Thank you Karin Öberg. That's the first time I've seen such a positive assessment. One billion planets spread randomly about our galaxy. I make that about one every 10-20 light years or so on average.
Wow this is a great question and it really promotes critical thinking. That’s a skills presented by the speaker which I think more young people need to learn. I’m on a journey with my 9 yr old son to help inspire the next generation of entrepreneurs who will learn skills like this.
Maybe somewhere in the Universe very back in time some intelligent species would discussing same matter on their place , looking towards creation of our solar system and saying ' in future there's possibility of life may be we aren't alone "
Wow, I never thought of real possibility to have a lot of living planets out there. In my mind, life was a rare and pretty much random thing to happen, but this woman gave me a lot to think about. Thank you for this talk.
How many of these living planets have their inhabitants evolve beyond that of a colony of unspecialised cells? A slimeball planet is just as interesting to me as a dead planet. Microbes are everywhere on the surface of Earth but they are very boring.
@@unf3z4nt Life evolved from the bacteries themselves, so at least having them is a gift, not a given, even if you think they are boring. The whole point is to find any life, that would mean we are not the only organics here.
We are not presuming it *only* exists in that form, but we have to start somewhere, otherwise the possibilities would be endless and we'd have no idea where to start looking!
I wonder why she always says, such a planet must have liquid water on it for supporting life. Why aren't they at least considering the possibility of life emerging from other systems? For example a planet, that is a bit colder and has big amounts of liquid ammonia on it? It has similar traits compared to water and with the right other molecules, i guess the organic chemistry on such a planet could also be pretty interesting. Does anyone know if there's a reason why this doesn't need to be considered?
I wish they would have talked about improving the capability to see earthlike planets around sunlike stars. All thes "second earths" seem to be around small stars leading to tidal lock (a planet facing its star with one point) or leading to stripping the atmosphere with solar flairs and winds which are much stronger for small stars.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. I wish we (as a race) didnt ignore Galileo Galilei and other prominent figures throughout our history just to justify and satisfy our primitive beliefs in the supernatural. Thankfully, we're now much more sofisticated and much more educated as a race so no human today believes that the Earth is flat and in the center of the universe. Oh wait......
Ingredient 4. Magnetic field. Detecting that may be harder than detecting atmospheric molecule composition, though it could be inferred. Without a magnetic field, much of an atmosphere would be stripped away. Other lesser ingredients may be... have days (not tidally locked), or gravity strength, etc.
"You cannot yet appreciate how beautiful your world is, how much it possesses and what a rare jewel it is in a Greater Community of barren worlds and empty space. Worlds such as yours are rare indeed. Most places in the Greater Community that are inhabited now have been colonized, and technology has made this possible. But worlds such as yours where life has evolved naturally, without the aid of technology, are far more rare than you might realize." A quote from The New Message from God, which you can read or listen to at NewMessage.org
In a discussion of this topic, one must first decide how the universe began. If one approaches the subject in terms of a Creator, then the entire premise changes
No sir, the search for life in the Universe is a scientific endeavor. The origin of the Universe is irrelevant in this topic, well ... assuming the Universe had an origin, which is still an unproven claim , as far as we know the Universe may have always existed in the current or a different form.
lolol as hydrogen cyanite might have helped create amino acids and DNA bases, some of lifes basic building blocks. And technique is a fucking radio telescope dude
It's just an assumption that planets form by accretion in discs. There is much more evidence that planets are formed inside stars and are ejected during recurring Nova events.
a Yes. No one has ever witnessed a planet formed by accretion of molten rocks slamming into each other. The SAFIRE project has created a star in a laboratory though and one of the byproducts is the consolidation of spherical metallic bodies in the outer shell of the plasma reactor. We've also witnessed novas where dust clouds are ejected and the star remains, which disproves the idea that stars only explode at the end of their lives. Why do you think planets are always orbiting stars and not just floating around randomly in space?
Cosmos is hardware of supercomputer, watter its super conductor all running on God's software creating byproducts like humans. That's so damn exciting 🙏💜🤣
irreducible complexity is another acrobatic invention of the creationist sect which has been established is not science. So you are wasting time by trying to spread your demented anti-scientific cult here.
This seems a filler tedtalk. Because there was no conclusion. All we know is that there is a recipe for an habitable planet and that there is a lot of out there. This didn't have to be so long. This could have been done in 3 minutes to state the simple recipe.
@@jonas7510 If a person has a religious conviction (which I presume she has showing a cross like that), how is it possible to live up to the scientific method, when her own convictions are in conflict with the fundamental principal of science.
@@GuitarZombie No one can say that specifically, that is the point. And the scientific method makes us question the beginning of life all the time. But if you are religious, that open mind is closed unless the answer involves god somehow.
Poptree funny, your comment proves you are the one with the closed mind. Science is collecting data, creating a theory, testing it and then repeating until your theory matches the data. If you were a scientist, you would be forced to take data of her talk and compare it to you "cross" theory and say " that does a very poor job of matching the data". Try again and this time don't let your bias keep you from seeing the data.
Karin Öberg....your logic and your positive outlooks makes my katholic heart soar into the future!...
Her eyes seem to shine of genuine excitement!
or madness
@@eddiestiverne4765 no she IS a Christian. Her eyes shine of love. Yes thats right.
Any good scientist has the same eyes.
Thank you Karin Öberg. That's the first time I've seen such a positive assessment. One billion planets spread randomly about our galaxy. I make that about one every 10-20 light years or so on average.
Andrew H lotta science in that comment
what an interesting idea. the universe truly is such a magical yet mysterious thing.
That a good idea.
Karin Öberg....your logic and your positive outlooks makes my katholic heart soar into the future!...
Wow this is a great question and it really promotes critical thinking. That’s a skills presented by the speaker which I think more young people need to learn. I’m on a journey with my 9 yr old son to help inspire the next generation of entrepreneurs who will learn skills like this.
Parents: why are you looking at your glass of water like that?
Me:
Mmm...
the universe is teeming with living things...
Wonderful indeed!
Maybe somewhere in the Universe very back in time some intelligent species would discussing same matter on their place , looking towards creation of our solar system and saying ' in future there's possibility of life may be we aren't alone "
Asking such questions are a bit pointless, if those inhabitants can't establish sustainable colonies beyond their homeworld.
I don't doubt it.
Wow, I never thought of real possibility to have a lot of living planets out there. In my mind, life was a rare and pretty much random thing to happen, but this woman gave me a lot to think about.
Thank you for this talk.
How many of these living planets have their inhabitants evolve beyond that of a colony of unspecialised cells?
A slimeball planet is just as interesting to me as a dead planet. Microbes are everywhere on the surface of Earth but they are very boring.
@@unf3z4nt Life evolved from the bacteries themselves, so at least having them is a gift, not a given, even if you think they are boring. The whole point is to find any life, that would mean we are not the only organics here.
Interesting topic! Loved the talk.
The most useful channel I've watched 👏
normal people:*drinks water*
me:*looks at water* * like really looks at it* * no seriously looks,scrutinizes it* hmmmmmm....
Thanks to let us know the information
Her analogy about the cypresses was incredibly helpful to understand the day of work of the astrochemist. Look for planets, H2O and HCN!
🙏 I am surprised to be able to subscribe to you from so many subscribers ,,
🙏 Thank you, thank you thank you ,,
Amazing video
Informative talk indeed! Reminds me also of a book Lucky Planet by David Waltham. 👍
Wow, I think that is would be cool before I would watch the video.
First comment and like.
Thank you so much ❤️💕😊
Amazing planet,I enjoy watching this video very interesting about planet.I get more knowledge about planet,thank you
wonderful video
really interesting!!
Amazing
But aren’t we presuming that life can only exist in the form we see it as. That life can only exist in an earth like planet?
We are not presuming it *only* exists in that form, but we have to start somewhere, otherwise the possibilities would be endless and we'd have no idea where to start looking!
@@nikkizabel4903 The moons of Jupiter?
im follow you i like your good idea.
I wonder why she always says, such a planet must have liquid water on it for supporting life. Why aren't they at least considering the possibility of life emerging from other systems?
For example a planet, that is a bit colder and has big amounts of liquid ammonia on it? It has similar traits compared to water and with the right other molecules, i guess the organic chemistry on such a planet could also be pretty interesting.
Does anyone know if there's a reason why this doesn't need to be considered?
Our conditions are the only baseline we have, best look for what you KNOW for a fact can harbour life first.
Watching this is reminding me just how bad the story got over time.
I wish they would have talked about improving the capability to see earthlike planets around sunlike stars. All thes "second earths" seem to be around small stars leading to tidal lock (a planet facing its star with one point) or leading to stripping the atmosphere with solar flairs and winds which are much stronger for small stars.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. I wish we (as a race) didnt ignore Galileo Galilei and other prominent figures throughout our history just to justify and satisfy our primitive beliefs in the supernatural. Thankfully, we're now much more sofisticated and much more educated as a race so no human today believes that the Earth is flat and in the center of the universe. Oh wait......
@@BobCat981 Some people are sophisticated* and others brand things they don't understand as "supernatural".
@@BobCat981 What an idiotic idea! Of course the earth is flat. If it was round we all would fall on our backs getting up in the morning.
Latest numbers show ~400 Billion stars in the Milky Way. Not 100. That is a very old number indeed.
Ingredient 4. Magnetic field. Detecting that may be harder than detecting atmospheric molecule composition, though it could be inferred. Without a magnetic field, much of an atmosphere would be stripped away. Other lesser ingredients may be... have days (not tidally locked), or gravity strength, etc.
"You cannot yet appreciate how beautiful your world is, how much it possesses and what a rare jewel it is in a Greater Community of barren worlds and empty space. Worlds such as yours are rare indeed. Most places in the Greater Community that are inhabited now have been colonized, and technology has made this possible. But worlds such as yours where life has evolved naturally, without the aid of technology, are far more rare than you might realize."
A quote from The New Message from God, which you can read or listen to at NewMessage.org
विश्व एक बड़ी कल्पना है
In a discussion of this topic, one must first decide how the universe began.
If one approaches the subject in terms of a Creator, then the entire premise changes
No sir, the search for life in the Universe is a scientific endeavor. The origin of the Universe is irrelevant in this topic, well ... assuming the Universe had an origin, which is still an unproven claim , as far as we know the Universe may have always existed in the current or a different form.
@@tatonemio6388 Professor Hawking
Bruh she's a practosong catholic and has a series of vids on the Thomistic Institute
yes i want friends
Rule #1: Don't have any humans.
O like science
Woweee
Good talk. but 2 minutes would have been enough to say what she had to say
Ok I want to be friends
Why , hydrogen cyanite is important for life , what technique was use to detect cyanite emmition ?
Who will tell this 😡
lolol as hydrogen cyanite might have helped create amino acids and DNA bases, some of lifes basic building blocks.
And technique is a fucking radio telescope dude
oh!
EU QUERO
Wonderful✨😍✨😍✨😍✨😍✨😍✨😍✨😍✨😍✨😍✨😍✨😍✨😍
What levels of Ph.D. and other criminals will escape the sheep 🐑 covid vaccination?
Hurricanes are a leftist hoax am I right?
Riah lmao, of course
It's just an assumption that planets form by accretion in discs. There is much more evidence that planets are formed inside stars and are ejected during recurring Nova events.
Much more evidence?
a Yes. No one has ever witnessed a planet formed by accretion of molten rocks slamming into each other. The SAFIRE project has created a star in a laboratory though and one of the byproducts is the consolidation of spherical metallic bodies in the outer shell of the plasma reactor. We've also witnessed novas where dust clouds are ejected and the star remains, which disproves the idea that stars only explode at the end of their lives. Why do you think planets are always orbiting stars and not just floating around randomly in space?
💜🌌
Dolly Wells? The one who played the nun on Dracula?
Caramba que podia tem em português ne
Vc fala ingles?
@@mateusmorais4679 não
👍👍
Cosmos is hardware of supercomputer, watter its super conductor all running on God's software creating byproducts like humans. That's so damn exciting 🙏💜🤣
I wonder why she shed light on hydrogen cyanide.
Catholic science professors >
😘💓🌎👍
...
Read Dr Behe's work on irreducible complexity and you find out why it is very unlikely that there is life out there.
irreducible complexity is another acrobatic invention of the creationist sect which has been established is not science.
So you are wasting time by trying to spread your demented anti-scientific cult here.
....sigh.
First comment!
First
OI EU SOU ODAVI QUE VOCÊ QUERIA SERAMIGO
Someone stop this freaking public speaking ad
What?
Interesting. Almost as if we were intelligently and intentionally designed.
what? was that what you got from this presentation?
This seems a filler tedtalk. Because there was no conclusion. All we know is that there is a recipe for an habitable planet and that there is a lot of out there. This didn't have to be so long. This could have been done in 3 minutes to state the simple recipe.
Really interesting speech. Unfortunately, the cross around her neck takes away any credibility to her as a scientist.
oh please . if you're against dogmatism , stop doing that . for the record , i'm not religious either - but people like you give all of us a bad rap .
@@jonas7510 If a person has a religious conviction (which I presume she has showing a cross like that), how is it possible to live up to the scientific method, when her own convictions are in conflict with the fundamental principal of science.
@@Krabbsallad How can one represent science and say specifically how everything began?
@@GuitarZombie No one can say that specifically, that is the point. And the scientific method makes us question the beginning of life all the time. But if you are religious, that open mind is closed unless the answer involves god somehow.
Poptree funny, your comment proves you are the one with the closed mind. Science is collecting data, creating a theory, testing it and then repeating until your theory matches the data. If you were a scientist, you would be forced to take data of her talk and compare it to you "cross" theory and say " that does a very poor job of matching the data". Try again and this time don't let your bias keep you from seeing the data.