Habitable Exoplanets | In Search of Earth 2.0

[@alaska298super2]

Even though these are videos moved over, im super excited to see what this channel has to offer!

[@jordanbriggs5055]

I knew I had seen these before, just convinced myself they were new 😂

[@shutup-gc2yk]

@@jordanbriggs5055 i have a shit long term memory, so they're new to me 🤷🏻 The perks of ADD nobody tells you about

[@squidly6179]

Where did it come from?

[@shutup-gc2yk]

@@squidly6179 His main channel, Atlas Pro.

[@squidly6179]

@@shutup-gc2yk preciate it bro I could probably watch a million of these

[@tdyerwestfield]

"Only" lightyears away. We have to invent vehicles with the capability of light speed first which doesn't appear particularly feasible. Let's keep this planet habitable.

[@gabrielalejandrodoldan4722]

Yep

[@gbeo778]

Tell me you don’t know the scale of the universe without telling me you don’t know the scale of the universe.

[@davidk1308]

If you're reading the comments here, too, it'd be really cool to see a part 2 or even 3. TOI 700d and Kepler 1649c are probably good candidates to examine their atmospheres with JWST, like the TRAPPIST system, which scientists are still analyzing the data for, and it'd be cool to go over current and future missions to bring the potential habitability of planets from simulations and models, to obvervations and confirmation. But I'd also like to see a video about "Lost Earths" or exoplanets that were previously discovered, but found to actually be unsuitable for potential life, or are unlikely to exist at all (Kapteyn b is actually one of those). Like HD 85512b, which was once thought to be potentially habitable, but later determined to sit too closely to its parent star. Or Gliese 581g, which was probably the first major discovery to make the rounds as being 'Earth 2.0' before later observations found the planet was unlikely to exist in the first place.

[@I.amthatrealJuan]

6:19 You got it wrong there. The planet letter designation does not refer to its position relative to the host star but its chronological order of discovery.

[@matterhorn731]

Yeah, that's true. I think in practice it often works out to being the same with Kepler data, though, since Kepler mainly used the transit method. Identifying and confirming exoplanets that way requires them to complete multiple orbits, which happens faster for inner planets with shorter orbital periods.

[@junebegorra]

Double check the photosynthetic pigment biology. Green plants absorb blue and red light to make energy, which is why they're green. There were other magenta photosynthesizers before them according to some researchers. The green plants absorbed the less energetic wavelengths but cane out on top.

[@LolUGotBusted]

Purple Earth hypothesis

[@idraote]

Green plants absorbing less energy are like people taking a walk fully dressed in the Summer as opposed to people sunbathing. Less risk of skin damage but enough light to stay in good health.

[@maciejpanasiewicz3947]

They are not green because they absorb blue and red light it's because they reflect green light.

[@ezelleze6264]

I love you man, but you could have just left it as a playlist in the main channel. But since you already started it i dont think there is going back. You have my support on both channels and goodluck.

[@thebeeemill]

Agree. The non-earth videos have still performed well on the main channel and I think separating them will only be detrimental. Far less views for the same effort. Besides I always felt these vids belonged just as much as the others.

[@JohnSmith-kf1fc]

I really like how you research and present these topics. Subbed for life!

[@ryanbradley3293]

It just shows how absolutely perfect our earth is

[@glennwebb9417]

it would only take 3.6 years for the people on the ship going to Proxima, 4 years for anyone watching the ship. love the new channel, keep um coming

[@glennwebb9417]

oh, speed of light , um thinking, i think it would be instant for the crew, 3.6 years would be at something like 86% the speed of light, Lorentz factor

[@stewiesaidthat]

@@glennwebb9417 nothing can travel faster than light. How is the crew going to get there instantly if it takes 3.6 years for the ship at the speed of light.

[@glennwebb9417]

@@stewiesaidthat only from the crews time line, only massless particles can move at the speed of light, but time doesn't pass for things moving at the speed of light, ie if a photon leaves a star 14 billion light years away, we see it as it was 14 billion years ago, but for the photon it reaches your eye instantaneous

[@stewiesaidthat]

@@glennwebb9417 there are no such things as 'photons'. What you view as light is just an energy packet which the eye recognizes as light. Gamma rays, X-Rays, UV rays, Microwaves, Shortwave/AM radio, are all the same electromagnetic wave, just a different wavelength. That EM wave, as it passes through the cosmos, encounters dust and gas and loses energy - redshifting. Unless you've converted your crew to pure energy and shielded them from space, they are at rest within the ship and experiencing normal time.

[@glennwebb9417]

@@stewiesaidthat I`m sorry I disagree, anything moving at light speed doesn't experience time, not that it makes any difference, nothing can move at the speed of light that has mass, it would take infinite energy, and we still haven't found any infinite's in nature, and I also disagree that there are no such things as photons :) but I still enjoyed your response, thank you

[@shelbyrorrer404]

This video is so cool. A perfect combo of info packed and entertaining! I find myself falling asleep during space related videos but yours kept me hooked. Great editing too!

[@shelbyrorrer404]

I literally watched it 3 times before commenting this

[@holyhumane]

Been and atlas pro fan for over 2 years ❤️

[@Mapper_Space]

That fact that red dwarf plants would be red is a misconception. The plants would be better off purple or black, to absorb any visible and infrared light the star emits, and reflect the damaging ultraviolet light and xrays that hit the planet during flares

[@alexandreventurellicavalhe8717]

Hey! Good luck with this new channel, I absolutly love your space videos

[@HolyKingKong]

The name “Super-Earth” has been ruined for me now that I’m coming back to this video in 2024

[@markbencetti7693]

Just come across your channel a couple of days ago. I love your content. Keep it up.

[@iwersonsch5131]

For 4:44, wouldn't this allow for planets to be habitable at a greater distance from their star? Say a planet was too cold to, if it wasn't tidally locked, have liquid water, maybe the eternal daylight would allow for liquid water near the focus

[@davidk1308]

Kind of, yeah. As you already saw in the video, TRAPPIST 1f/g are possible examples of this, where the focus is likely to be the temperate part of the planet where life can flourish, while the rest of the planet's surface is more likely to be covered in ice sheets.

[@Dianasaurthemelonlord7777]

Actually yeah, kind of, A good Example is the entire TRAPPIST-1 System.

[@ArakkoaChronicles]

One thing I never understood with habitable planets around red dwarves is how do these temperature poles work with an atmosphere. I mean, wouldn't a massive difference in air temperature and pressure cause super-hurricane winds to blow over and equalize the temperature?

[@Dianasaurthemelonlord7777]

If the atmosphere is dense enough, and surface conditions like the ratio of Land to Ocean, yeah... it would, or the whole planet would have incredibly strong winds all over.

[@adamwu4565]

There would almost certainly be very fast winds, and, if it is an oceanic world, powerful and vast ocean currents that would make Earth's Gulf Stream look like the work of a child splashing in a bathtub. But the actual force of the winds depends on atmospheric thickness. Mars for example, regularly has dust storms with wind speeds in excess of the greatest tornadoes on Earth. But the thinness of the atmosphere means that a human standing in the middle of such a storm, would feel a wind force of less than that of a 10km/h breeze on Earth.

[@idraote]

A clarification: you mean tidally locked planet?

[@ArakkoaChronicles]

@@idraote Yes, sorry. I am yet to hear about a candidate for habitability around an M star that wasn't very likely to be tidally locked.

[@dbsti3006]

I was thinking the same thing. Under those conditions one would thing the wind speeds would be insanely fast between the hot and cold zones. Like REALLY fast.

[@Yorishiriamori]

Scientist: Hm, possible habitable planet. Eureka Me: Hm, yeah, shiny dot.

[@josecipriano3048]

IMO, thinking about colonizing other planets with no feasible way to get anywhere near them, it's like me thinking about buying a sportscar with a 1000 dollar salary.

[@sbomorse]

The "Just don't look" Simpsons reference was a pleasant surprise 😂

[@Necr0Phi1e]

I love both channels and am super happy to rewatch here and to reflect the viewership of them here!

[@garethde-witt6433]

There is no point in looking for an earth like planet as everything is too far away and since we are constantly looking back in time this also means anything we find will probably be life less anyway.

[@dooks123]

4 light years away, means will take us 6200 years to travel at 690,000 km/h. And sending a message from earth, will take 4 years to reach there, and another 4 years to get a response.

[@BrianStDenis-pj1tq]

Kepler 186f is 500 light years away. That means that there is not even a theoretical way a human could travel there.

[@LolUGotBusted]

Many M-type red dwarfs tend to be flare stars, which is a deal-breaker.

[@Dianasaurthemelonlord7777]

They can be, but it's not instantly a deal breaker on it's own. Other factors like the System's Age, Planet's Size and Magnetic Feild Strength, Planet's Composition, etc. would all contribute to the Planet's Ability to resist the destruction of it's atmosphere... then the Composition of the Atmosphere is also important because of certain gases having the ability to better absorb radiation from it's Star. It can make things difficult yes, but not immediately a deal breaker

[@LolUGotBusted]

@@Dianasaurthemelonlord7777 How many orders of magnitude would you think solar storms have to be to make you think twice?

[@Dianasaurthemelonlord7777]

@@LolUGotBusted Depends a lot on the Planet itself, A smaller planet like the size of Mars or so would be less favorable than an Earth Sized Planet or a Super Earth Sized Planet... a Super Earth is preferred, especially with a Heavy Metallic Core similar to the Earth. A Mars Sized Planet around an M-type Flare star is easily out of the question, too small to maintain an atmosphere for very long even around a relatively calm Red Dwarf. But Larger Planets can maintain it for longer. So it would have a lot to do with what the Planet is, in terms of Size and Composition.

[@adamwu4565]

@@LolUGotBusted It's also going to matter if we're talking about habitability for humans as we are now (for which high flare activity would be a virtual death sentence), habitability for future space-faring humans with technology advanced enough to move to other star systems (where shielding from even monstrous solar storms is a relatively trivial engineering challenge compared with the challenge of just moving through space to another star) or habitability for microbes, (where so long as the flare activity doesn't dessicate the planet completely, subsurface microbial life in a wet layer beneath the crust, even in the complete absence of any atmosphere at all, wouldn't even notice the flare activity at all)

[@LolUGotBusted]

@@adamwu4565 It WOULD take 600,000 years of travel through cosmic radiation to arrive at a flare star (with current tech), it is entirely possible humans on that voyage would evolve to withstand high levels of radiation.

[@Kasaaz]

If Keppler186f's star is so dim, why would plantlife want to filter ANY light out? Wouldn't it just be black?

[@K_O_M16]

YES NEW CHANNEL

[@juanfermin1841]

Great video, keep them coming.

[@מ.מ-ה9ד]

So... would you delete those videos from your main channel?

[@blaircolquhoun7780]

Will we ever discover a terrestrial planet around Sigma Draconis, (Alsafi)?

[@uliuchu4318]

my new long-term goal: tea garden on teegarden a or b

[@Garettteh]

@20:55 ESI 0.87 ? I thought that planet at Proxima Centauri is much lower in ESI due to it's star as you mentioned.

[@dantan9283]

It's crazy! I almost died waiting for an update from your first channel only to find out you were updating somewhere else 🫠 the betrayal I felt after finding out was legit on another level.

[@thomaswade3072]

Tidally locked planets can't reasonably maintain atmospheres. The constant heat with only a thin crescent of convection would boil off any gas in a geological blink.

[@technoimperialist9509]

koi 4878.01: heyyy

[@Your1Nightmare]

Oh this was fantastic! It helps a bit with a sci-fi story I was working on that was based on Kepler-452 b, this gives ideas for the other ships that get launched. I am also super curious how you make those custom planets!

[@Spacemarioedition]

i think he records the planets in space engine which is an app on steam

[@Your1Nightmare]

@@Spacemarioedition Sweet! I will need to check that out. Thanks for giving me a name.

[@Spacemarioedition]

@@Your1Nightmare you're welcome

[@Trag-zj2yo]

I enjoy your work ɓut I can't understand why finding life somewhere else in the galaxy is a thing.

[@crimsonsnow2469]

Kepler 22b gotta be named Tatooine.

[@sebbog]

put this in the exoplanets playlist

[@stanleestruve5613]

And there's limitation how fast an Object can accelerate, maybe in our future we have star ships that can travel 10 times faster than light

[@Poe9320]

I've gone on a binge of the videos backwards

[@Epsilonsama]

Good news everyone according to recent studies the majority of the flares generated by class M Stars come from the poles and does not reach the planets that orbit if they orbit the star equator.

[@CentauriSphere]

Exciting indeed ✨

[@complex314i]

On a deep ocean planet there is a problem that could render then lifeless: lack of nutrients & minerals. For our oceans to be productive, soil needs to be washed into the ocean via rivers or the seabed needs to be close enough to the photic zone to replace that effect. A deep ocean world clearly has no rivers and the seabed is miles separated from the photic zone. Should the ocean be extremely deep then pressure would prevent the ocean from ever touching a solid surface. The ocean and solid ground would be separated by a thick layer of solid exotic water ice. In this case, not only is photosynthetic life extremely hard, but regions of chemosynthetic primary production, like hydrothermal vents of cold seeps, would be impossible. To be clear, I am quite optimistic about alien life. There are possible ways around these problems. But we also need to be realistic about the facts. I honestly expect alien life to so unlike life on Earth that we won't initially recognize it as alive.

[@Pharry_]

I'm fairly convinced that life is not exactly abundant in the universe. The only planet we've discovered that can even remotely support life is Earth, and theoretically Europa. I would reckon there's zero chance that we will find life on ANY of the exoplanets we've yet found, but I like to think that doesn't remotely make them uninteresting. I mean, bodies like Venus, Mars, Titan, Ganymede, Io, etc. are all super interesting, yet they could not be less habitable.

[@darrinwebber4077]

I have faith...given human talents for overcoming obstacles and finding loopholes, that we will someday settle other worlds and travel the star ways in some way. There will come a time, when a method of travel will be found. And available to many different groups of people. From major governments and great corporations to small governments and groups like religious separatists...or criminals..or just some small bands seeking a world of their own to "conquer". A diaspora of humanity launching into space. Some to survive. Some lost forever. And some reaching their goal...only to fail and die. But some will survive.

[@StudioNama]

Find the Spherus betwixed the Bara and the Aqua.

[@schweppestanica1805]

I think there must be all time very strong Tornados in the middle between the dark and the sunny side of a tidal locked planet

[@bigsarge2085]

Interesting.

[@insertoyouroemail]

Wouldn't evolving on a tidally locked world be less complicated rather than more complicated? The day is the same all the time and there would be no seasons, I guess.

[@MAYBEMAYNOTBE2]

Didn't breathe for first 13 seconds.

[@julien5053]

"Habitable Exoplanets" is fun and all, but in truth, it's very dubious. For example, many exoplanets that are in the habitable zone are mostly M type star; very small stars with very violent flares which should strip any smal planet of its atmosphere. (our Sun is extremely quiet compared to most of the stars) Even worse, most of these planets are surely tidely locked (like the moon) to their parent star, because they are very close to their star, even closer than Mercury is to the Sun. One side always face the star, which is hot and the other side is always in the dark. That should produce "eyeball" planets if they have atmosphere + liquid water. Not much of an eden for life to bloom... It's nice to dream, but it will be very difficult to find a real habitable planete but the Earth. We should think first about Earth and how to preserve it. I think it's an appropriate disclaimer that any video of this kind should have.

[@johnvines4875]

Imagine we sent a ship like in the movies, a ship that will have many people that will breed until they arrive to said planet, just to find the planet is habitable with dinosaur size creatures, now what?

[@glennbabic5954]

In tidally-locked systems planets would shine brighter than full moons in the night sky of inner planets. They are so close. I think that's enough light for life to evolve to use.

[@idraote]

I heard about a theory according to which life on Earth was actually made possible by the kind of star it orbits. Stars like the Sun are apparently NOT overly common, the bulk of them consisting of red dwarfs or giants. According to this theory, the Sun is weak enough not to consume itself too fast and allow life the time to evolve. It is also too weak to bombard the Earth with unsustainable amounts of dangerous radiation. On the other hand, the Sun is strong enough to radiate real life-bringing energy: red dwarfs could in theory sustain life, but it would probably be something unicellular, something that doesn't require energy the red dwarf is unable to give. Besides, the red dwarfs habitable zone is too close to the star and that exposes life on the planet to excessive amounts of deathly radiations.

[@mrbardel4363]

Earth 2.0 is better than all other obtions .

[@nigarugamingHvH]

we just got into the 21st century and we're already looking for earth like planets 💀

[@ramahibrahim2431]

loved the vid

[@sheadoolittle]

Humanity is much more likely to build giant space habitats than to find a new earth

[@idfklol776]

The problem with this is. the fact that all of these will take years for even light to hit aka the "fastest" thing in this universe, and even if we got light-speed tech. it would all be impossible. though its fun.

[@andrewplayz7588]

How do you edit your videos

[@1969kodiakbear]

Astro Pro 😃

[@Mo_Mudabber]

You sound just like atlas pro

[@texben123]

As an example, aliens, bodies would be different. If it’s too hot, they have thicker skin. If it’s too cold, the alien could be fatter. If there’s too much water, they can breathe under water and handle the water pressure as well. They would pretty much be like an aquatic, like squid,whales, and other aquatic animals. Another example. If an alien can live in acid, like it’s a body would be acid proof and probably look like well glass like skin or something similar to it.🤔🤔🤔🤔

[@sammyclassicstarfoxfan9827]

Clearly we are in a game of Stellaris, and guaranteed habitable worlds is on, Proxima b is one of them.

[@TheGreatSatan_]

Even is you found another planet similar to Earth and we could get there, we wouldn't survive. Even another planet with breathable air would be loaded with germs that could wipe us all out

[@henningschafer6712]

Baba

[@insectilluminatigetshrekt5574]

Dude I looked up wolf 1061c and it is nothing like how you described in the video. Perhaps you confused it with another planet?

[@phillipschmidt6295]

Oxygen is very reactive making free floating Oxygen without life, something that has never been discovered. For humans looking for a second home we would want a world very similar chemically to the moon Titan. Only much closer to Earth's size, geological activity, and able to maintain a stable electromagnetic field. If we find any plant with meaningful amounts of free floating Oxygen we currently only have one explanation; life. It is the only chemical process that we have discovered that can do that.

[@reverendrv151]

When Scientists start admitting that Planets within the Liquid Water Habitable Zone of Red Dwarf Stars are not within the Ultraviolet Habitable Zones of these Stars, we can begin to be honest about how rare Life is within the Galaxy; since Red Dwarf Stars are nearly %80 of the Stellar Population. Around our Yellow Dwarf Star, the Liquid Water Habitable Zone and the Ultraviolet Habitable Zone overlap one another; look it up...

[@christiano9693]

it's not sure that photosynthesis could be possible in red dwarfs, because low energy of that light. Maybe yes, maybe not.

[@Dianasaurthemelonlord7777]

Depending on the distance from the star, the plants would have to be very dark in color to maximize the amount light absorbed, or be a pigment that can absorb lot's of lower energy light as well as UV Radiation.

[@adamwu4565]

Considering that Earth's plants primarily use the low-energy red photons that would be most abundant in red dwarf systems, and reflect away most of the sun's higher energy photons, photosynthesis could easily work even better on a red dwarf planet than it does here on Earth, where our plants actually have to devote a lot of energy and resources into protecting themselves from heat stress and excessive light.

[@christiano9693]

@@adamwu4565 Not really, most of red dwarf light is infrared low energetic not red or higher, that's the problem. One good youtuber have various videos about this, search " Anton Petrov red dwarf photosynthesis ".

[@adamwu4565]

@@christiano9693 And most of the sun's output is not in the red either. Photosynthesis on Earth only exploits a tiny fraction of the sun's output. There is lots and lots and lots of potential room for the process to compensate for a star with lower luminosity output in any wavelength.

[@nickolasbrown3342]

The human experience is measured in tens of thousands of years, not millions or dear god hundreds of millions - it's a tremendous fallacy to judge a star's habitability based on "it would only last 300 million years" For all intents and purposes, that's enough time to experience everything in recorded history hundreds of thousands of times over.

[@I.amthatrealJuan]

7:19 This statement is vague. What do you mean by 5 Earth atmospheres worth of CO2? Do you mean 5 times the CO2 concentration of our atmosphere (~1600 ppm) or a CO2 partial pressure equivalent of 5 atm?

[@davidk1308]

According to a Universe Today article, 5x Earths atmopsheric pressure in pure CO2. But they also noted a similar composition and CO2 level like Earth would allow above freezing temperatures for part of the year. So I personally think there's a discrepancy in their models for values that wide, because it doesn't make much sense (Mars and 62f get about the same amount of light, and Mars was thought to have liquid water - but it likely didn't have an atm of pure CO2), or the scientists who made the discovery were misquoted (and it was actually something like 5x Earth's CO2 concentration), and that bad info just spread like a telephone game.

[@petermartin6737]

I prefer long videos.

[@yosranaeem6385]

would you please make a video about the types of stars and the birth and death of them as well 2 or 3 videos minium 20 min 🙄🙄

[@tales9476]

0:15, come on. 100 percent? You need some more scientific rigor than that. How about with "believe with 10-sigma confidence"?

[@tales9476]

@@DVSLIL1 I don't think you understood what I meant. I was saying that, scientifically, no claim can be made with *actually* 100% certainty. For instance, "if you drop a ball from a static reference frame to the earth, it will fall towards the ground." - this claim is *probably* true, but just in case the ball quantum teleports upward in an absurdly unlikely event, it can't be said that the ball will fall 100% of the time. Just 99.9999... more zeros than could fit on a screen - percent likely. That's all I was saying. I understand that what was meant was "we don't know if life exists elsewhere".

[@judychurley6623]

No, because you can't get there in any meaningful time or with enough resources for a meaningful number of people

[@WanWan-em5qu]

oMg I cAN't bEliEvE yOU COpiED aTlAS pRO

[@aAtom596]

WOOOOOO TRAPIST-1 g

[@michaelvandijk6490]

Don't search for earth-2, the reachable universe is way to small.

[@amananuragsharma8370]

❤❤❤❤❤

[@sephirrothvt]

Just go to titan, a great moon

[@sephirrothvt]

We might find thanos for sure

[@KaneCanGame]

TOI 700 d is earth 2.0

[@MountainFisher]

One's search for life on other planets must start with the correct assumption that Life was created and why would it be able to live elsewhere and is there sentient life already there. The assumption that Life is the result of natural processes is an assumption based on zero scientific evidence.

[@swagmund_freud6669]

The assumption that life is NOT created through natural processes also has 0 scientific evidence. If life was not based on natural processes, then you're explanation would be a whole lot more complicated than if we assume it was.

[@MountainFisher]

@@swagmund_freud6669 Absolutely not is there no evidence that life is engineered. There are no natural processes that create massive amounts of information found in living systems. Only intelligence writes codes as in the genetic code found in the quaternary DNA code. You never hear OOL researchers talking about how the interactome of the RNA-DNA system. First fossil life found on Earth is 3.6 billion years old and the prokaryotic cyanobacterial alga already knew how to do photosynthesis. It just "appeared" in time to create oxygen for later living organisms to use.

[@Techno_Idioto]

This is all well and good, but it's all assuming Humanity actually survives long enough to reach out into other star systems. Which, in truth, wouldn't happen. Humanity will go extinct far before we develop FTL travel.

[@adventurefighter7501]

Bro used the wrong intro 😂

[@deleted-something]

noice

[@claytonreeves150]

You don't get Earth 2.0. You decided to squander the one you were given, and you will not be allowed to sully another. This is it, kiddos. You trashed the one home you were ever going to have. Accept the consequences of your actions.

[@justsomerandombirdwithinte5896]

oh shush, the earth has its problems but it wont go anywhere anytime soon

[@claytonreeves150]

@@justsomerandombirdwithinte5896 I never said it would. WE are the ones who will be going. Then the planet can take the eons it needs to heal from our corruption.

[@claytonreeves150]

@@justsomerandombirdwithinte5896 You seem to be unable to understand what I'm saying. The human race will simply go extinct like every other hominid has done before us. That's not a conspiracy, that's just an eventuality. An eventuality that we have hastened with our lack of respect for the single planet we have to occupy.

[@thehomie399]

Why go to other planets 😅🤦‍♂️

[@alexanderwinn9407]

The "habitable zone" is a flawed concept. It works for human colonization candidates, but when it comes to alien life, the range is WAY wider. Even in our own solar system, Europa is a great candidate for life and it's nowhere near the "habitable zone" of our sun.

[@Priestcaswell7242]

Psalm 24 the earth is the lord's Stop teaching folly Jah Rastafari

[@TheSkookat]

You think god only made 1 system? I'm a person who makes spec evo projects, and I have 15 of them with 23 habitual planets

[@Philippe275]

ESI < 0.8 are not really worth hoping much from

[@PhysicsPolice]

You annunciate very well which is one of the great things about your channel. But the slow talking speed is a real problem in my opinion. Consider using software to speed it up by 1.5 times. Or just talk faster. Cause it’s a waste of the viewer’s time. And that’s not a fun experience.

[@LolUGotBusted]

You can speed up the video. What's more he is implementing vocal inflections designed to keep the listener engaged. It may come across as speaking unnecessarily slow, or excessive enunciation. It also helps with text-to-speech and closed captions for the hearing impaired.

[@PhysicsPolice]

@@LolUGotBusted I have been speeding up the video. This isn’t something I should have to do. It’s valuable to give feedback to content creators so they know when there’s a problem with their content. You don’t need to sell me on speaking clearly. I see the value. But this is way, way too much. You haven’t made an argument for why this isn’t too much. Let me know if you have one.

[@LolUGotBusted]

@@PhysicsPolice But I did. Handicap Accessibility. Have you tried to read most people's videos' closed captions? These are actually GOOD and not just streams of disjointed nonsense. I wonder if we can get a deaf guy to apologize for your inconvenience

[@PhysicsPolice]

@@LolUGotBusted I can’t agree. (1) This KZbinr records at a slow talking speed. (2) This slow talking speed allows his mouth to produce nearly perfect annunciation. (3) Speeding up the audio 1.5 x would retain very high quality annunciation (4) Very high quality annunciation results in high quality closed captions. (5) Speeding up the audio 1.5 times will not harm people with hearing disability. Also, content creators can edit the captions to correct mistakes. If he wants to do right by people with hearing disability, he is already doing that. So I don’t see any tension between speeding up the audio in post and supporting his hearing disabled audience. None.

[@LolUGotBusted]

@@PhysicsPolice You are demanding a lot more of the creator than the single click it requires of you to give you literally exactly what you want, right at the bottom of the screen.

[@adamrobin9362]

Looking forwards to watching more of your videos! Very clear. articulate, cool animations and well edited. Keep up the good work!

[@Arranus]

These videos are you most underrated videos I hope you are able to grow your second channel just like you did with your first channel.

[@Titanic-wo6bq]

Did you use space engine for showing the planets? Because it looks like space engine.

[@tristanmisja]

In Wolf 1061c, in the habitiable zones between the light and dark sides, couldn't you safely swim with a suba suit?

[@Asdayasman]

Huh, you use the exact same intro music as Atlas Pro.

[@Exoneos]

ESI ok but does that measurment take into account having a Moon ? Because our earth as a Moon that played a huge role to our planet lifes. And to an extent we are influenced by it too. Can mankind strives in a planet without a moon ?

[@fredanderson5544]

seems like to me if we need to leave earth we would be better off building a few van braun type space stations.