Yeees. I'm not the only one 😁

Same here, these kind of video are my sleeping pills I easily gets sleep whenever i watch video about planetary documentary in just 5mins, then resume again on the next day and day after day haha

@@ronniecinkan130 [p#

Same

Same here. I've been doing this for nearly ten years!

Fake account by a bad little tiny boy.

The CGI is mind blowing after you light up.

Yes. Many documentaries are over produced. Skip the music entirely. Look for "CC" to display the words on the screen.

Or, be glad the voices are muffled since the video serves as a sleeping pill to this older person 😅

Possibly the worst soundtrack i've ever heard on a space documentary. LOUD and random af.

Bad ass lol

True yet its sad that 98 percent of the videos and pictures here are fake photoshop computer generated garbage. In this day and age of technology we should have a lot more REAL footage. Peace.

We have the collective knowledge of humankind at our fingertips

@@themr_wilson it’s pretty amazing to think about too!

grsdjtssftftjftsj

43? That's the age I live in - until August.

Me too

Sliderules baby. Old school.

@@tazkrebbeks3391 LoL... Using an abacus?

@@llewislower9767 Lol. Well not THAT old school.

@@tazkrebbeks3391 🤣

Its fake

Space exploration is either fake or a good waste of money

Funny since no one has ever ventured past Earths inner orbit, but you just keep believing it all.

Nigga what

So... do u give a shit about our planet? Space exploration could be all fake, if wildfire smoke can block our global imaging, how do we get these images. Ban far range exploration until we use atom based rockets. Which exist.

The earth is flat. Space does not exist. You've been bamboozled by cheap cgi.

@@dolphmanity You do not exist.

I watch this channel before bed..its great to sleep to.

I think like you, the universe can extinct.

Like Kubricks moon landing , more hollywood CGI.

O😊

0

😊😊😊😊😊😊😊

if i catch u watching while working ill get u sacked ... lol

Let me guess one of them would be Pluto

The human race has always been intelligent,look at what other much older civilizations have done,like the Egyptians,the Greek….and many others. We have certainly advanced by far

The transit method, which involves looking for dips in a star's brightness as a planet passes in front of it, is indeed capable of detecting planets that orbit their stars in periods ranging from hours to years. This method has been highly successful in detecting exoplanets, particularly with missions like Kepler and TESS. However, you're right that it has limitations. The transit method is biased towards planets that orbit close to their stars, because these planets transit more frequently and thus are more likely to be observed during the limited observation window. Planets that orbit their stars over the course of hundreds or thousands of years present a significant challenge for the transit method. To confirm such a planet via transits, we would need to observe at least two transits, which would require a time span of observation longer than the planet's orbital period. For a planet that takes hundreds of years to orbit its star, we would thus need hundreds of years of observations, which is currently unfeasible. In addition, the planet must orbit in a plane that is edge-on from our perspective. The further out a planet is from its star, the less likely we are to observe it transiting, because the range of orbital inclinations that would result in a transit becomes narrower. That said, there are other methods to detect such long-period planets. These include: - The **radial velocity method**, which looks for slight shifts in the star's spectral lines due to the gravitational pull of an orbiting planet. This method is also biased towards planets close to their stars, but it can detect planets with longer periods than the transit method. - **Direct imaging**, where the planet is observed directly. This is difficult because stars are much brighter than their planets, but it is more feasible for planets that are far from their stars (and thus have a larger angular separation as seen from Earth) and planets around relatively nearby stars. This method can detect planets with long orbital periods, but it requires very advanced technology. - **Gravitational microlensing**, where the light from a distant star is magnified by the gravity of a star-planet system that passes in front of it. This method is sensitive to planets at a range of distances from their stars, including very distant ones. So while the transit method has its limitations, it's just one tool in the toolbox of exoplanet detection. Other methods can complement it and help us find planets that it can't.

@@Rajasdaily Awesome--thank you!

​@@Rajasdaily❤

​@@Rajasdaily❤

lol true

I think you came up with a new word that I'd like to make a definition for. "Explanding" sounds really cool. I can think of a few different potential definitions. Or is it already defined? Pretty cool either way.

That's not how it works...

Flat?

Yes it as aimed at me. I found it very helpful in planning my trip

😅😅😅

😄 🤣 😂

A human hair averages 70microns… so a tenth of a micron would be about 1000th the thickness of a human hair…

@@SuperVstechthats the thickness of the hair on my head so it checks out

Twelve "likes" so far on a comment that is thoroughly wrong.

@@TB-zw7dt from memory, and without watching the whole video again, I think I was quoting an inaccuracy in the video which I assume said that a 10th of a micron is about half the thickness of a human hair. But in fact human hair is much thicker than that. I will happily be corrected if that is wrong.