg7696If we could do that, we'd just fix all earth's issues...
also doesn’t mean that other lifeforms need our exact needs to develop maybe they evolved to live with their planets conditions
@@shiro4095I mean if that was true almost any planet should have life then.
Yeah if we just drop 1 billion people into trappist-1’s atmosphere SOMEONE is bound to survive right?
Every news about outer space is just so depressing.
No, we can't travel it. No, we can't reach habitable planets. No, we can't terra form planets. No, space is too big for us. No, this planet will kill you...
That's just space. A habitable planet is very unlikely. But that's just what we can measure here from our tiny little world. There are so many planets in the universe, it's almost certain there is life somewhere.
Well, at least you were born on the one planet where breathing doesn't mean your skin's melting! It's quite a privilege for us to find life depressing because of "bad news from space exploration" instead of finding life depressing because it's physically and chemically impossible to breathe lol
All of that is total BS. We've been traveling through space for 70 years now. You can "terraform" planets if you want to or make them smaller or larger or anything. Space isn't magic. It's the same matter and physics as here.
@@otaku-chan4888 we wouldn't even exist if it was chemically impossible to breathe
We all want answers and progress, but there’s plenty of progress to be made regarding space even if we can’t “physically move through it” with ease, due to our limitations.
Keep that spark alive bro, there’s sure to be a similar avenue that peaks your interest! :D
Kepler-22 B has another downside. It's low density means it can't have an iron/nickel nucleus, which means it won't have any magnetic field and any life that'd form there wouldn't survive
Thats a very beta planet, unlike sigma earth that Mew everytime, hence Making them life, and most importantly created Kai cenat
Low density doesn’t mean no metals at all, it could be that kepler 22b is an ice giant like uranus and neptune, and those do have magnetic fields
@@universe1879 We don't know it's core yet.
@@DoubleVanimation we need to study your brain under a microscope to find out what it is that's wrong with you
There are no "known" exoplanets that can definitively support life.
That said, there are about 200,000,000,000 stars on each galaxy and about 4,000,000,000,000 known galaxies.
We have a long way to go before we can definitively say we are the only ones
Imagine if we find life on a planet but it's an ugly planet
A bug planet
@@denifnaf5874In that case, it's time to spread some democracy🔥🔥
@@denifnaf5874 Better than no life at all.
Hahahaha
Ok little Johnny
(Also habitable for us; If we haven't found it even in scans BEYOND the space shuttles' reach, we probably would never reach it when trying to get there)
If you understand statistics, you’ll be able to pull a probability on the existence of life on other planets based upon randomizing sample sizes on various populations. So it can be reasonable to say that if we parse through 5000 random galaxies and look at 1000 random systems in each galaxy and 0% of those systems have life on them or are incapable of sustaining life, then you can run a statistical analysis on those results and come to the conclusion that life is not probably anywhere else. When we run any kind of study at all, ever, we never study an entire population, but we look at a sample size, hopefully a good one, and then we calculate based upon that collected sample. So if you want to be consistent, that’s how we do things
Finally, SOMEONE THAT ACTUALLY KNOWS HABITABLE PLANETS WITH MICROBIAL LIFE IS RARE!
This is based on nothing lol. We have literally no statistics to this.
@@Erikaaaaaaaaaaaaa to be fair humans exist
w name
plus the likelihood of that habitable planet also being earth-habitable is very low
we can't even check if our closest neighbours have any life on them and already declaring the galaxy to be dead 💀
As an astronomer who studies super-Earths around dwarf stars (like the ones you mentioned): THANK YOU! This is the most accurate video I've been able to find about 'potentially habitable exoplanets'. And it's really well-produced to boot!
It sucks that we haven't found any... but we're doing our best lmao
"Let's start with Kepler 22b"
*plays a G natural*
nice
Could you explain this
@@tylerankirsh5030 when i was
A young boy
We will probably gave to search through hundreds of thousands of planets to find one that is even vaguely habitable, we simply haven't looked at all that many in the grand scheme of things
It would make no difference if we found thousands. The logistics alone (via rocket propulsion) are absolutely catastrophic. Totally implausible in nearly every way imaginable.
Even the creation of space stations "along the way" wouldn't really work. It's a simple matter of energies expended vs. energies gained; it doesn't add up to a net positive.
@@Novastar.SaberCombatI mean all you really need is a few thousand nuclear bombs or fissile saltwater and you can already send a ship to another star in a few decades. As we advance further things like fusion engines will be developed as well, not to mention Dyson Swarms being able to accelerate laser sail ships to drastically reduce the energy needed.
@@Novastar.SaberCombat😊
@@CarlosAM1the better option would be an engine that uses the controlled fusion of hydrogen atoms. Hydrogen is the most available element in the universe, and it's the easiest element to fuse. However, we are decades - centuries from this kind of technology being cheap and readily available.
@@landenmoudy5749 Yeah, those are the fusion engines I mentioned. Do keep in mind though that while Deuterium fusion with itself is possible it is most certainly not optimal, usually tritium + deuterium are used which are easy to ignite and can even be spin polarized to improve performance, however despite being an isotope of hydrogen tritium is extremely rare. Helium 3 also works but its crazy rare and harder to get going, spin polarizing is also not as effective here.
Pure hydrogen-hydrogen fusion is so incredibly hard you may as well not even bother, at least not any time soon.
also join my discord server here: discord.gg/aYJQFz7wzJ
I had a dream once about being temporaily marooned on gliese 667Cc. I still rmember a small dusty wooden hut i whole up in. Going outside it was very hot and humid almost unbearable. Everything was very heavy. Looking up i saw three suns that gave it away and thought oh no, i was just on earth getting ready for my mission just a moment ago so why am i here, i asked. Looking around there was landing pads so i knew there must have an emergency that required me to be dropped off to heal or something. Then i saw a dense forrest in the distance and entered it. The weather was so much better in there but everything was alien and i couldnt touch anything to be safe. And thats about it.
How did you make your space engine game look so good?
@SequoiaCountryballs i just use the default settings lol
You are about to be roasted so you have been warned
space is fake. earth is flat, boyz. more like a simulation than anything, but yeah, no such thing as space.
At first the title was “There are no habitable exoplanets”, now it is “There are no *known* habitable exoplanets”. Definitely a great change because the first one was very clickbaity and unconvincing.
How is it clickbaity? By calling out liars of actual clickbait-fueled AI channels??
Also if he was TRYING to clickbait; who would do a double take? The majority of people already think that exact first title. So it's not like "WAIT WHAAAAA?"
It's the opposite of the garbage channels.
@@stupidmango4036 I would.
At least his points about the known "habitable" planets are fantastic. My problem is the previous title, which sounds implausible because I do believe that there are actually plenty of habitable planets, and habitability can occur in many ways more than just depending on the size, temperature and a star it orbits.
Also also yes my reaction was "WAIT WHAAAAA?"
@@stupidmango4036 It's clickbaity because no-one knows whether habitable exoplanets exist (it's statistically probable that they exist somewhere in the universe, but we won't know until we find one and are able to study it), and the video isn't even _about_ whether any habitable exoplanets exist, it's about the habitability of specific exoplanets which we know exist.
How is making a claim in a video title, not even addressing it in the content of the video, and instead talking about a related but completely different claim, _not_ clickbait?
"The majority of people already think that exact first title"
The majority of intelligent people with basic awareness of the scale of the universe definitely don't.
@@stupidmango40361.I love this video for this reason however that can still mean the previous title was clickbaity debukimg clickbait is not implied by the title (this isn't clickbait because it's not misleading) but that there are no habitable exoplanets(which is blatantly misleading) the video does not state that there are no habitable exoplanets rather the ones that we know problably can't actually sustain
life if this is not clickbait then what is 2.this is contrary to your first point
@@stupidmango4036I don't know what you're babbling about, but it's absurd to claim that there's no earth like planets even if you make "earth like" extremely specific.
I don’t understand why people don’t want to live in space stations? I mean they are literally build to be optimal for human life!
Maybe because of the various reasons of why living in space is very unoptimal and even dangerous.
So far we've found:
Piles of gas giants
Giant balls of lava
Irradiated wastelands
Colossal rocks with crushing gravity
Big Mars
Big Europa
Whatever that one carbon pulsar planet is
There's so many things that need to go right to get a habitable planet, I'd wager there's only a few in the galaxy
there's at least ten million, dunning-kruger. Also, We? How many planets have you found?
by “we” he means humanity
i say we as well when talking about stuff like this
@@jackturner8472 Where tf did you pull out "10 millions" number from?
@@jackturner8472 there is no way for us to know because we only have a sample of 8 planets. Your confidence in your own estimate makes you also a victim of the dunning-kruger effect.
@@Trolligi we only have samples from one, actually. We have 5,000 confirmed planets, and most of them have hints as to their composition. There are at least 100 billion planets in the galaxy, that would make earth like planets 0.01% of all planets in the galaxy. Which is still ignoring the fact that there used to be literal oceans on mars, and there may have been oceans on Venus. So that’s at least two chances out of our sample size of four (Nobody is counting gas giants as possible habitable worlds btw!) So actually, there are likely many more than ten million habitable worlds in the galaxy. I’d wager, you don’t know what you’re talking about!
I blame the issue of not detecting many earth sized planets around yellow dwarfs like our sun on Kepler mission 's short durations. We can barely interpolate datas to extract 3 to 4 orbits of this type of planets, which is the minimum for confirmation.
This just shows how much of a gem the Earth truly is.
Earth is so skibidi 🎉🎉🎉 EARTH SUPREMACY 🌎 😍 😫 😩
This raises the issue of the relationship between reporting on the findings science and the actual findings of science.
Over reporting of what's happening in the scientific community is an issue that has been going on for decades.
While there might be a habitable exoplanet out there, such truly Earth-like worlds would be VERY RARE. Even if we do find life on other planets, their environments would probably be vastly different and hostile to life from Earth. And we don't know much about planets outside our solar system. We only know about their mass, size, and distances from their parent star(s). A big issue with most "Earth 2.0's" is that most orbit M type stars. Which are not only VERY VIOLENT, but also any planet that orbits them in their habitable zone would be tidally locked, meaning one side is an endless day, and the other side is an endless night.
Yeah the red dwarves would microwave many of the earthlike planets lmao
@@FleshWizard69420not with space infrastructure in place to block it
Yeah but they're will be a lot of problems that we can face
There’s always the possibility they have a 2:3 resonance instead of tidal locking, like mercury
what about moons around those said planets?
We can’t be the only ones. We just don’t have the tools to find other habitable planets
We're not, just because other exoplanets don't meet our picky ass needs doesn't mean there isn't other lifeforms that thrive on it
@@IamMonikaDLCfr
Is there any good argument WHY we can’t be the only ones? We don’t know what starts or causes life when there is no preceding life. We could very well be the only ones
@@toranp.8942"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". We can't say for certain that either case is true without concrete evidence :)
@@gabrielragum exactly, we have no clue, and there’s no way to ever know for sure unless we find a way to see the entire universe in real time
STOP PLAYING THE G NOTE
WHEN I WAS
A YOUNG BOY
MY FATHER
TOOK ME INTO THE CITY
AND PUT HIS PENIS IN MY ASS
THANK YOU FOR THIS VIDEO. I've argued million times with people who don't have a clue about what makes planets 'habitable' and next time I'll simply point them to this video and save my time and energy.
This video doesn't say what the specifics are that make a planet habitable. Even down to the primary component of what makes them.
For us it is carbon. We have speculated that silicon is just as viable but would need a completely different environment than earth.
If you are instead saying that we thought that any of these planet could support human beings that is almost completely incorrect. Most of the planets we are looking at now for habitable life (and we are still in the early stages) are used to compare and contrast the environment we live in with others. I don't know anyone at all that thinks we could go and live on any of these planets but how close it is to being habitable. Also take note that most habitable doesn't mean it is habitable, it just means it got the closest.
I don't understand what you are thanking him for. Can you elaborate?
I really appreciate this. It‘s hard to find quality space-related content online because people‘s approach to the topic is completely warped, ie: drawing interest from science fiction instead of viewing it in the same light as nature on Earth: simply appreciating it the way it is, not depending entirely on mystery to be interesting. I couldn‘t exaggerate how incredibly rare this is.
Even in science fiction alien life is usually hostile or agressive having a fleet of hostile Mining drones attackig us doesn’t sound fun.
The G Note got me like
“When I was a young boy
My father took me into the city
To see a marching band”
Ah yes. The planet that plays the floor is lava. The floor is always lava.
Bro hates fun and dreaming. Gotta respect it honestly, I’m subbing
he hates fun and whimsy 😭
Why does he hate dreaming
Let us dream grrrrrr
😡😡😤😤😤😤🤬🤬🤬
Of all exoplanets we've discovered, one of the best candidates for habitability is Kepler-442b. It is has around 1.34 times Earth's radius, it is unlikely to be tidally locked, and it orbits a K-type (orange dwarf) star rather than a red dwarf. Its equilibrium temperature is estimated at 22K colder than Earth, but assuming a similar atmospheric composition, the increased greenhouse effect due to the increased size of the planet would result in a similar surface temperature.
Of course, it is still most likely that it's not habitable. We don't have any good estimates of its mass yet (likely around double the mass of Earth, but potentially similar to Earth mass or as much as 6 times the mass of Earth), so for all we know, it could be anything from a very small gas planet, or a "super-Venus", to an ultra-dense ball of mostly iron, though a composition similar to Earth is possible.
1:15 I thought The Black Parade was about to start playing 😅
“Let’s start with the notorious Kepler 22b.”
-single piano note-
“When I was… a young boy… my father… took me into the city. To see a marching band.”
@@fatiguewatterson5734he said son when, you grow up...
@@Isthisjoebidenwill you be, the savior of the broken… the beaten and the damned?
Yalls forgot the ocean planet 4546b i think its pretty good
Be careful when going there, some ships went to that planet and never came back.
@titan-1802 I'm boarding a ship called the Aurora to build a phase gate in that system. I'll check out the planet once the phase gate is finished and I'll tell you how it is.
Hope you have a safe journey man
@@lazzerchickenNice. A Phase gate around that planet is super helpful. I also heard that the Aurora was going to look for a missing ship right?
@@tetraxis3011 shh that is secret 🤫
That piano tune keeps giving me an urge to wear eye liner and join a black parade for some reason
A planet being cold is not necessary a killer deal for life, anyone traveling past in the cryogenic geological era when every surface land in earth was covered by kilometers thick ice sheets would have thought that earth is inhabitable, there was very few sign of life back then but life survived close to volcanic vents.
I was just thinking of that, mind you, it was really cold
I would like to consider the likely sampling bias effect in all of this. The fact is that it is much easier to find larger planets, because the gravitational effects on a parent star are more obvious. It is also easier to observe larger planets that transit red dwarf stars and orbit closely. That means that the atmospheres of these planets can be observed.. There are also just many more red dwarfs than sunlike stars.
Note: we see these planets in the past due the light takes time to arrive to us, so these planets may not even exist anymore or actually has life
the furthest planet in this video is only a few hundred light years away and the closest is 4
so we’re only seeing them a few years to a few centuries in the past
that’s nowhere near enough time for the planets to have significantly changed, how we’re seeing them now is pretty much how they look
A few hundred parsecs away isn't enough for drastic changes
@@Kyplanet893oh, good to know.
@@Kyplanet893the planet 🌎 earth changed astronomically the past 250 years
People don’t seem to understand how insanely rare and specific the conditions that life requires are, and that’s just what we know definitively is necessary. Even earth couldn’t have supported life for most of it’s existence, a real habitable planet isn’t something there must be a bunch of that we’re just bound to stumble across eventually it’s amazing that even one exists
The funniest part is, literally no human does! With a reference pool of... literally one, we can't even begin to speculate how rare they are. Just that we've looked a lot, and haven't found literally any.
Habitable for us and habitable for life are 2 different things, but i agree none of these planets are probably habitable but they are still interesting and they probably wont kill us right away.
"they probably wont kill us right away."
The Venus-like ones would.
I rlly appreciate you focusing your channel on real science and not clickbait, makes the subjects u cover so much more interesting
I think it says allot about humanity they we would rather attempt and fantasize about terraforming literal hellholes than simply take care of the rare paradise we already have
With such a small sample size; the idea that we've found a candidate that's even slightly likely to support life is extremely encouraging.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I'm sure 19th century scientists said the same thing about the ether.
You have no evidence that there *isn't* a leprechaun riding a tea cup around the sun with a gun that fires heart attack rays, but that platitude doesn't mean we should put any stock in the idea.
@@callusklaus2413 i have evidence there is
@@callusklaus2413there should be a movie on that
@@callusklaus2413 In general, outside of some specific math topics, trying to prove the nonexistance of something is an impossible standard.
I love your videos, I always learn something interesting!! Thank you for your work!
what i hate is that when there is an actual discovery people are just gonna shrug it off like its fake or clickbait
you’re making my 10 year old self (who wrote a book for school about exoplanets) very happy
CZcams has been recommending me underrated gems lately. You are one of them. Concise and critical minded, digging away all the media sensationalism designed to generate clicks at the expense of nuance in this short attention span economy.
Just mention temperatures in Celsius too
Thank you for reinforcing my belief in the rare earth hypothesis
We now know that TOI-700 actually has four planets, including TOI-700e which orbits a bit closer than TOI-700d but still within the habitable zone although it is only about half as massive.
0:08 can you make a video about these ai generated video channels? I think I saw some of these
Kyle Hill has a video on them I think
@@kazoo-out-the-wazoo I think you're right. Also to add, there's this "History of the Universe" channel that is I also suspect is AI generated, it definitely is higher quality than other ones but I played few videos in the backgrond, all of them like hour long and feel like I learned nothing.
Aliens: "Too pulled on by moon"
Also, a magnetic field is important
When I search for exoplanet videos, you're the only one that doesn't mislead the viewers. I didn't realize how clickbait-y those videos thumbnail is
And thank you for still being optimistic rather pessimistic about the chance of we found Earth's perfect candidate
I think it's way more interesting to imagine what kind of life currently inhabit these extreme exoplanets
Gave me a PTXD flashback with that G note
i feel like a kid who was just told that santa wasn’t real
dude you are a super underrated channel my guy keep up the amazing work!
A piece of feedback for the future and something I’d like to see (especially with this type of content) is explaining the limitations of our datasets and explaining the difference between rarities and near impossibilities.
I just found this channel and Iove realistic science media, so first and foremost thank you for not misrepresenting data.
However, One thing though I think is very important is(even briefly) exploring the data compared to how much data actually exists. Measuring transits takes a lot of time and on top of that we are limited to the range of system as well as only those axially aligned. This already eliminates an extreme amount of systems we could hope to observe for habitable planets.
I think something you should be putting into perspective is even if only an extremely extremely
small percentage of earth-like rocky planets seen transiting their stars are actually habitable, generalizing the data to all other known star systems in existence still results in an extreme amount of total potentially habitable planet across our galaxy and observable universe, which is why I’m personally optimistic.
I understand the point of the video is to shine light on the fact that habitability isn’t the only thing we should be caring about, and that other types of planets can be just as interesting if not more, but for the purpose of the title, exploration of our limitations of observations would be a very nice detail to include.
you forget that older red dwarf stars generally tend to settle down their stellar activity over time. also athmospheres can regenerate over time. so this makes trappist 1 a little more promising.
i talked about that a bit but went more in depth in my trappist 1 video
even if red dwarfs calm down they still blew away their planets volatiles when they were younger, so there’s a chance that even when they calm down the planets will have no material to rebuild atmospheres or oceans so will be airless anyway
@@Kyplanet893 yes that’s the exact thing I might have always understood wrongly then. I don’t know but it could be a possibility. I have to ask my professor. I thought that over these billions of years the star can acquire these materials again. I mean we are talking about billions of years. And that is also why I wouldn’t bother looking for life around younger red dwarves because life probably can’t survive there for billions of years.
@@jiplinnartz5820 " I thought that over these billions of years the star can acquire these materials again."
It _can_ if it receives a lot of impacts from icy comets or asteroids, but it's not very likely, except if an outer asteroid belt within the system is significantly disrupted, e.g. due to instability in the orbit of a gas giant within the system, or an interaction with a rogue planet or another star.
Hi, loved your video, however where can I find the sources you used to talk about trappist 1 planets, especially trappist-1d, because I couldn't find any.
d’s results have been especially difficult to get thanks to stellar noise so there hasn’t been any official publications yet, i’ve just heard that some problems in the data can be explained if it’s airless and given it’s small size it probably is
but here’s the one saying c might have an atmosphere: ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7.1011M/abstract
and there’s multiple sources saying b is airless
@@Kyplanet893 Ok, thank you!
Subscribed. I really like channels with informative professional content, and professional, and respectful hosts !!!
Thank god. Thumbed up, and hope this gets millions of views
What I really hate is that people focus way too much on red dwarfs. Yes, they’re the most common star in the universe, yes, they can live for trillions of years, but that doesn’t mean they’re any good. Every red dwarf in the universe is still just a baby, and a lot of them are flare stars which ruin the chances for any life to exist. If we want to find stars that have planets with a better likelihood of life, aren’t tidally locked, and could live for a long time, we should instead look at K class orange dwarf stars. Not only are they a perfect middle ground between the long lived red dwarf stars and stars like our sun that from our own planet is currently the only kind of star that could sustain life, but they also have much farther out habitable zone and are more mellow and stable than red dwarfs. They can also live for on average up to 30 billion years, giving life plenty of time to evolve, get almost completely wiped out, and evolve again. I think we’re just looking in the wrong places and that’s there’s more out there that we could even think of.
I don't get why a lot of the planets peoples are pushing as habitable orbit flare stars, when there are at least a few red dwarfs nearby that are Far calmer.
Luyten's star, Teegarden's star, and Gliese 1061 are all red dwarfs that flare Far less than most other red dwarfs, so even if their parents Did emit more flares in the past, they should have had the opportunity to re-generate an atmosphere.
All you mentioned do not transit we do not know their sizes. We can't check now for presence of atmospheres on them. Planets should be dense enough to be rocky not water worlds
@@tommi59tk we know their masses though which is equally good for estimating composition
How are they supposed to regenerate an atmosphere? Do they regenerate water this way as well? They have most likely been sterilized in the past by their parent star for a very long amount of time. Unless these planets formed far away, had a powerful protective atmosphere and magnetosphere and somehow moved inwards after their star calmed down, or formed anew after a massive collision event or were later captured former rouge planets, I can't see a way to get them habitable.
@@dnocturn84 you are forgetting about volcanism.
Earth's crust has a lot of water inside of a mineral called Ringwoodite, which would get released through volcanism. Also, after earth's initial hydrogen atmosphere was blow off, our current atmosphere initially started as a mix of various volcanic emissions before slowly being converted by life.
@@avandorhu-3389 For a Red Dwarf to calm down takes a long time. During that same time, its planets and their liquid cores will also cool down. Cool down = less volcanism, maybe none volcanism left at all.
Also, these sterilization phases through flares are extremely powerful and will penetrate deep into their crust and eliminate all volatiles. The combination of both of them makes a regeneration of an atmosphere very unlikely to me. But not impossible, true. These effects can also vary a lot.
For me this is the first serious video or content I have seen on this subject. Very interesting. Good video. Thank you !!
"There are no habitable exoplanets."
"Challenge accepted." - the maybe/nearly infinite universe
I agree with the general idea of the video, but it's important to be precise if we are going to criticize other science communicators. For example, he shows, convincingly that Kepler-22 b is very likely not to have life that evolved from the circumstances we suppose life arrived on Earth. Please notice that abiogenesis is an open problem. That is not the same as saying that Kepler-22 b is not habitable.
Funny, it's almost as if Earth was designed to facilitate life...
this doesn’t show that
this is nowhere near a large enough sample size to make any big conclusions like that
remember, don’t look for evidence for a conclusion you already made. You can believe in a higher power, but don’t misinterpret evidence to support the beliefs you already have
@@Kyplanet893 Have you heard of Morphic Resonance?
@@JT-bc5cdwhat is that?
Incredible video, please continue to make more
Just wanted to say I love your channel! These are the videos I was looking for as a kid
I do some very small, very amateur sci-fi writing for the amusement of my friends and myself. I picked TRAPPIST-1e as a setting once due to its size and its distance from our solar system, except I knew damn well it wasn't Earth-like and played off that. I made it abundantly clear that it's not a human-friendly place in the slightest, and that every day is a constant struggle there for the human settlers. I think having it be a perfect world that's perfect for people would've made it incredibly boring to work with, and I wish click-chasing websites and AI slop-mills would stop glorifying them. There's still wonder in imperfection.
The only problem is that it's terrestrial life being compared to extraterrestrial worlds, most if not all Terran fauna and flora would not survive on other objects such as Titan, unlike its potential native Titanean fauna and flora which are adapted to the object's specific environments, and Titanean fauna and flora wouldn't survive on Proxima b unlike its own potential native fauna and flora.
And I would've loved to have continued the comment using your own words but B&Q decided grey triangles is an appropriate thing to associate with garden hardware.
Oh I _love_ it when that happens.
Oh, and then following that, we get motherf!&cking Output, which will not shut its grimy mouth for one second.
*"iF y'AlL dOn'T gOt ArCaDe"* anti🤓
There very likely would not be life on Titan at all whatsoever, do you even understand how biology works, & how it is still governed by the laws of physics?
@@xeschire706You know the chance of liquid methane being a water replacement can work right?
it’s worth keeping our mind open to life, uh, finding a way, but we do have to keep our expectations constrained at least somewhat by what we’ve observed thus far. if we make too many assumptions about life’s hypothetical upper limits for what it can withstand, this whole process becomes unscientific speculation. Plus, the presence of unconventional forms of life on these worlds would probably come with bio markers that would stick out like a sore thumb in worlds that otherwise seem inhabitable.
@@dagestan7734there's so little energy that any life like chemistry would have to be pretty weird and limited.
This is really interesting, thank you for making this
Also remember habitable doesn’t necessarily mean “habitable for humans” just that life “Might” be there