Burnie Hates NASA

RT Animated Adventures: Burnie Hates NASA

Burnie fears what he does not understand, as evidenced by his anger towards NASA's ability to describe planets hundreds of lightyears away. Or maybe he's actually right and they're just making it all up. Either way he goes on a rant and it's funny!


Audio from Rooster Teeth Podcast #371


Directed by Jordan Cwierz
Animated by Jordan Battle


Binge Mode

More RT Animated Adventures

See All RT Animated Adventures Videos

Other Videos You'll Like

Comments (107)

  • AdManOfChaos

    4 months ago

    The argument isn't even really about Pluto. It's more of a "you claim to solve these huge big complicated problem, yet you can't solve a smaller, closer, easier problem." He was just using the Pluto thing as an easy reference/illustration that people would recognize.

    • XiahouDun1225

      3 months ago

      It's an odd problem where the further away a planetary object is, the more accurate you get. I don't remember why exactly it was.

    • xiii-Dex FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold Ferret not disappointed

      3 months ago

      The irony is that looking at planets in other systems is actually a huge part of figuring out if there's a 9th planet in ours. It's easier to see planets in other systems than it would be to see the theoretical 9th planet, so it actually makes perfect sense to find those first.

  • NixieShimo FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold Black Kitten

    4 months ago

    I think Burnie's rants might be the best thing ever. Lol

  • lordscion FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    Burnie and his ignorance of how they discover and figure out what these planets are made of. Finding a planet out in the kupiter belt is like trying to find a marble some where in the state of of new York with a telescope on top of the Empire state building at night. The only reason we think  a planet is out there is because of the orbits of objects coming from the kupiter belt and other orbital calculation. 


    In comparison finding an exoplanet  and figuring out what its made of can  be easier because the ones we find tend to be closer to their home star and we can determine the elementall signature of the planet depending on what colors are missing from the light that bounced off the planet and/or passed through its atmosphere.

    • Golladan

      4 months ago

      Kuiper.


      But yes.

  • Kerisato

    4 months ago

    I won't lie... that's been my response to some of the things NASA revealed. But I'll trust in their knowledge and superior grasp of mathematics. So long as they give me plenty of evidence to throw at that stupid Planet X/Nibiru/Doomsday/Galactus conspiracy that keeps popping up... AGAIN (Seriously, it's back. Somehow. And we're all doomed) it's all good.


    Just remember, my fellow none-astronomers, that when the news releases an update from the astronomy community they're trying to sell you a story. Thus it's going to be inaccurate and not actually what nerds and their telescopes are hootin' and hollerin' about. (I would apply that to every news article involving: Politics, History, Astronomy, Geology, Chemistry, Paleontology... really, anything. Just don't take their word for it. Do some research yourself; even lightly touching on subjects tends to shed a lot of light that news channels don't care for.)

  • creatingshelby Shelby

    4 months ago

    that awk moment when this is what im majoring in 

  • Crazy_LoneWolf6

    4 months ago

    That calculator... and what "Bill" Drew...80085...

  • cherrychocolate1999

    4 months ago

    And on that dog-shaped mountain, there's a rock shaped like Burnie's face!

    • Crazy_LoneWolf6

      4 months ago

      And on that face... there is a shirt that says "Dogs hate grapes"

  • IronCladMeatRag

    4 months ago

    Burnie has a great point. I remember in earlier podcasts they talked about how all the cool pictures you see of colorful galaxies are originally black and white, then colored in. I think NASA is constantly lying to us. 

    • DinoBenn FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      4 months ago

      Those pictures are coloured to indicate the presence of similar chemical compounds. They wouldn't look that way to the naked eye, but that doesn't detract from their majesty.

  • ArmC FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    I love all the detail they put into the animation

  • MartyGras2

    4 months ago

    This is great.  XD

    Neat to see 80085 on the calculator. 

    • IronCladMeatRag

      4 months ago

      I love the Easter eggs and callbacks Jordan puts in. 

  • NeoMadDog FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold NeoMadDog

    4 months ago

    Although the animation was brilliant in this, I can't help but chime in on the subject.


    What counts as a planet in our solar system is a matter of debate in preference.  If you wanted to count everything that orbits our sun as a planet, then we have millions of them, considering our asteroid belt and the Kuiper belt.  So, we have as few as 8 but as many as several million.  So if we narrow out the asteroids, we still run into tricky business, because there are objects that are too large to be considered asteroids, but are still considerably smaller than Mercury.  This is where the Pluto argument comes into, because we call it a dwarf planet.  It behaves like a planet, but it kind of isn't.  Which is were we run into problems, because where do we draw the lines between asteroid, dwarf planet, and regular planet.


    And even what a planet is a matter of debate, since our solar system has four terrestrial planets and four gas giants, which are almost embryonic stars.  Hell, Jupiter is almost big enough to be our second sun.  Do we define a planet by our ability to walk on it or its ability to revolve around a star?


    But that's the great thing about science: we can be wrong and we can learn more.  Remember that a few hundred years ago people believed that the earth was flat.  People believed the sun revolved around the Earth.  We have since dismissed these claims, but at the time they were facts


    And determining the makeup of an exoplanet uses different instruments than counting planets around our home star.  If I remember correctly, the makeup of a planet can be found by measuring the light that passes through whatever atmosphere it has, not by looking at the planet itself.  If we had another unique planet like the lava flowing planet in the video, humans would have found it before the invention of the internal combustion engine, not now.  If we want to discover new planets in our solar system, we have to decide how big does an object have to be to be considered a planet, because a new planet for our sun is going to be just one large rock, maybe some ice.

    • BoydofZINJ FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold BoydofZINJ

      4 months ago

      It is easier to look at something than to look at your self.  Think of it like this:  Without a mirror can you see your back?  Yet it is easier to see another person.  Until we get some sort of large mirror... how can we view our own solar system easily?  It has allot of space (haha) all over the place  ;)

    • mitzt FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold Boop!

      4 months ago

      Bingo! To add to your comment, we can usually spot exoplanets because they happened to transit across a star, but in our solar system there are more planets further from our star than us than the number that are closer to it limiting how many planets we can identify in that way. We can also see the sunlight reflected off of those planets but as you get further away like with Pluto the light is fainter and fainter so we end up having to use techniques like measuring the gravitational "wobble" that the objects in our solar system impart on the sun as they orbit it.


      You're mostly right with how we determine the makeup of celestial objects but it is not because of a planet's atmosphere, it's the black-body radiation from the elements that make up the planet and the spectral lines that we can measure which helps us identify the components of a planet.

  • danbonrp FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    Guess just had to say something stupid

  • Jpalivoda FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    Don't know if it is just my phone but none of roosterteeths videos are loading for me on mobile

    • DonutWho FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      4 months ago

      Same here! It was working fine the other day, but now nothing. Anyone got any advice?

    • StefyB FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold Baby Dragon

      4 months ago

      Same thing was happening for me with Safari on my Mac, but Google Chrome is working fine.

    • AnthonyMend2 FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      4 months ago

      I thought it was only me 

    • Jpalivoda FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      4 months ago

      I'm using google chrome and still nothing

    • will981999

      4 months ago

      Yep, It sucks

    • will981999

      4 months ago

      Yep, It sucks

    • 8bitdee my views are your own

      4 months ago

      Update your OS. I use a Mac and I had this problem for the last couple of days until I updated my Mac.


      Kinda sad that I contacted RT twice about it and they never responded. Nice to see know how much they really care about their sponsors' troubleshooting problems. 

    • Jpalivoda FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      4 months ago

      My O.S is up to date. Videos are stuck looking like they are loading

    • Jpalivoda FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      4 months ago

      Installed Firefox instead and is working. I'm guessing if I uninstalled current browser then reinstalled, that would work too

  • Karashou FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold Karashou

    4 months ago

    NASA is pretty bullshit when it comes to that. TELL ME ABOUT MY OWN PLANET BEFORE TALKING ABOUT OTHERS!!!

    • TheNimbleNoodle

      4 months ago

      That's NASA's job to talk about other planets. If you want to know so much about your own then watch National Geographic or the Discovery channel.

    • CyberNut FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      4 months ago

      Yeah, then you can watch a bunch of BS sudo reality tv shows that will only serve to make you dumber!

    • DinoBenn FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      4 months ago

      > BS sudo reality tv shows that will only serve to make you dumber


      You know what they say about throwing stones in glass houses?

    • CyberNut FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      4 months ago

      My point was more about how Discovery does not really do much educational television anymore. Sudo reality tv is fine as long as you know it's fake.  I know to many people IRL who watch an episode of moonshiners and don't realize something is not quite right there.

  • Jazzstinson FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

     There are three  types of people in this  comment section. The people that think he's talking about Pluto but are in fact mistaken, the people that absolutely deny the possibility of a ninth planet,  and the people that are mad at Burnie because he said such an ignorant statement about planets in our solar system and exoplanets. 


      By the way, people that want this to be on "let me clarify",  you do realize that Sally has a PhD in evolution and not astronomy. That's why all the questions she's gotten are questions about evolution or animal behavior and such. I don't think this will come up on the show, but I would like them to come back on this during a podcast and revisit it.

    • DinoBenn FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      4 months ago

      Even though it's not her specialty, Sally's an excellent science communicator with a wide range of knowledge. On her own channel, the RT stuff she's been in, and on Twitter I've seen her cover plenty of topics unrelated to her PhD (which she doesn't have just yet).

    • Jazzstinson FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      4 months ago

       Yeah, I guess that's true. I still doubt they would do it, but I guess there is a possibility.

  • wonderbread58 FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    New favorite RTAA!

    • lbradleys FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      4 months ago

      This one is good. But I'll always be partial to the Edgar Movement, and fucked Ryan

  • greiton FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    as an aerospace engineer, i now hate burnie. I'll get over it in a week when i remember hes funny but for this week you made the shit list burns. (it was 2 weeks for the first podcast) 

  • Chris_Wolf FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    Holy shit, this was a good one!

  • tahupierce FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    "This flowery language--" 

    *throws a flower in rage*

  • DavidtheWavid FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    The best RTAAs are the ones whose conversations are so hilarious and memorable you laugh uncontrollably at the title.

  • SteveSlats FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    One of the funniest RTAAs in my book, animation and storytelling was top notch 

  • TimeLordStarship FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    I saw a shadow!

  • Killroy999 FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    I love Burnie. I suppose that's why it hurts so much when he's this wrong lol. I know he's smarter than this.

  • killerrin FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    Well, looks like we have a new question to ask Sally

    • DavidtheWavid FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      4 months ago

      Whoa, hold on there. She's a geneticist, not an omniscient wizard.

    • lbradleys FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      4 months ago

      WHA!!! You mean she isn't magic....

      I'm so disappointed now

  • colbert135 FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    "it looks like a dog"


    The way Burnie says it I'm laughing so hard I'm crying.

  • Sour_Unicorns FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    I want a t-shirt with that final image of the dog mountain silhouetted by the word "AMAZING".

    • DinoBenn FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      4 months ago

      Or "Exoplanets Hate Grapes".

  • McJavi_138 FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    The animation on this one is top-notch.  The story is also similarly fantastic! A+ episode

  • Rhinohide I'm only a Rhino

    4 months ago

    Is anyone else having a problem loading the RTAAs? Every other show loads fine for me, but this particular show doesn't anymore

  • DoomPriest FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    Sounds like Burnie should submit his questions to Sally Le Page...

    • Jazzstinson FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      4 months ago

       She has a PhD in evolution. I don't think astronomy would be her strong suit.

    • DoomPriest FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      4 months ago

      They've asked her non-biology questions before, as a science communicator I think she could effectively describe how astronomers do what they do if they gave her time to prepare.

  • Ubergrim FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    Hey folks, the comedy here isn't about how Burnie thoroughly tears down NASA's scientific capabilities, it's about how mad he gets at NASA press releases for inconsequential reasons. It doesn't matter if he's right or not. Just laugh at the funny angry man and the silly animation.

  • forgottenlor FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    Something that is lost here is degree of accuracy in their analysis from this distance.  From as far away as those exoplanets, Earth would probably be detected as a water rich, oxygen rich world.  They might be able to detect land masses, they'd have no idea how many they are, what they look like, or really anything else.  That's about the level that they're talking about when they discuss these lava planets with a layer of carbon underneath.

  • Phatnaru FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    It's funny how everyone in the comments is trying to say how Burnie is wrong on this, but they are only proving his point, because none of them can agree on how he is wrong.

    • caboose2394 FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      4 months ago

      Basically, we can see that there's a fuckton of rocks around the sun and we can't decide which of them are palnets because it's a made up description. We see that they are rocks and which rocks there are but they are all slightly different sizes which makes classification difficult. We can easily see that the magma/carbon planet consists of magma/carbon but there might be several more magma/carbon planets there which makes it a fucking weird asteroid field.


      It's like saying you grow two types of berries in your yard but then someone finds some wild blueberries under a bush and think that, since you actually have three types of berries, you aren't qualified to identify a strawberry. Burnie isn't just wrong here, he's so full of shit that he deserves to be reminded that honey doesn't spoil.


      Edit: basically, Burnie is Mac in that episode of always sunny where he tries to disprove evolution.

    • Phatnaru FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      4 months ago

      I don't see how he is wrong in the slightest. You said yourself, it is a made up definition. They can't get their shit straight, so why trust that they know what's inside of a planet that is 150 lightyears away, when they aren't even sure if a planet within our own solar system even classifies as a planet. Or a better point that he didn't bring up, is how in the f*** can they pretend to know what the internal structure of planets over 100 LIGHTYEARS (93 million (1000x1000) miles) away, when we don't even fully understand the internal structure of our own planet. They may not be making it, up, but the fact is that they don't actually know. They are taking educated guesses, and THAT is Burnie's point.

    • tanyelle FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      2 months ago

      they use spectroscopy. basically elements emit certain wavelengths when light hits them. those wavelengths correspond to different colors on our visible light spectrum. same thought process with why fireworks are different colors, because elements burn different color, reason why the're different colors is how light is refracted off the element and how that hits our eye.

      so when you use spectroscopy to study another planet, you can determine what gasses emit from the planet by the colors you see, and can therefore determine what the planet is made from.

      side not if you ever are able, take astronomy in college. suuuuper cool stuff and the go into detail with this. 

  • Scuzz83 FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    Reminds me of Burnie's Astronomer / Astrologer rant from way back in the early podcasts.


  • RudyFruity FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    You know, at first, the new animation style didn't sit well with me, but I've actually grown to like it. Its beginning to feel like the old AA days again.

  • Mitchmeow310 FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold Mitchmeow

    4 months ago

    Normally, I like Burnie okay. Then he pulls shit like this. 

    • c550456 17th Sharder

      4 months ago

      To be fair, he kind of has a point. Not with the counting of the planets thing, but there's still so much we don't know about our own planet. Trying to say you know any significant amount of information about a planet so far away is pointless and stupid

    • Mitchmeow310 FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold Mitchmeow

      4 months ago

      True, but five minutes of research could have answered a bunch of the things he was yelling about. For example, we can tell a ton about exoplanets based on how light interacts with them.

    • rogiraffe FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      4 months ago

      To c550456: (is there a reply button for comments on comments? I can't find it)


      This stuff is also important because we might one day travel the stars (say, Star Trek) and terraform and colonise other planets. Might as well get a start on that enterprise. Or there might be applications we can't even imagine now.


      If every scientist listened to the assholes who say "Oh great you made a thing glow bright, but what's the point of it?" or "Oh yeah you found some tiny particles... so what?" we'd still be in friggin caves. Or you wouldn't exist because your ancestors would be dead from some disease we could vaccinate against (What? You're looking at tiny... creatures? What a load of nonsense! What do we pay you for?"). Science-ing often doesn't have immediate and obvious payoffs. =/

    • Mitchmeow310 FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold Mitchmeow

      4 months ago

      Well said, friend.

  • XreaperDK FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold Paladin of God

    4 months ago

    Twice they did estimate a new "planet X" in our solar system. But after further study of these they only ended up being labeled as 2 of our 4 dwarf planets, Makemake and Eris.

  • DaDopePenguin FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold Tucker Did It...

    4 months ago

    And below the happy meal layer, is aliens!

  • zulgood93 Goodboy93

    4 months ago

    Can't imagine that Burnies dad was an engineer.

  • MassacreMan101 FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold That Guy with the Hat

    4 months ago

    Shout out to the booby calculator.  tucker

    • c550456 17th Sharder

      4 months ago

      And then the guy started turning the planets on the blackboard into boobs

  • Monokite FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    Ah, the "Science" portion of the podcast. Featuring the resident "Scientist" who doesn't even read articles all the way all and just reads headlines burnie

  • BigBrother1134 FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    NASA does not theorize a ninth planet. Conspiracy wackos do. Mainly because we don't completely understand gravity. There are eight planets, a planetoid, Pluto and a dwarf planet Ceres in our solar system. And over 500 million planets within 100 lightyears of us. 


    Edit: I misspoke and said Chiron earlier but I fixed it.


    Also how do I go directly to my comment? I have to scroll and find it. I guess I could Ctrl+F it. Nevermind solved my own problem.

    • XreaperDK FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold Paladin of God

      4 months ago

      Actually there are 4 dwarf planets; Ceres, Pluto, Makemake and Eris. Chiron is a comet, not a planet.

    • c550456 17th Sharder

      4 months ago

      Kinda proving his point here guys

    • RDV-1996 FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold RDV

      4 months ago

      > NASA does not theorize a ninth planet. Conspiracy wackos do.


      http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/planetx

      Come again?

    • BigBrother1134 FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      4 months ago

      The site just said suggesting there MIGHT be a planet. I'm saying that theories are higher than suggestions. They are just trying to throw answers at a question they can't solve, because  we don't understand gravity well enough.

  • Conorgriff FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    I'd watch a series just about Bill

    • c550456 17th Sharder

      4 months ago

      Cypher?

  • Mizore FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    we actually have more planets then just the nine, but they are small enough not to count as major bodies, barely bigger then asteroids. the only reason Pluto is "considered" a planet is politics, the other planet right beside it doesn't count as one despite being about the same size.

    • llSinker FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      4 months ago

      >they are small enough not to count as major bodies, 


      Then they're not planets!! Just like Pluto! Fuck Pluto!

    • Icecase FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      4 months ago

      According to the IAU


      (2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape [2], (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.

  • Ivan2294 FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    It's funny but also frustrating at the same time! I feel like he might understand better if he actually read the articles that are the source(i.e. not some Yahoo News article that makes up half of it's own article to get clicks).

  • ylurkes FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    Science is hard.

  • FastRefleksX FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    80085

  • Evadson FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    It's not that NASA isn't sure how many planets there are, it's that they aren't sure how to define a planet.  There isn't a specified size that an object has to be to be considered a planet, so the whole Pluto controversy was more about categorizing than anything else.


    Also, NASA can tell the composition of far off planets through Spectroscopy.  That's a method where they analyze the different spectrum of light reflected by a planet.  Different elements reflect different parts of the light spectrum, so by analyzing those they can get an idea of what the elemental composition of a planet is.  The rest is just physics.

    • Hawkeye3n FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      4 months ago

      I think he was talking about the theory of a ninth planet beyond where pluto is, the reason it hard to determine if that planet exists is that we have to know exactly where to look to see it and theres a lot of space that that planet could be in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Nine 


      Also you are correct about why the extrasolar planets are easy to determine the composition of.

    • Cha_Lad

      4 months ago

      Actually I think Burnie was referencing this mysterious 9th planet that orbits even further out than Pluto. I don't really remember anything about it but I do know there was some new evidence for it recently enough. I think the problem is that it's orbit is like thousands of earth years and it's hidden behind loads of other celestial bodies so it would be very hard to observe. I think they only know about because of the effects from its gravity. Take all of this with like a fistful of salt though, because I really don't remember much about it.   

    • AeroJett FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold Spaceman

      4 months ago

      Now we just need a Let Me Clarify episode about exoplanets and Kepler and whatnot. =3

    • tanyelle FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      2 months ago

      also... this is not the first time they had changed the number of planets. we're all just too young to know that. Im pretty sure in the 50's they were teaching kids that there were 11 planets

  • D_Silvs FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold *insert later

    4 months ago

    Salty Burnie is the best Burnie

  • Rookieblue14 FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    4 months ago

    Patrick's laugh is always great.

  • booksds FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold Book Whisperer

    4 months ago

    I'm already giggling from the thumbnail, I love the scared look on the other guy's face in response to Salty Burnie.  And is that Super Texas in the background?