Her visualization graphics are absolutely brilliant. I wish more scientists used this. We understand better with our eyes, than with pure numbers. A large number means nothing, but "seeing" it means everything. Understanding something is far more important than just "knowing" the numbers in the data.

What an excellent lecture!

1:08:13 Probably the hardest thing about using a coronagraph is that you have to point it at one star at a time, and it has to be fairly distant from the telescope, so that to observe a lot of stars, and get many observations of each, you would need to move that coronagraph around a LOT-or have a lot of coronagraphs, and keep them positioned precisely over long periods of time.

1:00:00 she misunderstands what the fermi paradox is. He posed an inquiry based on curiosity, he did not make a statement as "they are NOT here, so where are they? they cant exist". He asked "they MUST be everywhere in the universe, so WHERE are they? why havent they made contact?" THAT is what he said. It astounds me how many astronomers misunderstand his inquiry.

@mrdr9534

4 жыл бұрын

I suspect that neither of us knows what questioner actually "meant", unless You have actually heard him expand on it later.((though that would still be a moot point with regards to this issue)) How ever we do know what he ACTUALLY said, which was: "...IF we find life, is it wise to observe something like the prime directive of StarTrek that we see something as advanced as us but what do we do" ? Now if that in Your mind sounds like a formulation of the Fermi principle and a question regarding why we have not found aliens, then that is of course Your prerogative. How ever I would venture that her interpretation and answer (apart from the possibly slightly "inpollite" laugh) is the normal way to both understand and answer the question actually posed. And I would add that Your, in my opinion oddly over interpreted, version of the question rather implies that You are looking for (hearing) something that actually wasn't there ((which is rather topical in an odd way)). Best regards.

What a lecture, best I've seen so far!

Fascinating, thanks for uploading.

@cocofilms5524

3 жыл бұрын

Hey! I came here from your physics playlist :D

@GeordiLaForgery

3 жыл бұрын

​@@cocofilms5524 Cool! :D

very interesting video. thank you

Thanks for the very interesting lecture. I learned a lot 👍

Pleasant lecture for sure but let's everyone remind that all of those distant planet are clearly unreachable for any human been, for generations, so let's stay focused on the preservation of our ONLY habitable planet, earth !

@stevefromsaskatoon830

4 жыл бұрын

Not true, if we get rid of our nukes and deal with climate issues we could have millions of more years to progress technologically and; interstellar space ship and giving enough time blah blah blah you probably get my point

@dominix

4 жыл бұрын

@@stevefromsaskatoon830 Why "not true" ? I didn't mention any numbers of generations. and of course it could be a lot. you should have spell it "So true" if your mind were not so negatively wired.

@stevefromsaskatoon830

4 жыл бұрын

@@dominix * you're the one that just insulted me by saying " you have negative mind" lol . I didn't all you names

@stevefromsaskatoon830

4 жыл бұрын

@@dominix " negatively wired mind " so rude

💙💙💙🖤💙💙💙 Luv.....your passion.....perimeter institute..... It's makes resonance with mine....... 💙💙💙🖤💙💙💙

She's got a voice like a mother enthusiastically reading a book to her children. Her intonation embodies wonder of her subject. I enjoyed this talk thoroughly, thank you! 😁

Thank you 👏👏

Great lecture 👍

A show that does what TED use to do. May it never go the way TED did .

I love how he starts every lecture by proudly proclaiming that they’re violating a treaty by having their college there. As if there’s not enough room in Canada to have built it literally anywhere else

Last night I used smart phone polarization app and feel tremendous change in mood and energy and spirituality. And the question was that was there someone did that led to previous two world wars and could it happen again unless we apply it for the betterment

Another grt lecture from yet another lady. Thanks for that

Earth’s relatively large moon is critical to life on Earth. Our moon stabilizes the Earth’s tilt, creates tides and seasons. Our moon is totally underrated.

if you can "calculate" the inclination during the transition I assume the only explanation is you can see it directly ? ( not only a "dip" in the starlight / brightness ) 🤔

Thanks so much for posting this amazing lecture 😌 so interesting! I love Elizabeth's infectious enthusiasm for studying the planets! I'll be talking with Elizabeth on the #seekingsustainabilitylive Talkshow live from Japan on The 2/16 6pm Japan time to learn a bit more about her life in Japan as well as key points of her latest research

How do we define life? Mind or body or spirit? Maybe we are all a bundle of coincidences of waves from the energy affinity of all things and the real life is emotion and feeling that can not be created by matter

01:06:15 - Venetian sounds almost habitable :)

I wouldn't put the probability of life very high on super Earths that are water worlds. After all we think Uranus and Neptune are basically roughly Earth-size rocky cores submerged beneath oceans hundreds to thousands of miles deep overlain by a thick, dense atmosphere. The materials needed would be locked beneath dozens to hundreds of miles of ice-9 or other exotic pressure ices at some depth in those oceans most likely and the temperatures due to adiabatic heating would probably be quite intolerable or inimicable to the processes needed for life. If there's life on super-Earths that are actually rocky with some water deposits on the surface (seas/oceans) with continents, then again it's probably going to be limited to bacterial or lower orders of multicellular life. Such planets would have surface gravity many times that of Earth at similar densities to Earth which would be extremely problematic for life attempting to colonize land without the support of surrounding water to maintain and support its body shape and structure. Such planets may well be devoid of life anyway, or prevented from developing higher life, because of lack of plate tectonics or other issues which could lock up the necessary nutrients required for life. We really won't know til we find one and can actually detect more things about it. The other issue is, rocky super-Earths will almost certainly have very thick atmospheres with much higher pressure than our Earth simply due to their much higher surface gravity, so even if they're not covered with water oceans hundreds of miles deep, the surface might be quite inhospitable due to the extremely thick atmosphere. Later! OL J R :)

I'd be interested in knowing if it's possible for some of these "eyeball planets" to actually have SOME degree of rotation similar to Mercury in our own solar system, which is IIRC in a 2:3 resonance in terms of its days per year... (Mercury rotates extremely slowly in a resonance which gives it 1 day/night cycle at any given point on the planet for every 2 orbits around the Sun or year... so one day/night cycle on Mercury is 156 days, or 88 days of daylight and 88 days of darkness in which time it has completed two revolutions around the Sun in a 156 day cycle of 88 days each). This is made possible by Mercury's highly eccentric orbit around the Sun, preventing Mercury from being completely tidally locked to the Sun and being an "eyeball planet" of sorts. Since the Moon is in a nearly circular orbit, it cannot be in any other resonance than 1:1, which is tidally locked to Earth, showing only one face to Earth at all times. BUT since the Earth-Moon system orbits the Sun, the Moon's actual day length is the same as its rotational period, about 28 days, so any given point on the surface would experience 14 days of sunlight followed by 14 days of darkness. Tidally locked "eyeball planets" provide a very interesting case for habitability, because there are so many variables that can come into play. BUT we can say with a high degree of probability that they would be considerably more inhospitable than our own planet, even if they were in the most favorable band of the other variables. For instance, a rocky eyeball planet similar to Earth, with large relatively shallow oceans similar to Earth (not dozens or hundreds of miles deep like a water world) would have a climate and conditions that depended greatly on the arrangement of land and ocean in relation to the zenith point (where the sun would always be directly overhead) and the terminator zone (the eternal day/night "twilight zone" around the limb of the planet where the sun was perpetually just above or on the horizon) and what was on the side of the planet facing forever directly away from the star (the nadir point). If we plopped Earth into such a situation, and the majority of its major landmasses (Eurasian landmass) was directly under the zenith point, we could expect most of the land to be a burning eternal desert fried by the sun hanging directly overhead at all times. If the Earth was turned 180 degrees so the same area was under the nadir point in eternal darkness, we could likely expect a gigantic ice cap to form, dozens of miles deep and totally inhospitable to life due to the extreme cold and total lack of solar energy to sustain life. If instead the Earth were made into an "eyeball planet" and tidally locked with say the central Pacific Ocean under the zenith point, the water would be absorbing the eternal solar heat pouring straight down into it, and we might expect to see a permanent "great white spot" or mega-cyclone develop, or something similar, spinning off a never-ending succession of hurricanes of cyclones moving outward toward the twilight zone limb of the planet. We would also expect extremely strong ocean currents to develop to carry the hot water at the surface away from the zenith point, creating an upwelling of cold water from the depths below as the hot water flowed outward toward the twilight limb zone of the planet and around toward the night side of the planet toward the nadir point. At the nadir point, if it were over water, we would expect to see a polar ice pack/cap develop, though much smaller than otherwise expected, due to heat transport by the hot water flowing in around it from the daylight side of the planet. Storms perpetually boiled up and spun off around the zenith point and moving outward towards the twilight "habitable zones" might make life difficult there, but could also balance the heat flow around the planet and provide a consistent source of fresh water and lifegiving rains. It would probably be far more habitable than having a perpetual scorching desert landmass on the zenith daylight side and a massive deep polar ice cap on the nadir night side. If it were a combination of the two, say with a long continent, like say South America or Africa, roughly triangular in shape, with the narrow end pointing toward the zenith point and the widest portions along the limb or twilight zone, surrounded by water to provide heat transport, then this might maximize the habitable surface area of the planet. Then of course continental drift would affect things too... much like on Earth. Supercontinents have formed and broken repeatedly in Earth's past and created new mountain ranges, drifted from equator to poles and back again (creating super-ice ages in the process), helped create or blocked and closed off ocean circulation patterns, etc. All would also play a role on any geologically active planet similar to Earth. But a stable and suitable day/night cycle would be a requirement for a "habitable" planet, at least anything like Earth. Even a "long" day/night cycle, say if we plopped Earth down into an orbit similar to Mercury's, around a suitably dim star so that it was still in the star's "habitable zone", could host life IF it could suitably adapt to the long day/night cycles. Of course such a planet probably couldn't have a large moon like Earth, because unlike Earth that is transferring angular momentum (spin) to the Moon via tidal forces (Earth's rotation has been slowing since the Moon formed, and the Moon has been speeding up commensurately according to the law of conservation of momentum, therefore the Moon is receding from Earth slowly as its speed increases, raising its orbital altitude. If Earth and the Moon were magically transported to a suitable orbit around a star like Trappist-1, which would cause it to become tidally locked, the Moon would still exert a tidal pull and create tidal bulges on Earth, but they would gradually be SLOWING the Moon down in its orbit and thus causing its orbit to lower, eventually to the point that it crashed into the Earth (similar to what's happening to Phobos at Mars). It all certainly presents tons of variables, many which could conspire to make a planet habitable or make it uninhabitable... Later! OL J R :)

@lukestrawwalker

2 жыл бұрын

@Smee Self Because, if they rotate in a synchronous manner as Mercury does in its 3:2 ratio, then sunlight falls on the ENTIRE surface despite being "tidally locked". SO that makes them MUCH more "habitable" than true "eyeball planets" that are tidally locked to the star and therefore have one half in eternal day, and the other half in eternal night. Now, those days are extremely LONG (relatively speaking with regards to the year length, which is only 88 days in the case of Mercury and would be much shorter for planets orbiting smaller stars like in the Trappist-1 system, but nevertheless, a planet with SOME degree of rotation would be far more habitable than one that is completely and utterly tidally locked to the star with only one face ever receiving light and the other never receiving light. Later! OL J R :)

WOW this Chick is Amazing

I'd say Earth has intelligent life but this video only got a few thousand views

@arsen-jb1gs

4 жыл бұрын

iam download this one

@hyperspacejester7377

4 жыл бұрын

😆 Get over yourself!

@7:25 first discovered planet around a sun-like star

If we use magnetic polarization to reprogram sunlight to change human DNA and behavior and mood

what do we know about discovered planets @4:55

I am convinced that many planets have intelligent life but not with the same biology.

Hello university of Waterloo, it's My pleasure to introduce Me to you. I try few times living messages to your teachers but I guess they are not interested exchanging together, to bad. Maybe one day. Anyway Hi to all of you students I juste whant to say to all of you that direction you all take will be quite the adventure. Good choice a near future for all of you. Amazing 😎

k2 18b i m coming with my boat 😂

If I was an Alien I'd say Earth has intelligent life if not for our nukes

@NoseyNick

4 жыл бұрын

Pretty much the plot of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_(musical) :-D

I juste acknowledge the huge, the mammouth big problem of academics. They need to juste know the subject for about a semester that it is. So sad where is the passion. Those kids fear to not have the good answer. To bad so sad. I understand now why they don't call Me back. Sorry kids 😎 I will try again to be able to have a good 2hours together will be great no?

In north America we prefer the term diameter versus radii. She must be British. Great lecturer! however when in Rome..........

Shes badly wrong, earths co2 levels were dangerously low just before the industrial revolution, had the earth been moved closer to the sun and co2 levels dropped further as she explained then photosynthesis would have stopped. And saying co2 "traps" heat misleading , it re-radiates it back to earth

@stoppernz229

4 жыл бұрын

@Movie Fan Are people automatically right when they get some game? It that why people listen Hollywood actors about politics and the environment etc? You should have checked to see if I was wrong before replying 😅😂

What a pity that such interesting subject was presented in such a bad way. Her presentations were bad and made with such simplicity like for children. I also didn't like the fact, that she was laughing when people asked her questions.

What happened to Greg Dick recently?

very interesting video. thank you