No music, no fancy backgrounds, no green screen, no graphics stuff like transitions. Nothing enjoyable but the conversation itself. Thanks to you guys 🌹
If Neil was teaching a class, Chuck would get straight A's. I am always amazed by his ability to understand, retain and paraphrase Neil's wisdom. He is a comedian, but he could easily have been a scientist.
Exactly, and what might be even more astonishing is the pace he absorbs that knowledge. To be able to make comments of the subject, first you need to understand it.
I was wondering why it was not mentioned. It must've sprung into Neil's mind the moment the question was asked. I am guessing the second he took to say "NO." was the time it took to consider to open up the topic on gravitational distortions. But it's a whole other beast and would've probably let way off topic for too long.
A little different, our atmosphere blurs our images making it more difficult to observe distant smaller objects like individual stars, gravitational lensing distorts the image but doesn't prevent us from distinguishing it using computer software. Hubble currently uses gravitation lensing to get better shots of distant objects.
The atmosphere distorts the images and data in which we would like to study about cosmos. That makes atmosphere an unwanted inconvenience. However, if our objective is to study the atmosphere, these distortions maybe considered valuable. I think, Neil said "NO", because the distortions occurring in space due to whatever reason is a whole separate subject for study rather than a nuisance in general.
It's not really the same type of distortion. It's part of the signal, not noise like the atmosphere. There is something similar to atmospheric distortion though, and that is the milky way dust clouds. These block visible light, so redshifts are not able to be measured in this plane.
I feel like chuck doesn't even care for science, not even on an average level. I think he's just paid to do this. This is the only job he can get that's why. But that's my opinion. What y'all think?
Yet so many video games put it in as this "oh look at this cool effect we can do" when I always find it annoying and turn it off if possible, lol. Annoys me in console games where it's forced on by default with no option to turn it off.
I already knew this stuff, I’m just stupid stoked for the James Webb Space Telescope. Hope all goes as planned and we have amazing new information on what all this is.
I'm so happy to get into this stuff right now in October 2021, shortly before the James Webb Space Telescope is being launched. Such an exciting time to be alive!
❤Thank you Startalk for all the links to key concepts. Now I don't have to comb through the transcripts so much as I pluck the episodes apart like I do my ebooks.
@5:30 I think gravitational lensing would count as a light distorting phenomenon like what Chuck is asking about. Also the event horizon of a black hole distorts light pretty severely as well.
Food for thought. As amazing and mind-blowing as the James Webb telescope launching experience will be for sure. Now, with a retrospective mind, it makes me wonder, how much do we know about our planet? I mean, what leads mankinds curiosity only to outer space versus discovering and solving issues back home? I'd love your input. As well appreciating your sharing of important knowledge with so much passion. Best always!
Couldn't gravity of some really big star or a black hole bend light rays coming from other stars? hence more or less "equivalent of atmosphere" as Chuck put it
einstein predicted light passing the sun would bend 1 3/4 degrees of arc, so a british scientist went to south america to film an eclipse of the sun and proved light bent passing the sun by 1 3/4 degrees of arc.
@@bobdavi9455 does that mean the position a star behind the sun or some celestial object bent like the sun's position is bent by the horizon on sunset ans sunrise?
@@tidbit1877 When viewing galaxies behind M87, the deflection is nearly 15 degrees. It's not negligible, but I guess he didn't want to go into relativity etc. with only a few minutes left in the video.
I was screaming the same thing. While _far_ less pronounced than the atmosphere, there are plenty of things in space to introduce distortion. Space is not totally empty, ya' know.
I don't see what "stretching" is required. The magnitude of distortion from gravitational deflection is much less than that of atmospheric refraction of course, but conceptually they are not very different.
Gravity is not a force. Its the bending of space time wich is a concept. Can't "bend" a concept. Mass attracting mass has never been proven, einstein supperceeded newton with bendy space time. What's holding the trillions of tones of water sticking to a 1,1000mph spinning ball in a vacuum? Hint* the earth isn't spinning nor is it physically curving. If you can't tell when your being lied to I'm sorry, fall in line with the rest of the sheep.
@@bigtravis6159 Sure. Gravity is not a force and not real. Tesla knew what was going on, he understood everything is harmonics and there is free unlimited energy all around us. So is electro magnetism holding the ocean and atmosphere to a spinning ball in a vacuum? I personally don't think so.
@@williamenglish7599 the closer something is to a body of mass, the stronger the gravitational pull. Also water contributes in Earth's gravity, because it's in contact with it.
If Dr.Tyson see this i wonder can he answer the question: "Is the cosmic microwave background radiation red-shifted because it is moving away from us or because it is gravitationally red-shifted by something behind it? And how do you know or measure it?"
Probably the most important use of this medium at this time. Cleverly put together. Drawing in he kids and tickling the older viewers, alike. Impeccable pairing. Shoo-shaa!
I like your comparison to heat waves on a Highway. I’m an amateur astronomy, and I love doing public outreach. Here’s another idea, to explain atmospheric fluctuations. I tell folks that we live at the bottom of an ocean of air. I ask if they’ve ever gone to a swimming pool, and looked up from underwater. Nothing above the water is clear. It’s all jumbled and out of focus because the water has waves, splashes, and swirls etc. It’s the same with the ocean of air above us. It has winds, waves, currents, and swirls which jumble up the light coming through and prevent us from seeing clearly.
Neil what do you mean No twice, isn't gravity bending light exactly what chuck was alluding to by equivalent distortion in the wider universe? We have used the gravity from whole galaxies to magnify the light from other earlier galaxies behind them, but I don't understand how they reconstruct an image when the light is smeared into a ring around the front galaxy.
Well gravity bending light is not really the equivalent of interference though, in fact in some cases it may serve to enhance our vision as it shows things "behind" objects that would otherwise not be seen.
@The Truth of the Matter You are not right. Light always travels in a straight line, it doesn't curve. Space-time fabric does, but that doesn't mean light does. Light may be traveling in a straight line through curved space-time fabric, yes. It's not matter of interference. I mean there might be obviously some interference going on, but that's not the reason we can see light hidden behind objects. Interference is simply said an interaction between light waves which is not a reason why light "bends". Interference can produce a light wave, but light wave always goes in a straight line, so you can't "bend" it.
@The Truth of the Matter In the context of the video interference is means things that impact light resulting in worse images, like clouds, different air temperatures, which make collecting light difficult, hence bad for low res objects. Where in space there is no such impact, in the sense that you will always get the light that reaches (near) earth in the same quality. Obviously you wont see stuff behind gas clouds, but then one could argue Planets are interference and then also light itself. So no there is nothing akin to cloud interference in space. Gravitational lensing, as explained above is the effect observed where space-time is bent by gravity in a way that makes lite "bend", its like a astronomic lens, hence the name.
@The Truth of the Matter what do you mean? Any refraction changes direction of light wave propagation but it stays straight. Same thing when you take a turn and fall out of a car - you wont have a curved trajectory, you will go in straight Line thats basic physics. Gravitational lensing is not a refraction. And any refraction is (if Im not wrong) Just a very complex interference.
8:31 Neil, i love how you say the name of Indian astrophysicist subramanyam chandra sekhar. you said "SHUBRAHAMANYM chandra sekher" 😂😂 thank god they just call him "chandra" 👍❤
The problem there is planets do not produce light. They are dark rocks, etc... Light reflecting off their surface is too weak to see. So the only way we can kind of see them directly is when their orbit passes in front of their star. Then we see their shadow. If we are lucky, we can analyze the light around the edge of the planet to see the composition of it's atmosphere.
@@JasonWW2000 I knew that but I thought that maybe the new telescope would be powerful enough... But oh well. I wonder if its possible to build one that could detect the faint light.
@@OverlordZephyros Actually there are some telescopes being designed and built now which will absolutely have the capability of directly imaging exoplanets orbiting other stars. They're going to need very large mirrors and use some neat tricks to overcome the issues currently limiting us from observing them now, though. SETI's TH-cam channel has some lectures about this I saw months ago you should check out.
@@OverlordZephyros I think we're not there yet for direct imaging of planets but JWST is quite unique then any other telescopes as it orbits sun instead of Earth just behind, it is very far from any telescope has ever been and due to its sheer size and farther distance, it can look into much deep clearly.
5:46 i think Redshift-space distortion can be some what 'equivalent' to atmospheric distortion, i'm not sure and i can be wrong. Also the measurements of objects that we see in space can be wrong (position and size) if the reflected light got bent on it's way to the telescope. Again I'm not sure and i can be wrong.
Gravitational lensing is not a distortion though, as the wording implies, it "amplifies" areas that are otherwise not easy to observe, as such its nothing like atmospheric distortion, much to the contrary.
@@Ketraar - yes, I know. He asked about an equivalency, which is not the exact same thing. It's something somewhat similar. Lensing is not an exact distortion but it does create a distorted looking image. Ergo, an equivalence.
Of course, there IS the equivalent of atmospheric interference. Gravitational lensing. Since Hubble is made from the frame of a military satellite, it would be better to say that the shuttle was built to fit the Hubble.
@@theoneatyourdoor87 - yes, we know. You're taking it too literal. He asked about an equivalency, which is not meaning the exact same thing but something somewhat similar. Lensing is not a distortion per se, but it is a distorted looking image.
Neil your reason for why it’s better to drive with low beams in fog versus using high beams is wrong. It has nothing to do with the color of the headlights. It has to do with the angle of the lights. Low beams point towards the ground which means they aren’t pointing directly into the fog in front of you. High beams point directly at the fog in front of you and less towards the ground. Fog is made of reflective water droplets. When you shine your high beams at those water droplets in front of you they reflect the light back toward your eyes making it harder to see
This is knowledge that needs special attention and understanding and I love it the way Neil de grasse Tyson teaches it to his fellow humans on a universal level.
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar received Nobel prize in the year I was born, and later I went to the same University (of Madras) where he graduated. 🙏🙏🙏 I share birthday with Issac Newton, besides love for Science (all Sciences are Physics). 🙏🙏🙏
I love you show nail, and your books my one saw you live and every since he told me about you I am hooked... keep up with the good work love you and I have read 2 of you books and a third on the way. I always look up the stars before I go to bed...
7:14 The Hub was the size of a greyhound bus??? 😳Beautiful. Yes. I loved the images of the Hubble when they came back. They shook my world at least...but then your day would go on, and you'd be off to the next thing of that daily grind.... If that was the Hubble's size in comparison to other objects in our solar system? Geeez imagine an average man compared to a greyhound bus. And then changing that to something that would appear the size of street pebble, and sent out into space to capture images of objects the size of a SUV, or a military aircraft carrier compared to it! That's a beautifully terrifying snap shot reality of how small we all are.
Hi. Recently found this channel and subscribed. Amazing videos. Got some questions though. 1. What do you think about universe actually being one GIGANTIC organism? Galaxies and stars are it`s organs or cells, wormholes like it`s veins and Big Bang was it`s birth and expanding of the universe is it`s growth. 2. So, when we look in the sky and see distant galaxies, we see the past, right. So, let`s say we build spaceship that can travel several times the speed of light and head to the nearest star. Would we arrive in the past or no?
My mind is blown at the beautiful way Neil explains these concepts.
My mind is blown remembering a time people were allowed to be in the same room together xD
"You can't explain it simpler if you don't know it well enough "- Einstein
Mine too ❤️
No music, no fancy backgrounds, no green screen, no graphics stuff like transitions. Nothing enjoyable but the conversation itself.
Thanks to you guys 🌹
If Neil was teaching a class, Chuck would get straight A's. I am always amazed by his ability to understand, retain and paraphrase Neil's wisdom. He is a comedian, but he could easily have been a scientist.
Exactly, and what might be even more astonishing is the pace he absorbs that knowledge. To be able to make comments of the subject, first you need to understand it.
@@Sin_Of_Greed if the joke is funny, you remember the product.
4:23 Thought my PC gave up on me lmao.
Lol sameeee
same xD
Same but with my phone lol
I thought Neil just froze for a few seconds from getting too excited
*Crysis flashbacks
Neil's hands are actually shaking slightly from being so excited about this conversation. He is such a national treasure.
5:55 yes, an equivalent of atmosphere distortion would be Gravity, as it can bend light and distort image.
I was wondering why it was not mentioned. It must've sprung into Neil's mind the moment the question was asked. I am guessing the second he took to say "NO." was the time it took to consider to open up the topic on gravitational distortions. But it's a whole other beast and would've probably let way off topic for too long.
Another person that knew Mr. Neil was WRONG. yes Validation. But they to high and mighty to ever admit being wrong.
A little different, our atmosphere blurs our images making it more difficult to observe distant smaller objects like individual stars, gravitational lensing distorts the image but doesn't prevent us from distinguishing it using computer software. Hubble currently uses gravitation lensing to get better shots of distant objects.
The atmosphere distorts the images and data in which we would like to study about cosmos. That makes atmosphere an unwanted inconvenience. However, if our objective is to study the atmosphere, these distortions maybe considered valuable. I think, Neil said "NO", because the distortions occurring in space due to whatever reason is a whole separate subject for study rather than a nuisance in general.
It's not really the same type of distortion. It's part of the signal, not noise like the atmosphere. There is something similar to atmospheric distortion though, and that is the milky way dust clouds. These block visible light, so redshifts are not able to be measured in this plane.
I wish I had Dr. Tyson for a professor when I was in college, he’s AWESOME. Thank you doc.
I agree
The rest of school would have sucked extra tho.
I can listen to this conversation till the end of time
Pratik Raut
Deceived until the end of time..
He’s a government shill
Why you lieing? (ب_ب)
You have to give some science degree to chuck.
Egor degree.
What's the point? He'll just chuck it.
My name is Chuck and I don't give a ...
I feel like chuck doesn't even care for science, not even on an average level. I think he's just paid to do this. This is the only job he can get that's why. But that's my opinion. What y'all think?
Chromatic aberration is the biggest pain in the butt when it comes to photography.
Yet so many video games put it in as this "oh look at this cool effect we can do" when I always find it annoying and turn it off if possible, lol. Annoys me in console games where it's forced on by default with no option to turn it off.
In VFX, we have to add it back in digitally to CG to match what was filmed.
Dispersion is a bitch !! 😆
@@DeathBringer769 bloodborne
Galwaybaywatch then get a triplet refractor
Neil: Black holes.
Chuck: Right on!
I love this guy
Love how NdGT nails the pronunciation of "Subrahmanian Chandrashekhar" at 8:35 ...You genius
Neil's passion for science and physics is infectious.
I already knew this stuff, I’m just stupid stoked for the James Webb Space Telescope. Hope all goes as planned and we have amazing new information on what all this is.
When ever I get down or demotivated I just come here and few videos of him explaining everything ...
Hey Neil, I'm here, I'm Joey and I'm listening. Careful bud.
😂
Same 😎
Scotty Storm broo 😂😂. you’re embarrassing yourself. please just stop and dont ever reproduce
@@justyougo6274 Hahaha, absolutely perfect advice.
@Scotty Storm Then pilots what? Laugh at those who ought to learn the word *than?*
"Newton was smart"
2019..
I knew he was but for the first time i realised how much watching this video
He did great work in alchemy and searching for the Philosophers' Stone.
"That Newton guy... "
the largest understatement of the century
I'm not quite sure how these two got together but I love the duo. Keep it up guys thanks for all the knowledge.
Fun start #SitYoAssDown lol 😂😂😂
Agreed. His shirt is fresh as hell also
these two are the best together, Chuck has really been learning and you can tell how much fun they have I love it
You look alike and I don't like you. One less than the other. Not the video here. She ok or what?.
Sir Isaac Newton’s birthday is coming! He will be 377 on December 25!
From my deepest heart: Happy birthday to the great Sir Issac Newton!
Yeah, maybe he'll finally get laid this year...
Happy Birthday ike
@@greenbanana311 🤣
Yeah his Birthday on the 25th December should be the only one celebrated worldwide for what he did for Mankind....
15:05 the way he looks into the camera and says "As we decode the nature of the universe" gets me every time
Neil: we shortened it to Chandra. Chuck: thank god!! 😂
I'm so happy to get into this stuff right now in October 2021, shortly before the James Webb Space Telescope is being launched. Such an exciting time to be alive!
13:58 “We are surrounded by 6 sides: 4 ceilings and 4 walls”
Neil is FLOOR GANG
Big PP bernando
Floor, ceiling and 4 walls
Bayram Ode He said what he said
Every word from Niel is just music and a science lesson at the same time
Confidence. That's good for u
@@ericparrish1515 thank you random person on the Internet
That thing about every matter being transparent to some of the lights made my mind go wow
❤Thank you Startalk for all the links to key concepts. Now I don't have to comb through the transcripts so much as I pluck the episodes apart like I do my ebooks.
5:35 - 5:55
Intertstallar dust clouds: am I joke to you.
Gravitational lensing: am I a joke to you.
etc etc.
5:51 another for that there are things in Space that block them image.
I so love the two of you! You are a pleasure to watch explaining things understandably.
Every day that passes, Neil deGrass Tyson looks and acts more and more like a space farmer.
And chuck is turning into the transporter.
😂😭
First love the videos you two make together. Second blew my mind guys, learning new things is awesome, thank you both!
My man, "Ike" Newton
These guys are a perfect team Neil explains everything and when you get lost chuck dumbs it down and brings it home
I cant get enough of these both guys neil your amazing and side kick is funny
Reflecting and beaming love for Dr T from Singapore... Best science educator in the world!
Thank you, Neil and crew. Always something to learn.
In just 16 minutes neil sir explained us about space telescope.
In an year we just learn about the lenses used in telescope in school.
If the Earth is flat why isn't there a Emoji for it? 😂😂🌍
Cause the emoji is two dimensional you idiot
@WARSAY ኤርትራ ጎብለል ኣፍሪቃ I was kidding
Here is your flatearth emoji: -
@@rubaiyatmehedi9337 lol xD
@WARSAY ኤርትራ ጎብለል ኣፍሪቃ Define "representation of 3D"
@5:30 I think gravitational lensing would count as a light distorting phenomenon like what Chuck is asking about. Also the event horizon of a black hole distorts light pretty severely as well.
Neil "So....." deGrasse Tyson. 👍😊
These two make a perfect pair for this program startalk. Chuck needs to be Neil's permanent co-host.
Gravitational Lensing is kinda like atmospheric pressure in space.
Not quite
Fake 👍
@@dav1djac0b What's fake?
Gravitational lensing and atmospheric pressure in space. There no evidence of either. It’s all unverifiable & faithbased.
@@dav1djac0b, Faith based on your senses. :)
Food for thought.
As amazing and mind-blowing as the James Webb telescope launching experience will be for sure.
Now, with a retrospective mind, it makes me wonder, how much do we know about our planet? I mean, what leads mankinds curiosity only to outer space versus discovering and solving issues back home?
I'd love your input.
As well appreciating your sharing of important knowledge with so much passion. Best always!
I love Neil.
Tyson/Nye 2020 Make America Think Again
Me too
@Scotty Storm 🤦 smh please think before you share
(I hope I get woodshed and this was a joke)
Not a competition, but I love him 3000 more than you
@Scotty Storm Why are you Gay
5:35. What about gravitational lensing?
Yeah I don't think Neil understood the question. I'm sure Solar Winds can mess sruff up too
Austin Bryan yeah I don’t think you understand more than Neil on this subject. 🙄
Still can’t get over how much Chuck looks like GZA
Chuck Nice is a great addition to this show
Couldn't gravity of some really big star or a black hole bend light rays coming from other stars? hence more or less "equivalent of atmosphere" as Chuck put it
einstein predicted light passing the sun would bend 1 3/4 degrees of arc, so a british scientist went to south america to film an eclipse of the sun and proved light bent passing the sun by 1 3/4 degrees of arc.
@@bobdavi9455 does that mean the position a star behind the sun or some celestial object bent like the sun's position is bent by the horizon on sunset ans sunrise?
i enjoy how neil teaches, he gives you credit for the part you get and teaches you the rest in a “regular talk” way.
"Would there be an equivalent of atmospheric distortion in space?"
Yes. Gravitational Lensing is the equivalent.
hi Chandra 🔭
I thought of that, but it only applies when viewing one object that is behind another object so I think that's why Neil didn't mention it.
@@tidbit1877 When viewing galaxies behind M87, the deflection is nearly 15 degrees. It's not negligible, but I guess he didn't want to go into relativity etc. with only a few minutes left in the video.
@@subashchandra9557 LoL only a few minutes left in the video
I was screaming the same thing. While _far_ less pronounced than the atmosphere, there are plenty of things in space to introduce distortion. Space is not totally empty, ya' know.
Love Learning about space telescopes
5:36 if you stretch the answer far enough then yes; it's called gravity
I don't see what "stretching" is required. The magnitude of distortion from gravitational deflection is much less than that of atmospheric refraction of course, but conceptually they are not very different.
Gravity is not a force. Its the bending of space time wich is a concept.
Can't "bend" a concept. Mass attracting mass has never been proven, einstein supperceeded newton with bendy space time.
What's holding the trillions of tones of water sticking to a 1,1000mph spinning ball in a vacuum?
Hint* the earth isn't spinning nor is it physically curving.
If you can't tell when your being lied to I'm sorry, fall in line with the rest of the sheep.
Maged E. William Tesla said it is electromagnetism, and offered proof, gravity is a theory
@@bigtravis6159 Sure. Gravity is not a force and not real. Tesla knew what was going on, he understood everything is harmonics and there is free unlimited energy all around us.
So is electro magnetism holding the ocean and atmosphere to a spinning ball in a vacuum? I personally don't think so.
@@williamenglish7599 the closer something is to a body of mass, the stronger the gravitational pull. Also water contributes in Earth's gravity, because it's in contact with it.
I love you Startalk! Keep these videos coming ❤️❤️
If Dr.Tyson see this i wonder can he answer the question: "Is the cosmic microwave background radiation red-shifted because it is moving away from us or because it is gravitationally red-shifted by something behind it? And how do you know or measure it?"
You can ask him here www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/contact.php
Probably the most important use of this medium at this time. Cleverly put together. Drawing in he kids and tickling the older viewers, alike. Impeccable pairing. Shoo-shaa!
Pretty sure Kepler deserves most of the credit for orbits
Kepler's laws provide basic orbital parameters, but you can't use them to figure out how to achieve a desired orbit. You need Newton's laws for that.
I like your comparison to heat waves on a Highway. I’m an amateur astronomy, and I love doing public outreach. Here’s another idea, to explain atmospheric fluctuations. I tell folks that we live at the bottom of an ocean of air. I ask if they’ve ever gone to a swimming pool, and looked up from underwater. Nothing above the water is clear. It’s all jumbled and out of focus because the water has waves, splashes, and swirls etc. It’s the same with the ocean of air above us. It has winds, waves, currents, and swirls which jumble up the light coming through and prevent us from seeing clearly.
Neil what do you mean No twice, isn't gravity bending light exactly what chuck was alluding to by equivalent distortion in the wider universe? We have used the gravity from whole galaxies to magnify the light from other earlier galaxies behind them, but I don't understand how they reconstruct an image when the light is smeared into a ring around the front galaxy.
Well gravity bending light is not really the equivalent of interference though, in fact in some cases it may serve to enhance our vision as it shows things "behind" objects that would otherwise not be seen.
I thought of that too. In theory gravity, could distort light similarly to that effect if there were strange enough gravitational waves
@The Truth of the Matter You are not right. Light always travels in a straight line, it doesn't curve. Space-time fabric does, but that doesn't mean light does. Light may be traveling in a straight line through curved space-time fabric, yes. It's not matter of interference. I mean there might be obviously some interference going on, but that's not the reason we can see light hidden behind objects. Interference is simply said an interaction between light waves which is not a reason why light "bends". Interference can produce a light wave, but light wave always goes in a straight line, so you can't "bend" it.
@The Truth of the Matter In the context of the video interference is means things that impact light resulting in worse images, like clouds, different air temperatures, which make collecting light difficult, hence bad for low res objects. Where in space there is no such impact, in the sense that you will always get the light that reaches (near) earth in the same quality. Obviously you wont see stuff behind gas clouds, but then one could argue Planets are interference and then also light itself. So no there is nothing akin to cloud interference in space.
Gravitational lensing, as explained above is the effect observed where space-time is bent by gravity in a way that makes lite "bend", its like a astronomic lens, hence the name.
@The Truth of the Matter what do you mean? Any refraction changes direction of light wave propagation but it stays straight. Same thing when you take a turn and fall out of a car - you wont have a curved trajectory, you will go in straight Line thats basic physics. Gravitational lensing is not a refraction. And any refraction is (if Im not wrong) Just a very complex interference.
So glad yall are sharing all this with us
8:31 Neil, i love how you say the name of Indian astrophysicist subramanyam chandra sekhar. you said "SHUBRAHAMANYM chandra sekher" 😂😂 thank god they just call him "chandra" 👍❤
I mean do you blame him? 4 syllables versus one (Neil)
Hahaha, ya it was funny :).
All the different light bands are a dialect in the language of the universe. What a beautiful thought this is.
Can the new telescope see orbiting planets in other stars??
Like directly?
The problem there is planets do not produce light. They are dark rocks, etc... Light reflecting off their surface is too weak to see. So the only way we can kind of see them directly is when their orbit passes in front of their star. Then we see their shadow. If we are lucky, we can analyze the light around the edge of the planet to see the composition of it's atmosphere.
@@JasonWW2000 I knew that but I thought that maybe the new telescope would be powerful enough... But oh well.
I wonder if its possible to build one that could detect the faint light.
@@OverlordZephyros With the James Webb Telescope launching hopefully soon you could see a bumblebee on the moon.
@@OverlordZephyros Actually there are some telescopes being designed and built now which will absolutely have the capability of directly imaging exoplanets orbiting other stars. They're going to need very large mirrors and use some neat tricks to overcome the issues currently limiting us from observing them now, though. SETI's TH-cam channel has some lectures about this I saw months ago you should check out.
@@OverlordZephyros
I think we're not there yet for direct imaging of planets but JWST is quite unique then any other telescopes as it orbits sun instead of Earth just behind, it is very far from any telescope has ever been and due to its sheer size and farther distance, it can look into much deep clearly.
The way he says Subhramanyam chandrashekhar was on point 🤘
13:58
Neil: *"We're surrounded by 6 sides. 4 ceilings and 4 walls."*
Mistakes happen everytime
"Floor, ceiling and four walls"
5:46 i think Redshift-space distortion can be some what 'equivalent' to atmospheric distortion, i'm not sure and i can be wrong. Also the measurements of objects that we see in space can be wrong (position and size) if the reflected light got bent on it's way to the telescope. Again I'm not sure and i can be wrong.
Men fanboying about Newton for 16 minutes
This is what the internet was made for
You forgot minutes
This is one of the best videos they have done!
I would say that there is an equivalence to atmospheric distortion in space....and that is gravitational lensing.
Gravitational lensing is not a distortion though, as the wording implies, it "amplifies" areas that are otherwise not easy to observe, as such its nothing like atmospheric distortion, much to the contrary.
@@Ketraar - yes, I know. He asked about an equivalency, which is not the exact same thing. It's something somewhat similar. Lensing is not an exact distortion but it does create a distorted looking image. Ergo, an equivalence.
Story blocks videos are brilliant
we early bois
5:35 how about black holes and galaxies bending light and redshifting?
Of course, there IS the equivalent of atmospheric interference. Gravitational lensing.
Since Hubble is made from the frame of a military satellite, it would be better to say that the shuttle was built to fit the Hubble.
Not close enough to call it equivalent.
@@theoneatyourdoor87 He said "nothing like".
That is not 'interference'
Telescope is my favorite topic. One has to own one to know the value it holds. It's like "My Window To Outer Space" 🔭
hmm i believe gravitational lensing counts as the space counterpart to atmospheric interference
I literally just wrote that myself. Then scrolled to see you wrote this 7 min ago.
Lensing is different from interference.
I thought the same thing when he said no to the question.
You get that anyway.
@@theoneatyourdoor87 - yes, we know. You're taking it too literal. He asked about an equivalency, which is not meaning the exact same thing but something somewhat similar. Lensing is not a distortion per se, but it is a distorted looking image.
The best explanation of telescopes that i have seen
Neil your reason for why it’s better to drive with low beams in fog versus using high beams is wrong. It has nothing to do with the color of the headlights. It has to do with the angle of the lights. Low beams point towards the ground which means they aren’t pointing directly into the fog in front of you. High beams point directly at the fog in front of you and less towards the ground. Fog is made of reflective water droplets. When you shine your high beams at those water droplets in front of you they reflect the light back toward your eyes making it harder to see
Anthony Anderson and you become an asshole for blinding everyone. That happens with or without the fog! Lol
9:56 Neil's reaction is priceless
To the 17 folks who disliked this video... What's the problem?
🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
5:39 what about dark matter?
Flat-earthers?
@@weepingod Dark matter is no more than a hypothesis.
PurpleTrident its not a hypothesis
Thanks for your time Mr Neil and crew
8:34 LOL I could not control my laughter when Neil pronounced Chandrashekar's name.
13:56 prepare to have your mind blown
Nice Dr. TYSON and CHUCK. Merry Christmas.
This is knowledge that needs special attention and understanding and I love it the way Neil de grasse Tyson teaches it to his fellow humans on a universal level.
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar received Nobel prize in the year I was born, and later I went to the same University (of Madras) where he graduated. 🙏🙏🙏
I share birthday with Issac Newton, besides love for Science (all Sciences are Physics). 🙏🙏🙏
Hi StarTalk, I would like to know what telescope you recommend for a budget less than U$ 900. Cheers from Nicaragua
I love you show nail, and your books my one saw you live and every since he told me about you I am hooked... keep up with the good work love you and I have read 2 of you books and a third on the way. I always look up the stars before I go to bed...
Wow. Thanks for educating us. 🙏🙏🙏
Such a great way to expand your knowledge of the universe, keep up the great work!
Easy, love, gold talk immediately subscribed
We need to keep this man and every other scientists alive forever.
These videos doubles down as a feel-good anti-depressant one & a scientific one for me
Thank you
Merry Christmas Neil and Chuck!😁
the co-host vibes really well with Neil
7:14 The Hub was the size of a greyhound bus??? 😳Beautiful. Yes. I loved the images of the Hubble when they came back. They shook my world at least...but then your day would go on, and you'd be off to the next thing of that daily grind....
If that was the Hubble's size in comparison to other objects in our solar system? Geeez imagine an average man compared to a greyhound bus. And then changing that to something that would appear the size of street pebble, and sent out into space to capture images of objects the size of a SUV, or a military aircraft carrier compared to it!
That's a beautifully terrifying snap shot reality of how small we all are.
No one does this better, and few do it as good. Dr Tyson. Thank you
How could anyone say thumbs down?!?
Love you guys! Keep up the EXCELLENT Work!
They only do that when their thumbs aren't stuck up their respective butts.
Great video. Learned something new today. ❤️👍
I could listen to Neil all day long. Very interesting!
Hi. Recently found this channel and subscribed. Amazing videos. Got some questions though.
1. What do you think about universe actually being one GIGANTIC organism? Galaxies and stars are it`s organs or cells, wormholes like it`s veins and Big Bang was it`s birth and expanding of the universe is it`s growth.
2. So, when we look in the sky and see distant galaxies, we see the past, right. So, let`s say we build spaceship that can travel several times the speed of light and head to the nearest star. Would we arrive in the past or no?