RTAA & Source - Burnie Hates NASA 

@TheVoiceOfTruth Aww is the little Trumpette cranky? Drink your kool-aid, you'll feel better you immediate danger.

Then Simmons’s or tucker try’s to explain it

Kyle Tanking definitely Simmons. He’s the nerd

"Those fuckers at the UNSC don't even know how to to properly name shit, WHAT DO THEY KNOW ABOUT PLANETS!?"

UGSETH2 my laughter comes from the fact that shadows is how we find exoplanets. if a star suddenly dims out in the sky, that means something blocked it. if it does it again and again in a rythm, that means orbit. which means _there's a planet there burnie_.

^Triggered.

Jesse Potma Thanks, I think?

Jesse Potma happy to help

"it looks like a dawg"

i think it was rain glass sideways and it was made of diamonds to the core

matthew mac two different planets one rains glass sideways cause of the high amount of silica in the atmosphere the other is a planet completely made of diamond

Well, he is a scientist in Immersion but that still doesn't count lol

Burnie Burns adom smasher!

@user-mz1bi4xz6rwe don’t know anything for sure even our vision isn’t for sure so that argument isn’t really valid

isn't he also the one who said electricity is bullshit? i think he just has a grudge against science.

patrick watkins well his parents nun and a ghost

patrick watkins I thought he said airplanes are bullshit

I don't remember him calling electricity bullshit and that is a real big reach for Burnie to say. He may have said it jokingly. Also Thicks he doesn't need to know the length of our solar system. We have been told galaxies are X light years away. We also know the solar system is round So if something passes X that means the it must be outside the solar system or else we would be colliding with another galaxy.

Mike Sico I interpreted his rant on NASA's number of planets in our solar system as him thinking that the new planet was discovered *in* our solar system, to which I made the comment, because Burnie also stated that the planet was 150 light years away, which would undermine his argument if he thinks that NASA is claiming this planet is in the sun's orbit.

Lucas VerBeek okay, explain the exact process of which NASA finds out what an extremely distant planet is made up of. I'm just really curious (this is not bait).

That is a very long and complicated process with many seperate facets. The NASA website can explain it better then I ever could.

I know next to nothing on the subject so the best I can offer is a potentially-misinformed layman's version, but... Basically because light is, technically, a form of radiation, they can use spectrometers to measure the light that the planet is reflecting. By comparing the results to known elements on earth, they can determine the basic elemental makeup of the planet. From there it's a matter of applying astrophysics, geology, and all that other bullshit to the data in order to form a basic idea of what conditions on the planet are like - i.e., they take baby steps, putting the little bits they can directly measure into equations that let them predict what they can't directly meausre. So, while Burnie's right in that there's no way of telling RIGHT OFF THE BAT if the planet has a surface of magma that flows in weird circles with a layer of carbon underneath, they can EXTRAPOLATE that it does based on the information that they CAN tell off the bat.

Dirty Blue Based on the light they're receiving, there's no way for them to make such a detailed report. They aren't physically seeing this planet, just finding it based on changes in arrays of light passing through (color distortions, shadows, etc.). Them being able to conclude it's a planet covered in lava with a layer of carbon underneath can not be reached through simple spectroscopy. The only thing that would make sense here really is if they were able to determine its covered in a "lava-esque" substance and that in order for that to be possible there must be a layer of carbon underneath, yet that still doesn't make much sense (at least to me, I'm not a chemist though)

I mean it's a pretty simplistic report. They're basically saying molten surface with carbon layering on the interior. The flow of the lava can then be determined by thermodynamics and examples of lava flow on earth. Also, something cannot be "lava-esque". Lava just means molten rock, there is no one specific makeup of lava

Nope, that's just how much the deep field observations have covered so far. In that 3% we've discovered thousands of planets.

That's because the sky is bigger than the ground.

Drosta Dorianin not just thousands of planets, but billions of trillions of galaxies made of billions of stars each likely have at least one planet but likely more than that, usually around 4-10 planets

Yes he was

You're the only one in the comments that gets it. Its pretty sad.

I don't think Burnie was talking about Pluto. There is evidence to suggest that there is another planet (a real planet) within our solar system. But we haven't found it yet. It's actually a lot easier to find extra solar planets than it is to find local ones. This is because we've found all the ones close to the Sun, whereas the extra solar we're detecting are usually close to their star, and we can use the star as an observation tool. The further out you get (and the smaller the object), the harder they are to see. There will be many objects around these stars that we are not yet detecting. It's perfectly logical that we're learning about other systems before we finish learning about our own. Besides, studying other systems can provide useful insights into our own. Also the Milky Way is our galaxy. You might want to edit that part out. Detecting extra galactic planets is beyond us right now. But yeah, Burnie isn't an astronomer. No need to get mad about it.

That's quite a bit of stupid you got there, congrats.

Moron. There was no controversy about Pluto, it was controversy about what would define a planet. Based on the new accepted definition, Pluto was not a planet. I lost a ton of respect for RT because of this blatant display of utter ignorance. Incidentally, a planet must A) be large enough to become a sphere from it's own gravity, B) orbit the barycentre of the containing system, and C) have swept it's orbit clean of debris in it's orbit. Pluto, Ceres, Haumanake, etc, do not meet C. And yes, a great deal of information can be gathered by knowing an exoplanets orbit, size, and proximity to it's star. Including some gross details of it's interior composition. Fucking ignorance. Stick to video games, because it's what you understand. Rant over.

Looking in on a solar system is a lot easier because you can actually see the planet casting a shadow, while we can only see darkness.

lvn nvk I could techno babble at you, but I think I've got the perfect metaphor. Without using a mirror, tell me what the tip of your nose looks like. It's right in front of your eyes, so it should be easy, right? Easier than describing your toes, which are much further from your eyes by default. But you can look at your toes in a way you can't with the tip of your nose. That lack of distance is a problem, not a benefit. That's what it's like trying to use the same tech we use to examine exo-planets with on our own solar system. Hope this helped! :)

*****​​ we can't see the planets near us because there's no light around them, we can't see them. There's light going off of planets hundreds of light years away because they have their own stars. The key is light

lvn nvk exoplanets are located when they pass between the star and us, interrupting the light in a semi-regular pattern. that light is how we measure what they're made of, what color they are and how much mass they have (gravitational lensing is a whole 'nother kettle of fish, so unless you really wanna know, we'll leave it be). this technique doesn't work so well when you're closer to the star than the planet you're trying to see. you have to point your telescope at the sky and hope you get a lucky shot of light bouncing off the planet and at you. this is why mercury, venus, mars and jupiter were the first planets discovered, because venus and mercury are between us and the sun, mars is super close and jupiter is stupidly big and bounces a lot of light.

@@Yal_Rathol That's one of the reasons NASA scientist's came up with as to why we are unable to see the planet 9 they keep saying is real. I could be wrong about this but they hypothesized that it had a huge orbit and is so far away that it reflects hardly any of the suns light, and that due to the huge orbit it takes a very long time for it to come close enough to reflect enough light to become noticeable.

that's why it's funny lmao

You do know he's not a real scientist, right?

Josue' Tapia who Tyson or Burnie cause Neil is a astrophysicist

Even if we could we wouldn't want to because it's COVERED IN LAVA

ProbablyInsane "we" as in anyone alive today? yeah, no. "we" as in humanity? I wouldn't be so certain. generation ships are a possibility.

ProbablyInsane We have if you count dozens of probes

Well Ftl travel is still theoretically possible with the use of gravity well manipulation. So if we somehow did manage to achieve said technology in our lifetime then it is entirely possible.

Zero_Kent I was trying to find this comment

Burnie: Goes on a rampage in favor of defunding NASA. Gavin: "Why would Barbara do this?"

Ethan Steffek The first photographic evidence of pluto was in the mid to late 90's

also light moves in time it's not instant when we see a planet far away were seeing it as it was a thousand year's ago close up it can take hour's or minutes to see them

What do you mean?

@@scheissetreppenwitz369 I think Zeal Zest mean Hembo is upload too many, too fast.

No its not. They have talked about this before and they totally understand the science behind it. What he is saying is that 1. Its stupid that they make such a big deal out of such hypothetical nonsense and, 2. That they waste so much time and money on things that could never matter to us at all, especially since we have so much to figure out about things at "home".

@@websterri Nope, you're deliberately changing Burnie's words to make him sound less dumb in this case. Not gonna work. Anyone can just scroll up and listen to his words again.

@@intoxigamer3617 Bullshit. Maybe you should open your ears and take your own advice.

@@websterri I agree with you

​@intoxigamer3617 How does knowing the elemental makeup of the planet allow them to interpret what is going on underneath the surface of said planet? Because I've normally only heard spectrometry used to project what the atmosphere of these planets would be composed of.

Facts

Do you think it’s that everything actually is worse now or that we just viewed it through rose colored glasses at the time?

@@TazyBaby well for rooster teeth it’s worse hell it’s over. For the rest of us it doesn’t matter if it’s better or worse the past is an immutable point in our timelines it has all the joys or sorrows bound to it already so tho our past cannot change our perception can. So even the darkest days of our past can offer us comfort. But yeah corporations grip over us is much worse now a days.

i know right. Church is an exact copy of him

I think he understands, his point is that it's pointless and borderline meaningless when you actually think about it. This stuff is so far out there, so far away that it just doesn't matter to the average human.

well you have to remember that light only travels so fast and while we can see a planet far away as it was a thousand year's ago thing's in our solar system takes hour's to get to us and is closer so it's harder to angle the Hubble telescope to catch it while planet's far away we have to keep it only focused in one place and magnify the zoom to catch the whole solar system in that area

@@matthewmac5787 so basically the informations already out of date by the time it reaches Hubble.

@@gagejohnathan9641 the more you learn about the universe, the more you realise the speed of light is horrifyingly slow. If I remember right it takes light around 4 years to reach the closest star too us Alpha centauri.

two things. 1, studying exoplanets allows us to learn about our own solar system. for example, we've seen planets and stars with accretion disks, that tells us that our theories of how the planets, moons and solar system formed are correct. 2, there might be aliens, and if there are, they might be beaming out messages that we can pick up and learn from. if an advanced alien species is out there and it's beaming it's scientific data into space like we are, we could jump forward decades by studying their information and learning from it rather than having to come up with every idea ourselves.

@@Yal_Rathol You forgot one: 3, Space stuff is cool.

Also, people need to stop saying "scientists" as a catch for all scientific disciplines, guess what idiot, the people that study deep space are NOT the same people that study the oceans, and the study of space has ALOT more funding that the study of the deep ocean, so it is going to get discoveries more often.

People just want to feel smart on the internet. Burnie is just wildin'.

I do wonder if he actually is though. This is the same man who raged about how Austin is the only city in the world with constant construction. Beause obviously the poor citizens of Austin are the only ones who have ever suffered the blight known as poor construction policies and unending city projects.

LeonGun8 Are you trying to be a douche? I can’t tell. If you don’t like Bernie, why watch his videos? This is all just in good fun.

Space-Man Ew anime garbage

well you have to remember that light only travels so fast and while we can see a planet far away as it was a thousand year's ago thing's in our solar system takes hour's to get to us and is closer so it's harder to angle the Hubble telescope to catch it while planet's far away we have to keep it only focused in one place and magnify the zoom in

matthew mac True, the exposure is an issue, it just seems like we should be able to at least detect proof of another object that close to us by other means. Especially since we can detect minor gravitational anomalies over much greater distances, ya feel

yea but with all the other planet's in our solar system and the 2 asteroid belt's most other thing's in our solar system is hidden behind a bunch of static and billions of rock's they think there is a planet and there calling it planet X (yes i know a very complex and interesting name that must have taken hour's to name)

They have detected proof, they just can't find it. This proof was detected over a century ago in fact, but they stopped looking once Pluto was found because they thought Pluto WAS the ninth planet. Then they found more tiny planets like Pluto and went "well shit, it wasn't Pluto" and the search began again.

Fuyu_Seishin12 To bad they only have 54 million dollors a year in there buget 1% of the USA's total buget maybe move that up to 2% maybe and a few other programs while your at it

Diamonds aren't rare on Earth. The price is artificially inflated through stockpiling and careful management of mining rights.

Planetary landing for nasa have been entirely halted do to the loss of interest a few years after the Cold War. Funding dropped and government support dwindled. NASA budget is nothing compared to what it used to be. That’s why private companies are shooting for it. Hell the past 10 years has been a mass exodus of nasa researchers to these private companies assisting in the research of said technology.

Well they can’t do much when they have a tenth of the budget that we had to go to the moon dipshit

Fuyu_Seishin12 they would honestly love to

KasHxJay He doesn't know the science behind how they find out all of that stuff. There really isn't a point

KasHxJay no, he doesn't. because he doesn't understand the disconnect between the media reporting nasa discoveries and the actual papers written on them. he also doesn't understand spectrographic analysis or gravitational lensing, meaning any point he might have is lost due to him not knowing what he's on about.

KasHxJay If he did have a point is don't make any sense to us

His point is he appallingly ignorant about anything that isn't video games.

the thing is though you have to remember how bloody huge our solar system is and we have a giant layer of asteroids surrounding our outer edge so its hard to tell close up (in our galaxy way anyway)thing's but it's easy for thing's far away since with how fast light travels were seeing planets how they were probably a thousand year's ago those planet's probably don't even exist anymore while in our solar system were seeing thing's how they were hour's before so it's hard to tell

Zach Thomas I mean cause those people are idiots. Climate change is happening on earth it’s easily proven. Not easy for NASA to show that what they’re saying is true since it’s on whole other planets

What do you mean?

A lot of people did.

They fucking HAD to define planet to exclude Pluto. They had found a tenth "planet" called Eris beyond Pluto, and then they discovered like thousands of similarly sized "planets." The only way to fix this was to define the word "planet" to exclude really small bodies like Pluto, because who wants to remember a thousand word mnemonic? How long can you stretch a sentence about your excellent mother getting pizza? Screw that. I'd have have eight names to memorize than thousands.

They still found evidence that the influence of a ninth planet exists (but have yet to find it). But yeah, now you have one new thing to learn at school: dwarf planets.

ElPayasoMalo the actual definition says that it needs to be the largest celestial body in its orbit, and Pluto’s moon Charon is barely smaller than it to the point that they orbit each other while going around the sun, every dwarf planet shares its orbit with other similar sized objects

Not a hypothetical, actual debates as to the existence of a ninth planet

Jonathan Pascual he isn't. he just has no idea how spectrographic analysis works or how we detect planets in and out of our solar system and how those have _NO FUCKING CONNECTION GODDAMMIT_.

i can't tell if your mad at me or burnie but ok! besides i was only making a small joke

Jonathan Pascual i'm mad at burnie, and i'm mostly joking too.

Technically....

He's still totally off-base if that's the case. It's harder to see what's closer to our star than planets in other star systems. That's why NASA sent the Voyagers to take pictures of the solar system and currently worked on sending a solar probe to the orbit of Mercury to observe the Sun and learn more about it.

The news tend to water down the "science"and only read the highlights. Understandable since this kind of reports are hundreds of pages long.

Er, it may have the name "planet" on it but it's a different beast altogether. Dwarf planets are small rocks of ice that orbit the sun. There's hundreds of dwarf planets in the solar system, which is why Pluto went from being our "ninth planet" to being "just one piece of rock amongst hundreds of similar rocks".

You've totally missed the mark - that is not at all what he said. He said it's ridiculous that they can supposedly know so much about a planet thousands of lightyears away, but apparently know so little about our own solar system.

@@waterwind2266 mad

@@lmlrenzomcmeme2861 Excellent rebuttal, you must have spent hours crafting that.

@@waterwind2266 took you long enough