I have all of my teacher-tubers friends here with me today and me and Darren. Some of the questions that a lot of us get very often from all of you just about being a teacher on YouTube sort of how we do things and somebody else jump in Especially like the how and the when logistics. Yeah. Yeah. So that would be the word. We asked a few of you on Instagram Shelly did Some questions that you had and then we also thought of a few that we get Most often to answer for you guys all together in one. Okay So we're gonna answer about five questions here on my channel and then the other five are going to be on Darren's channel. So come check it out. Are you ready? Yes Question number one was who inspired you to start a channel? Sure. Okay, I'll go so I Don't know if there was really any one person that inspired me to start a channel. Who did you watch before you started? I watched Megan from Too Cool for Middle School When I first started and then Michelle for Pocketful of Primary And then for me it was more just like I wanted to document my first year of teaching and look back and reflect on my practice For me that was the biggest thing and then honestly my husband He was the one that bought the camera and was like now you have no excuse That's kind of what happened for me My husband as well. He was like you always talk about it and just do it So he bought me a camera and that was it He's like you don't have to do anything Minimal work, yeah, and by the way, we're gonna daily blog Started doing YouTube with like my princess stuff Yeah, and then I sort of dipped my toes into doing teaching like I watched Michelle and Megan Because I thought about having kids and so I looked up like teaching and pregnant and then Megan came up and I watched her and then when I met Jennifer was when I really got into like teaching content and so she like my biggest inspiration to start that I Know I kind of like fell into it Um the two like teacher tubers that I watched before actually starting a channel were real rap with Reynolds and Megan from Too Cool for Middle School And I just kind of on a whim was like I wonder if I could do this So I took out my iPhone and I just like did it and then yeah, I don't know I just decided to do and it's like a good reflection piece like shelly was saying like it's so good for my teacher practice So I didn't actually watch anyone.  So I was like I'll do this and that as soon as I posted my first video I found everybody You guys know what breakup boxes are Yeah, like an escape room. Yeah. Yeah, so the guy that created that his name is James Sanders Oh, yeah, yeah, he's like really big in the ed tech world. So like everybody knew James Sanders So he was doing a keynote and he's like I'm gonna start daily vlogging like Casey Neistat He shows a clip from Casey Neistat This was like before anybody was there was no teachers on there and so he starts doing that I'm like that is so cool. I'm gonna do it to reflect on my yeah on my days as a teacher So I started doing that and that's how he does he do it.  Yeah per week Do you want to start this one? Yeah, I have a kind of a rare Situation I don't I don't videos so I don't spend nearly as much time as probably everyone else does So mine is gonna be filming time and thumbnail time, which I don't know probably in total throughout the entire week is like I don't know I'd say like 10 hours Dang a lot. I need to step up my game. Yeah I'm counting all my filming time. Yeah, I count all your filming time. Okay. Maybe that's a little that maybe that's a little much Or maybe it's really like 20 minutes. No, that's too much. Should we call Skyler? I was thinking like an hour for but no, that's 10 videos a week I'm not gonna count filming time because I feel like when I'm filming I'm also working so I'm not really like setting aside time to do it Because I'm doing what I'm doing anyway But I think it takes me like maybe two hours to edit in like 15 minutes to do a thumbnail So I just do it like at night when my husband's not home babies in sleep It's the plot on Netflix and edit for like two hours. Yeah Yeah, when I'm in like a good like rhythm and I'm actually posting a couple of times week I'll probably I can edit a video in about an hour Like I've got it down to a pretty good science where I can like feel for what I filmed and then I can edit it Pretty quickly and then yeah the thumbnail and all that I just do while it uploads or like while it renders and uploads So probably like two and a half hours total if I'm doing two videos a week I'll spend on like the editing and all that if we take a filming out Yeah, too However long the video is like if it's like a whole weekly vlog like yeah a day You know most of the time I do like a whole week That takes a lot of time but if you're because I didn't forget what you did on Monday. Yeah Okay, where was I I mean honestly it depends like if I'm doing a vlog I'm gonna spend a lot more time or if I'm doing like a set of series of videos like let's say three videos together That are all in the same theme. I'm gonna spend more time editing it But I think you know before when I had not great software. It took me a lot longer So I would say I'm probably about five hours a week. That's what I shifted my time to, by the way I changed my mind The thing that takes me the longest is I'll be watching another YouTuber and I'm like, how did they do that when I'm trying to figure out Yeah, I always text you for a girl I have in the past. Yeah, how did you do your little subscriber? So other than that, it's like I think the process is about the same for all of us mm-hmm and software makes such a huge difference It does, yeah It's a game changer. We're gonna get to that question in just a minute I was just teasing you guys for that part I think for me I've finally gotten into a really good rhythm Where I try and post twice a week, but I also really try and keep my videos between 10 and 15 minutes That's so for me that limits my time and the more you edit the more you like get the little quick trick So for me editing takes like 30 minutes because I think about it when I vlog I'm like, okay What can I do to optimize my time aka cut back on editing time? So I would say between everything maybe two Three depending on the week and that just comes with experience Yeah, when you first start like you will take forever to edit a video and just it's just how it is Because you're like five hours of footage and you've got to get it down. We all rambled in the beginning Yeah, you get way Okay, the next question is what type of camera to use I know I get this question all the time I used to use a Canon G7 X. I think it looks like this. Yes. Yes Up until like two weeks ago, and then I got this Sony alpha 6500 this runs pretty pricey with the lens and the body. It was about 2000 so definitely an expensive option But it's an investment, right? Yeah, yeah, and then I film on a Sony mirrorless. I think it's a 5,000 Alpha something alpha alpha. Okay. It's it's kind of like this one where it has like the flip-up screen Which I think all of us can agree. We like that And I think that cost me about 500 but I got it on Amazon it came with like a bunch of accessories like lenses So I was like, okay I'm getting a lot more for my money. So I think I invested about 500 into that Yeah, I use that I use this exact camera the Canon G7 X right and it was I want to say 700 when I got it on Amazon and it's perfect because it just you can like plop it in your purse Like it's just it's small it's light and it has really good quality And I like the quality of the audio actually too. Yeah So that camera that you just saw is my camera. So that is I Do have to say it does sometimes when you're listening to playback at all sometimes you can hear like a clicking sound So that is something to yeah, yeah, oh If you might all do that No, because usually I hold it without this strap. So I don't know So that's something to be like Aware of when you're buying them like I would really look online at a bunch of options and see what meets your budget And then also see like how invested you're in it because if you're not that invested you shouldn't spend that much money on a Yeah, yeah Almost everything I have a like I was a wedding photographer, so I have a million lenses But they were all Nikon and then so I tried to shoot with the Nikon But the Nikon is not the way to go with video So I switched over to a Canon 70d and that's what I use when I'm like when you see me in my classroom So I have that set up all the time But it's really hard to walk around unless you're Peter McKinnon walk around with a giant SLR So I just use my little iPhone to shoot all of most my b-roll and then anytime I'm walking around I don't want to carry another camera. So I just have my phone and I whip out my phone I also use the Canon G7 X mark 2. I think it is yeah and The only thing I'll say is if you are considering vlogging I highly recommend getting a little like tripod stand because as you know if you follow me I often used to cover the mic with my finger and then it screws up your entire video Yeah, yeah, hence the hours of editing prior to getting used to things Yes, I mean like this mine's not even this big but it just makes it easier. So yeah, but you get a little bit further away And it's also more steady. Yeah, it's stable or exactly. Do you want to ask this around more stable like you guys want to ask questions? Sure Okay, so Question for What type of editing stuff where do you use for your videos and your thumbnails? So I'll just start good. I use iMovie just because I have a Mac computer I've used that for the last like nine years that I've been on YouTube Yeah, cuz I did princess videos Company along before for thumbnails. I use pick monkey. I just pay the $10 a month And I use that to edit like everything because you can Make yeah, even like posters and stuff. Yeah, or like stuff in the classroom. I was just gonna say I use pick monkey I use iMovie as well But I use a combo of pick monkey and canva the free version of canva the paid version of pick monkey Just like ten bucks. Yeah And I use those also for like I just think I like the different like functionalities for like different layers and things in canva But I also use them for like graphic organizers and like And that sort of thing in my classroom. Yes. Yeah, so So I used to use Vilmora and it was not expensive at all to get but then when I got my new Mac computer I switched over to Final Cut Pro and it is a game changer. It goes so fast now like my editing It's cut down my editing Tremendously and I just really like it. It's very intuitive. It's pretty smart and then you know if I need any help I can always ask Darren But Like we all go to Darren YouTube it if you don't know how to use one of your software systems or editing summer you YouTube it There's a video of someone showing you how to do something. Yeah And I really like pick monkey as well because canvas sometimes if you have the free one like it's set And you can't adjust like the size of your image. Yeah, so you do it in pick monkey first And then you can go to canva if you like So like I was saying I used to be a wedding photographer, so I had The subscription to Adobe and Adobe you get I used to use Lightroom So you get premiere with that and you get Photoshop with that so I use Photoshop for my thumbnails and Premiere sometimes, but I use a Mac love all the Mac universe. And so I use Final Cut I'm also a Mac girl not that you're a girl, but I'm also a Mac person I use iMovie because that's always what I've used for any video stuff It's super user-friendly and I'm a PowerPoint person. I'm really savvy in PowerPoint So all my thumbnails I do PowerPoint you can edit pictures on there, so that's what I find the easiest for me And it's free and that like aspect ratio is right for a thumbnail And if not again, you just Google YouTube it and then you fix this Yeah, you just change this I used to do PowerPoint and then put it on canva But it was just I just cut that step. Yeah Yeah, and Scala uses I also The Adobe creative studio or whatever it's called so Scala uses Adobe Premiere and then I use Photoshop for the thumbnails. Do you ever find when he edits your videos? It's not too lucky Yeah, have you ever been awesome? No, I think I think I feel like oh you should have cut that out No, because I think I feel knowing that Okay, so I have it always like when I'm not editing so if there's something that like I didn't want in there I'd probably just like re-film the clip if it were or I'd like do a huge pause and if he sees like a big pause He knows to like do you watch it before he has to upload it? Mm-hmm. You are trust me. That's a great team Yeah, I used to but I just kind of I don't know. He's like a video.  Except that um Mine was super easy I just know that I really like coffee and that it was gonna be a teaching channel And I was like the coffee classroom.  They can't be in a classroom done Okay, so I love a good nap Real quickly Consider Listen But then how long do you sleep at night? You know A series of naps it really is So, yeah, see me teacher was easy easy for me. Yeah. Yeah, I was a tosa an ed tech tosa Sorry all the fourth fifth in sixth grade classes in my district I had to go visit all the classrooms and help them integrate technology into their okay So during that time, that's when my channel was born and so that's what it was So unfortunately the teacher social media world It's kind of a saturated market or becoming a saturated market and I knew I wanted a name This is I'm going in my third year So I knew I wanted a name that was a grade specific because I'll probably shift or Name specific because I was getting married, but I wasn't married. You know and so I Don't know. I'm not kidding. I was in the shower one day and just thinking about this for weeks And Adventure's born. There's no really exciting sort behind it. I did like the clouds part. Yeah Doing work plans, okay, I'll always be in early like k somewhere in the k6 world. Yeah, I was thinking early and Then ed ed. I don't know. I don't I really don't know your real first name is early. Yeah, that makes sense I get Come to me knees like sleepy. I was like, yep I'm one of the seven dwarfs No intention of Like my social media growing like as much as it did when I originally Did my second grade life like it was just summertime I had discovered the Instagram world of teaching and I was obsessed I just wanted to kind of get on there and I was getting ready to teach second grade and that's kind of where it came From and then unfortunately, I should have probably changed it before I started even more But now I'm kind of stuck and I've considered changing it out of second grade even though I'm still in second grade, but I just Like my fourth grade life or my fifth. I think people that's like they understand you as that my blank life Like even if you had to change it, they would still I thought about just rebranding just like my name But it scares me in a way. Yeah, I feel like I would lose or people wouldn't realize it's like a teaching related thing And yeah, so it's kind of messy Second grade life and then just to your name, but I think once you create a brand no matter whether it's great specific or not Yeah, that's what people know you as. Yeah, just showing that yeah. Yeah, because people do that. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, cool well, I Started doing princess videos and I was also studying to be a teacher So apples for teaching tiara for princess parties. Oh my god. I just now put that together I don't think I'm a princess I just What was your princess name on YouTube?  Well, I don't Wait, is it the same channel now you just changed the name? No, I added a new channel Entertainment channel, which has like all night like and like video footage of like and subscribe No, you don't have Yeah, all right you guys so thank you so much for watching this video and for joining us We are going to be doing part two on Darren's channel Darren the cocky hara so head on over to that channel It will be linked down below as well as all of these wonderful people's channels will be linked down below as well And we'll see you guys


This is Mises Weekends with your host Jeff Deist. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back once again to Mises Weekends and we're joined this week in studio by David Gordon who's here for a week or two visiting us in Auburn and teaching at the seminar we've got going this week on the book Human Action and since he's our in-house philosophy guru, I decided to bring him up in the studio and talk about just that subject. In other words, what sort of philosophy do Austro-Libertarians need to know? What are the books? What are the people? What should we be reading apart from just libertarian theory and economics, even if that's a small measure of philosophy? So to begin, David, great to see you. Thanks, Jeff. It's great to be here at the Institute. You know, last week I talked to Joe Solerdo and Carl Friedrich Israel about human action a little bit and we were joking that part one of the book where he's dealing more with individual human action and praxeology is considered the more philosophical part of the book. Obviously, he predated, Mises predated the two really big names in philosophy in the 20th century, which would be Rawls and Nozik. Talk to us about some of the philosophers, German or otherwise, who influenced Mises and who come through in this book. Well, Mises had a very broad knowledge of philosophy. He wasn't tied to any one school specifically. A lot of people think based on the first part of the book where Mises has a somewhat Kantian view and he's talking about a priori knowledge and say, oh, well, Mises must be a Kantian. He was certainly a used Kantian concept, but it's interesting in ethics. He wasn't at all a Kantian. He rejected Kantian ethics, what he called absolute ethics. He was in a tradition which he traced to the Greek philosopher Epicurus, which emphasized ethics as based on self-interest and he saw himself as more in the utilitarian tradition of Bentham and Mills. So there in ethics, he was more of an empiricist and he also had a very wide knowledge of other philosophers. One philosopher, his influence on Mises hasn't been studied as much as Spinoza. He quotes Spinoza quite a bit and there are some similarities in this notion of action, what you get in Spinoza. Another philosopher, the French philosopher Henri Bergson, he's very interested in him. Also, he knew he was very interested in some of the ones in the so-called who were interested in the interpretation. It was sometimes neo-Kantians, but not always like he liked the British philosopher R.G. Collingwood, Wilhelm Dilltein. So he had a very broad philosophical knowledge. He read most of the important figures at this time. He knew American philosophy also. He cites Maurice Colling and Ernest Nagel. It would be very hard to get someone who was prominent that he hadn't read really. Well, it's interesting though, you say in the realm of philosophy, he was more of an empiricist. In ethics. In ethics. Speaking with Joe Salerno last week, he cautioned against overstating the case that Mises was a utilitarian, let's say in his political philosophy, saying that he was not a rule utilitarian. Can you elaborate a little bit on this and how Mises saw this? Yes, well, Joe is certainly right that utilitarianism is sometimes a strict system, is a particular view of the ethics is objective. So they're true and false, propositions ethic, and the true what we ought to do where this is something is true what maximizes happiness and pleasure. Now Mises didn't accept ethics in that sense. He didn't think there was an ought that's an absolute ought that's telling us what we ought to do. He thought that it just that as a matter of fact, each individual desires his own happiness. So the way people can achieve that is through cooperation through the free market. So it wasn't a system where you keep trying to calculate the consequence say, well, this policy will produce X amount of utility and this will be X minus Y, so we should do X. It was more that he thought that we can show that the free market will benefit everyone or nearly everyone. So we have interest in the long term interest of everyone to adopt that. So it was really a very simple view of ethics, but it's far reaching in what it implies. So it's more that in ethics, he's more interested in clearing away opposition to the free market. So when he's writing about ethics, what he's mostly doing is trying to refute various theories that go against the free market and arguments that go against the free market. Do you think he was right? Do you think he was correct in his approach, at least for his time? I think he was right in his rejoiners to the critics of the free market, but I would tend myself to think I would place more weight than he did on ethical judgments being true or false in a straightforward sense. Other people like Murray Rothbard, Hans Hoppe have developed views of ethics that are also at least as much free market as Mises that don't have this what you could call instrumental view of ethics where it's just how does the free market help each individual fulfill the ends he happens to have in the same view of Murray Rothbard. There are goals or ends that people ought to have, and then the free market is a way of assisting those. So they come to the same conclusions, but they get there in a somewhat different way. Well, let's talk a little bit about the 20th century. As I mentioned earlier, the two big names are John Rawls, Robert Nozick, Nozick. Summarize briefly for us Rawls' theory of justice and the idea of a veil of ignorance and his overlay of an egalitarian component upon what's philosophically or ethically moral for society. Well, what Rawls was trying to do, you see, in the period before his book Theory of Justice came out in 1971, a lot of writers in ethics thought that ethics was just confined in philosophy, thought ethics was just confined to analyzing the meaning of ethical terms. They tended to be skeptical whether you could have substantive views, philosophy could have substantive views of what is the right or wrong course. So what Rawls proposed in Theory of Justice, he said, one way we might try to find out what just institutions are is we could imagine self-interested people who were deprived of any knowledge of their abilities or position in society if they were bargaining in this condition of ignorance of their own attributes and positions. He called this being behind the veil of ignorance, what they would come up with. And the idea is say if you knew everything about yourself, you're bargaining with someone else on base of self-interest, then you try to come up with something to your own advantage. Like we could imagine LeBron James' bargaining, he would like something that emphasizes great athletic ability. But if we don't know anything, then we could get terms that were fair to everybody. They wouldn't be biased against everybody. So what Rawls came up with in the Theory of Justice, he said, well, people would agree to two principles. One would be equal liberties for everybody. And the second would be the difference principle. And the difference principle has two parts. One is that there have to be the jobs and positions are open to everyone equal opportunities. And then inequalities have to be to the advantage of a least well-off group in society. And the basic idea there is that if some people do much better than others, it isn't because those people deserve that. It's really a matter of luck. They can't say, look, I want my money. I've worked for this. You can't take it away from me. It's a matter of luck. They have to be gifted with certain desirable attributes. So Rawls doesn't say we should have absolute equality because that wouldn't be the advantage of everybody. It's the advantage of everybody that the people with more abilities be able to make more than others because then they'll work more, produce more. But the inequalities have to be to the advantage of everybody else. So what he came up with was really, there's some room for questioning about what exactly the institutions were in favor of. It would be either a form of welfare state capitalism or a kind of market socialism, but it wouldn't be a free market which you'd call the system of natural liberty. It would be one where you have some sort of market, but it's corrected so that people to the advantage of those who are at the bottom. Well, how do you think his theory of justice holds up? It's what, 45 odd years later? I never heard Bernie mention Rawls. Is he still the darling of the left? Well, I would say in academic philosophy, he's still very much the top figure in political philosophy. There have been people who reacted against him. There are some people who criticize him from the left and say, well, he's just trying to come up with certain, just devise certain institutions for society as if he's a member of some sort of superior elite and what we really need to do, have a more popular revolution like Sheldon Mowlin who died recently was a very influential political scientist, takes that line, others do as well. But in political philosophy, I'd say he's still the dominant figure you're either pro Rawls or there's all sorts of variations on various things he said. And then he wrote a later book which stresses what's called Public Reason and their attempts at how does the later Rawls modify the first Rawls. So there's all sorts of debates on him. One leading journal called Philosophy and Public Affairs is very Rawlsian oriented. There are people who do other things, but I'd say definitely still the most influential approach. From the individual liberty side, of course, there was a man you knew personally, Robert Nozick, author of Anarchy, State and Utopia around the same time as Theory of Justice. His philosophy was very different viewing individuals as ends unto themselves. What strikes me about this book is even though it's philosophy, it's very much about the state. So tell us a little bit about Nozick, how you knew him and what he stood for. Well, I met Nozick in April 1980, I'd gone to see him. He was a very unusual person. He was tremendously fast in argument and he wasn't interested in just in political philosophy. He was interested in practically anything he wrote on Theory of Knowledge, metaphysics, he's free will prom, he has all sorts of things. He just could absorb material tremendously fast. You mentioned he writes a lot about the state and one reason he did that is he met Murray Rothbard and he was very impressed by libertarianism, although he actually didn't get along very well with Murray Rothbard personally, but he was very, very impressed by libertarianism. In the first part of Anarchy, State and Utopia, what he's essentially doing, although he just mentions Rothbard very briefly, he's arguing against Rothbard. He's saying his basic argument is, all right, let's start off with an anarcho-capitalist system and he thinks he can show that this would lead to a very limited state. I don't think the argument is successful, but what he comes up with isn't much of a state, but he's really starting from a Rothbard's position. With him, he thinks that people have rights that can't be violated and he believes in acquiring property in a basic Lockean way, but he thinks there are problems that the Lockean theory hasn't been fully worked out. His basic answer to Rawls, which is in one chapter that's on Distributive Justice where he responds to Rawls, he says Rawls is wrong to, when he says, well, look, we don't deserve our abilities, Rawls is wrong to think that in order to show we should get wealth or income, we have to show that what we get stems from moral attributes that we deserve. It's enough that we can show they come from a just system of property acquisition. Nozick favors what he calls a historical theory, which is people acquire their property on a historical process. You get the property because you justly appropriated or acquired it in gift or exchange from someone who has some chain of transactions. The thing I think is very interesting about Nozick, although he's in the book he has, as I mentioned, he's extremely fast, extremely sharp in argument. It's a very spectacular book but the basic framework is Rothbardian in the way he's arguing for property rights and it's just a limited deviation from Rothbard in that he favors this very minimal state as opposed to the state. So he's basically taken over a lot of Rothbard's framework but just dressed it up a little and put in very arguments that would appeal to other analytic philosophers. It was a very influential book, not nearly as influential as Rawls because it's so alien to the political views of most philosophers who were quite left-wing but a lot of people were in contemporary philosophy and became aware of libertarianism through his book. I should say, surprisingly, it hasn't been as influential, especially after the first few years it came out among libertarians. I think many libertarians today don't read Nozick or don't study him much. I think this is a mistake because he was an extraordinarily smart person. One story if I can give you, there is one of the greatest libertarian American philosophy days, Saul Kripke, who's considered a real genius. Everybody looks up to Kripke. Nathan Sam, a leading philosopher of language, once told me that Kripke had said to him, Nozick is the smartest person I've ever met. I thought, oh, I'll tell Nozick as he'd be happy to hear this. I told him that. He said to me, that's why he's trying to destroy me. You said he's also a charismatic and handsome guy, right? Yes, he was. I remember Philippa Foote, who was a British philosopher, was telling me she was the Stanford, I think, visiting, and he came to see her. She said, there he was standing like a Greek god. What kind of events would you have interacted with him? Where were you when you met him? I had just gone up to see him in his office at Harvard. I stayed in touch with him. I would sometimes visit him when I was on trips. I knew him pretty well over 20 years. I remember one funny story. There was a conference put on by the Mises Institute in, I think around 1986 or so, or 1987, on Marxism. It was held in Cambridge, Massachusetts. During that conference, I had lunch with Nozick. He walked me back to the conference center where we were having our conference. I wanted him to come down and say hello to people. He was hesitating at the top of the stairs, and he didn't come down. He and Murray Rothbard didn't get on so well, but I can see the picture of him standing in the stairs wondering, should he go down or not. It's, again, 40-odd years on since he wrote the book. Apart from anarchy state in Utopia, what other, just a couple of one or two key books that you might suggest to Austro-libertarians who aren't going to read much philosophy, but need to read something? One, of course, is one who's very much associated with the Institute. I like very much is Hans Hoppe, Ethics of Capitalism and Socialism. It's a very good book. I think Hans is someone who, like Mason Rothbard, has a very broad knowledge of philosophy. He's emphasized philosophical foundations, and he has a lot of original ideas and interesting ideas. There was a couple of philosophers, Doug Rasmussen and Doug Denial, who've written books from basically Aristotelian, Randian, somewhat Randian perspective. One is Norms of Liberty. I think they're very good to read. One thing that Doug Rasmussen is very much stressed to me, and he's critical of some newer libertarian things, younger libertarian philosophers, is he thinks, and I think he makes good case with this, a lot of the younger people neglect the basic foundational work in metaphysics, theory of knowledge that you need to establish rights. They'll just jump in and try to deal with the contemporary controversies, but they're the basic foundational work that they really have to do. Now, one philosopher I like very much, but he's very much not a libertarian, but I think if you're interested in some of the other areas of philosophy besides political philosophy is Thomas Nagel. I think very highly of him. He's one called The View. One book I like is View From Nowhere, and he has a collection, Mortal Questions. Very good to read. Elizabeth Anscombe is a very good philosopher. She was a British philosopher. Philippa Foote is very good in ethics. I mean, basically, aside from Anscombe, whom I just heard lecture a couple times, I'm really recommending people I know, but those would be some I think would be good for people to read. Well, let's fast forward a little bit to today. I can't imagine what things are like in a philosophy department at a typical state university. I don't know what they teach. I don't know what they talk about. But maybe we get a glimpse of this from Jordan Peterson. If you know that name, the University of Toronto professor. He's actually a psychology professor, but he talks a lot. He's like the other day I heard him bring up Jacques Derrida. In other words, this sort of postmodernism deconstruction. Talk a little bit about modern present day philosophy, the state of it. Well, in strict analytic philosophy, things are better than in some other departments, although there's what's happened in some of the other departments. And to some extent that's penetrated in philosophy. Is there a certain movement such as certain versions of feminism or studies of variant types of sexuality or ethnic studies? And these groups have definite views on what's appropriate or not appropriate. It's not only that they advance certain views that those who don't agree with them might find strange. It's that they insist that no one differ with them. That if say you didn't think that there was massive discrimination against various women in the academy, it's not only that your view is wrong, but you shouldn't be allowed to express that view.  So now to some extent this is penetrated into philosophy. For example, there's a philosophy of language. Jason Stanley was a very influential figure. He's done very good work in philosophy of language. But he's published a book where he seems to suggest that certain words, if you use certain words in discourse that shows you're trying to unfairly influence other people, it's been carried to such an extent say that Sally Haslanger's another philosophy said, if people speak of mother, this is bad because it suggests that people who have given birth say through some nonstandard biological way aren't as good as natural mothers. So it's an insistence that people have to use a particular, not only express certain opinions, but have to use a certain vocabulary. And if you don't, it's not only that they think you're mistaken, but they'll try to stop you from saying what they think you shouldn't say. But this is across all academic disciplines at this point. Let me ask you this. What do you think of and have you read much Jason Brennan? He has a book titled, I Believe Against Democracy, which I like the sound of it. I haven't read it, but I have read a review of it in the Claremont Review of Books. Any thoughts on Jason Brennan? Oh, yes, well. George Town Professor for those who don't know. Yes. He's a very productive person. He got his degree under David Schmitz, who's a classical liberal philosopher at University of Arizona and who runs the top-rated political philosophy department in the U.S. He's very productive. He's written a number of books. He's quite libertarian in his views. I think he's quite smart and writes well, but he tends, in my view, he's very much underestimate Murray Rothbard. He'll publish sometimes attacks on Murray Rothbard. He completely misinterprets Rothbard because the way he has it, something like Rothbard just deduces very odd ideas just from some rigid understanding of what the non-aggression principle. He'll come up with cases like this. He says, well, supposing somebody just you're running from a wild animal and needs to jump over your fence would Rothbard say, you can't do that because you're violating the person's property. Of course, Rothbard was just writing about what is the appropriate legal framework. He wasn't trying to say what are the principles you should use in deciding individual cases, how we should react in individual situations. He fully recognized in individual situations how you might apply the rules would vary. The point was just to establish a framework. In Brennan's own work, he tends to stress in my opinion a bit too much, how do you win an argument or how do you persuade someone else to adopt the conclusions you want? What he says, you have to start with certain premises. Premises everyone, the person will accept and then draw conclusions from it. They'll find surprising. It would seem more like that becomes more important in establishing whether your premises are true in the first place. It's more emphasizing more of a rhetorical way of proceeding. Whether the listener accepts them as true. Yes. He will say something like, and there's another philosophy, Michael Humer is very good, has a similar approach. One thing they would say is something like this. Supposing there are certain drugs you think people shouldn't use, you think it's wrong say for people to use heroin, would you think you have the right to lock people up in a cage because they're using those drugs and then say, well, if you say no, then why would you think the state can do that? I think that's a good argument except a problem with it is if you say that people might say, oh no, I wouldn't have the right to do that because that's the job of the state to do that. If you say a problem with that way of proceeding just by individual cases, is somebody could just not come up with the same judgments about the cases as they do, or another problem is somebody could say, okay, these are the conclusions you draw from the cases, so I'll go back and revise my views to be initial judge. They're aware of that problem, but I don't think they really solve it as much. I tend to think that while there's certainly people like Brennan is certainly worth reading, it shouldn't be to the extent of neglecting the really outstanding figures like Rothbard. I think even Nozick, I mean, Brennan respects Nozick, but I mean Nozick really was one of the outstanding philosophers and I think that's the people you need to be concentrating on sort of these are more figures who are not, in my view, as significant as the previous generation. Well, David, with that, we are out of time. Thanks so much for joining us, and ladies and gentlemen, have a great week.


So this is going to be a demonstration of the posterior chest wall seen from the front. We have completely opened up the thorax. We have removed the two lungs and we are seeing the chest wall from the anterior aspect. We are looking at the interior of the chest wall. So this is a supine cadaver. This is the left side. This is the right side. I am narrating from the right side and the camera person is also on the right side. So first take a look on the left side. I have lifted up a facial sheet here. The inner surface of this sheet is parietal pleura. And this is densely adherent to yet another sheet which is right under it. And that is the endothoracic fascia. If you look further down, we see that it is reticent color. That is because this particular cadaver had lobar pneumonia. And therefore in this region the parietal pleura was thick and it was adherent to the visceral pleura. This endothoracic fascia has got three or four components. The major component is the one which lines the interior of the chest wall, the ribbed surface. And that is known as the costal part. The same endothoracic fascia then continues medially and it covers the medial sternum. And that is known as the medial sternum part. Then it also continues on the dome of the diaphragm. And that is known as the diaphragmatic part. And finally the endothoracic fascia also goes a little above the first rib, which has been removed here. And it forms a small tent shaped structure over the apex of the lung. And that portion is referred to as the sipson spacia of the suprapneural membrane. Superially it is attached to the transverse process of the C7 vertebra. And inferiorly it is attached to the margins of the first rib. So these are all the parts of the endothoracic fascia. Now we shall turn and we shall see the structures on the right side of the thoracic cage. Again we are looking at the posterior thoracic cage and we are looking at it from the anterior aspect. So we have removed the endothoracic fascia here. What are the structures which are visible? This is the phrenic nerve. So let's push that out of the way. This is the thoracic vertebrae here. This is the paravvertebral gutter. And these are the posterior aspects of the ribs seen from inside. First of all let's mention these muscles that we see here. This muscle which is seen from the inside, this is the innermost intercostal muscle merging with the subcostal muscle near the angles of the ribs. That is what we see after we have removed the endothoracic fascia. The next important structure which I would like to draw your attention to are these structures which I have lifted up here. I am going to lift them up one by one and the camera will be zoomed so that you can see clearly. This is one intercostal nerve. Another intercostal nerve, intercostal nerve. So we are seeing the intercostal nerves as they are emerging from the spinal cord. These intercostal nerves, they run in the intercostal space in the costal groove which is located in relation to the lower border of the rib above. And as they run, we can see they are supplying branches to the intercostal muscles. And we can see these branches. They supply branches to the intercostal muscles. When they come to the lateral part of the chest wall, they give a lateral cutaneous branch which pierces the muscles and come to the skin. And this lateral cutaneous branch then divides into an anterior division and a posterior division. And it supplies the skin of that intercostal space. And further, the same intercostal nerve then continues to the anterior chest wall. And for that, I am going to bring the anterior chest wall back here.  And I am going to turn it and now we can see the continuation of the intercostal nerve in the anterior aspect. By now it has become considerably thinner because it has supplied many fibers to the muscles. And here also we can see it is supplying branches to the intercostal muscles. So this is one portion of the intercostal nerve, this is another portion and this is yet another portion. And finally, once they reach the anterior part of the chest wall, they pierce through the chest again. On either side of the sternum, they come to the anterior surface as the anterior cutaneous branch. And this then supplies the skin from the anterior aspect. So this is the full course of the intercostal nerves. This is a transverse MRI of the trunk to show the course of the intercostal spinal nerve superimposed upon it. As we notice this nerve as it is running, it is disappearing under this muscle here. It is disappearing under this muscle. In this place, we have split that muscle just to show you the full course of the nerve. So therefore we can trace it all the way up to here. So what is this muscle in which it is disappearing? This is the innermost intercostal which I mentioned continues and merges with the subcostal muscle. And anteriorly, it becomes continuous with the transversus thoracis muscle. This is the innermost layer of the intercostal muscles. That is layer number 3. Therefore, the carry-home message is that these intercostal neurovascular structures, they run between layers 2 and 3. Namely, the innermost intercostal subcostal muscles as layer number 3 and the internal intercostal muscle as layer number 2. In the condition known as herpes zoster or varicella zoster, which we know is a reactivation of chickenpox which has occurred in childhood. The virus remains latent and later in life after 40 years or 50 years, it reactivates and it multiplies and it can travel along these intercostal nerves. It travels with the cutaneous branches and it produces blisters along one intercostal space also referred as shingles. So that is the manifestation of herpes zoster or shingles because of the virus travelling through the intercostal nerves and their cutaneous branches. This is a picture of herpes zoster of the trunk, cursey, CDC, Centers for Disease Control. That is all for now. Thank you very much for watching. Dr. Sanjay Sanyal signing out. David Ho is the camera person. If you have any questions or comments, please put them in the comment section below. Have a nice day.


Okay, so that was the first pass through the questions, now I'm going to go all the way back to question one and give you 15 seconds of question to finalize your answers. Yeah, you guys are going to be definitely going to go all the way back. No, I didn't. I just put thinking caps on. No, it's not. No. I mean that too. No, she's the professor in the environment. Yeah, she's the doctor, my doctor. I am a... Each planet's orbit around the sun isn't equipped. Since my community's mentioning 30 gods that's here. Okay. And the reason why the alt-hitters are not in here. We got visited by the fire department today and they are not... We're using them out there today but they're going to be no longer... That's our like way past code like we didn't know. They were here when Kevin was here. Okay. So we'll be using them out there tonight so that's why... Hopefully it's going to get warmer so we won't need them as much. Yeah, I think it's nice out. It does, yeah, absolutely. We're going to throw that question out. Each planet's orbit isn't cooked. It's all set. Yeah, I think it's 30 dollars. It's a 30 dollar. Can I work in 30 dollars to the next thing that I'm about to say? Yeah. So there's that. Okay. Are you ready to collect sheets? Yeah. So that leaves my gut. I'm my gut. Well, I guess. Okay. I hope everybody got their trivia answers down. At this time, you could bring your trivia sheets up to Sam and R... Are you ready? Are you excited? Well, great. This is going to be great. What year are you again? She is a year grad student. She's second half year grad student. How can you do that? Um, technically just... I think it's muting it for you when it's not needed, but if you want to make sure it's off, you would hold down this power button at the bottom, but probably won't keep it up. Oh, and this is the slide you're going to...  We're going to move forward. We trucked here tonight, Dirty Dogs. Our first speaker of the evening, Beth Lee Lindor in Washington. She works with Dr. Eric Abel, and she is going to be talking to us today about finding ourselves, observational constraints of solar system exoplanet analogs, and she will teach you what all of those words mean, probably. So, welcoming Beth Lee. Great. Is this on? Welcome to my first astro and tap talk. Yeah, today I'm going to be talking about how we can find ourselves, potentially, if we were looking for ourselves as an exoplanet. The main thing that you should know is that... Oh, I forgot about the outline. Yeah, this is the outline, intro, motivation, background, yes, yes, yes, methods, you know, results, yes. Great, we all know that. The main thing that you need to know is that there are no solar system analogs that have been discovered in the universe aside from us. So, I have here just a plot of the orbital period versus the mass of the known planets in the universe, and I have the red points are the solar system planets, and you see that the solar system planets are very unique in terms of this jumble of points and data. So, this really comes from the observational limits on characterization, and this can be really like broken down into two things. So, the first is the transit depth. So, I'm going to talk more about transit and transit timing variations later, but the transit depth is essentially like what happens when a planet passes in front of a star and causes a dip in brightness, that's all you need to know. And that dip in brightness gives us information about the radius of the planet with respect to the star. That is really good for radius measurements, but it doesn't really tell us anything about the masses of the planet, which is really important if we want to talk about the densities and potential for water and you know what kind of planet we're looking at. The other method that is mainly used for detections is radial velocity. So, when a planet is orbiting a star, if the star wobbles a little bit because of the gravitational force of the planet, then we can detect that as the radial velocity shift, and that gives us a constraint on the mass of the planet, but it doesn't really tell us anything about the size of the planet. So, again, we can't really talk about the density, which is something that we're interested in for searches for life. This is very important in informing future surveys. So, for example, we have the Plato mission, the Nullis mission, and the HabEx mission, and these are all missions that have the goal of looking for exoplanets and analyzing them and characterizing them and hopefully finding something that is Earth-like in nature. That really begs the question, how common is our solar system? And on top of that, how do we look for systems that look like us, systems that look like ours? Well, this is a diagram of solar system objects, and what you'll notice here is Jupiter. Jupiter is great. Very easily detectable via radial velocity method that I talked about before. It's a very strong gravitational force in the sun. Great. But how do we learn about the inner terrestrials? How do we learn about Mars, Earth, Venus? Well, what we're going to do is connect exoplanet science and solar system science by using the solar system as a proxy. Now, the best way to find planets is to look around stars with known planets, obviously, and what you'll hopefully notice. And this is really going to address the questions of what can one learn about the solar system architecture if they weren't in it? And also, how accurately can we constrain the known parameters of the solar system objects? One good thing to know is that a system with one transiting planet is more likely to have other planets transiting. And a randomly orientated observer is unlikely to see more than two planets transit. And this is especially the case for the solar system. So here is just a graph of the transit visibility zones of the solar system planets. So if there was an alien out there and they were looking at the solar system, these are the longitudes and the latitudes where they would need to be to see all of the planets in the solar system actually transit. And what you'll see here is that the researchers that did this work found that the terrestrials would be valid for thousands of years, like in these transit zones. The Jolvian zones are valid for like hundreds of years. So this is because in actuality these transit visibility zones aren't going to stay static. Like they're going to change due to the effects of the planetary interactions, planet-moon interactions, whatever is happening. So these are all technically moving. And knowing when the zones and how long the zones are going to be valid for is really important for using the solar system as this transit proxy. Well one thing to note is that Venus actually would have a transit visibility zone that's valid for hundreds of thousands of years. So Venus is a very interesting object and very important object if we want to consider the solar system as a proxy. So the main parts that you should know about this plot is really these two points which is where the transit zones of Venus and Earth intersect. So any alien in those latitudes and longitudes, that's where they would see the transits of Venus and Earth. And the reason why we assume that this alien can see Venus and Earth is because well Venus is going to be valid again for hundreds of thousands of years so it's a great candidate for transits. And also Earth, we are Earth, we are on Earth and we live here. It'd be nice if this alien could see us. And the probability of an Earth-Venus transit is 3.22 times 10 to the negative 4 which sounds really small I know. But compare this to other planets that we've actually discovered. So I think Kepler-11 has six planets and the probability of seeing all of those planets transiting is like way smaller, it's much smaller than this. So it's like 1 times 10 to the negative 4. So it's a little smaller and we've seen this happen. So the fact that the probability of an Earth-Venus transit is low, don't worry about that, that's okay. So if we were to see Earth and Venus transiting, what would we see? Say this is a little alien, I have a little alien. And this alien is looking at the solar system, yay. And they would see if Earth and Venus were transiting, what they would see is these transits, this type of transit. And I just have over time there would be a dip in brightness due to the passing of the planets in front of the star. And what matters here is these little dashed lines and what they represent is the time of the mid-transit. Like literally the time where the planet is directly in front of like the middle of the star during its orbit. And this is important because this time would actually shift due to the interactions that are happening between planets. So I have here this plot that just shows the transit number. Like you could just think of it as time, so like time going forward. And during transit, the time that a transit occurs, you expect that to be linear if there was no other planets in the system. So that's where we have the line here. But what happens in actuality is that sometimes the transit will occur sooner than you expect or later than you expect. And that's just because of the interactions between these planets as they're orbiting their star. So here I just have the definition of transit timing variation. I know it's a big word, big words. It's just the variation in that mid-transit time, in that time of the transit that the transit is measured. And the definition of TTVs is just residuals to the linear fit that we have here on the right. This is a TTV formula, you don't need to know it. What you need to know is that it really scales in proportion to the masses of the companion planets, the eccentricities and orbital periods of the planets in the system, as well as the proximity to resonance. So for example, around Jupiter, like Io, Europa, those orbit in a resonance around Jupiter, and those affect the transit times of those moons. And so one thing to note is that the way that we measure the transit time is that we do a linear fit, a fit to align. Great science, I know. And this fit is to the time calculated. So this is a time that you'd expect if there was no other planets in the system. So this is just period times E, just the integer number, plus the first time of the period, first transit time, sorry. Okay, and hopefully as I have demonstrated, multi-transiting systems are very, very valuable for understanding exoplanets. It's really good for detecting non-transiting planets, and you can also use it to compare and constrain densities of the transiting planets, as well as understanding the formation and evolution of terrestrial planets. And that's really good for looking for life in the universe. And here I just have a plot of the planet mass, the planet radius of the TRAPPIST-1 systems, yay, TRAPPIST. And TRAPPIST has so many transiting planets, and because a lot of these planets are transiting, we're able to get planet mass and planet radius measurements and actually look at their densities and how they compare to venous and earth. So you can see here that they're a little bit more puffy, less dense than venous and earth, if I'm reading this correctly. Now, on to my observations. So unfortunately for us, I am not an alien in the middle of nowhere, looking at the solar system, so I have to use simulations, yay. And what I really did was I simulated the observations over a number of years. So I'm like 30, so here it only says four, but like 30, 29, you know, going down to 15 years. And I use different, like, noise precision, so like the timing of that mid-transit, that is going to be like precise or non-precise or to a certain level. And so I set that level to be whatever I wanted to be in the case. So the main thing to know about here is that I'm considering two cases. Case one, two transiting planets only, venous, earth, moon, bain, center. Moon does not exist. Case two, this is the real case with us, you know. Two transiting planets, one has a moon, venous and earth. And these simulations also include the effects of the non-transiting objects. So I'm taking the dynamical ephemerides from JPL, from NASA's JPL mission, and I actually simulate the positions of earth and venous over time. And I find when they'll actually transit. And here in the plot, I just have a little line pointing to the line of sight that would be required to see their transit. And so I find those transit times over different observation spans. And I'm also like applying this analytical model, the TTV thing I was talking about earlier. And that really does a global search for the best fit model. I'll go into that later. And then I'll do something about Markov chains. You don't need to know that. So let me explain the global search for the perturbing bodies. So case one, hypothetical. Well, we do a model two planets. We assume that there are only two planets in the system, and we find the best fit parameters for those two planets. We continue, we add one more object, three planets, great. We're looking for the third planet. And in our case, we're going to assume that Jupiter is that third planet because Jupiter is so massive, so it's more likely that it would have been detected either first or second, technically, how you find it. And then we add another planet, boom, four planets. So as we're adding objects, we're seeing how the data fits to the modeled simulations. So real case two, we do the same thing. Two planets, three planets, four planets. And then we do something special. We add the moon. And this is really great for seeing how well we can constrain the effects of the moon on Earth. So the moon is very small. It's only like 1.018 Earth masses, but it has a very strong effect on the Earth, and it would affect a chance at times. And you'll see that later, hopefully. Okay, so this is what happens when I do all these models, and I'm adding all these bodies to the modeling. So I have here the two-planet model is in blue, three planets in red, and then four planets is the dashed dot dashed line. And what you'll need to see here is that adding all of these bodies to the model improves the fit to the data. So on the left here is just the O minus C, like the observed transit time minus the calculated transit time. And that would be the TTV, the transit timing variation. And on the right are the residuals. So I'm taking these TTVs, and I'm subtracting the observed, and I'm seeing how well the model fits our data. And the model with the four-planet case really has very, very small residuals, and that's a much better fit to our data. So this is with case one. Now, if I do the same thing for case two, I observe the same thing, increasing the amount of bodies, the amount of planets really reduces the residuals. Something interesting to note here is that I also add the satellite that I was talking about earlier, and having the satellite in the model also increases the fit as well. So the fits that are without the satellite are worse technically, statistically here, than the fits that have the satellite. Which is interesting because we want to be able to say that there is a moon there, or there isn't a moon there. Okay, so this is what transit timing variations look like, if you've never seen them before. Here I have just the TTVs for Venus and Earth, and this is when I'm considering three planets, Venus, Earth, and the Jupiter. What you'll really need to note here is that the contribution from Jupiter, you know, lasts over a really long time, which is expected because Jupiter has like a 12-year orbit. And what happens when I add a fourth planet? When I add Mars, there's a much better fits of data as I was explaining before, and you'll see that over a long period of time, Mars actually has really long-term effects on the transit times of Venus and Earth. That's what the grads tell. And when I add the moon instead of Mars, one thing to note here is that the contribution of the moon to the Earth's transit times are on the same level as the contribution of Mars to Earth's transit times. So this is really showing that like, moon's effects really, as much as Mars, and Mars is much bigger and much further away. So how exactly do we search over a range? How exactly can we say that this is a detection? Well, we search over a range of possible periods for analogous planets, and what I mean by that is that we take, for example, something that's like Jupiter, and we place it at a trial period. So say it's around, you know, like 11 years to 13 years, for example. And we see when, based on the signal, when there's a peak in the probability. And you'll see here that the peaks pretty much all agree with Jupiter's actual period, which is represented as the dashed line here. And here I just have the different years that I simulated as different colors, and you'll see how the detection of Jupiter depends on the amount of time that we're observing the transit times of Venus and Earth. And for the most part, as long as you have at least one period of Jupiter, you can detect Jupiter. Jupiter's there. Now, if we do the same for Mars, you'll see that there's a much wider range of periods that can fit the Mars-like object. So what's really important here is that there are cases where there are multiple peaks in the same time span. So multiple objects in the same type span can create a signal that is like a Mars object. And that's really sad for us. Okay, so on to results. So the hypothetical case. I have here just how the likelihoods show a unique Jupiter detection. So for 20 years of observations, you're looking at Venus and Earth transiting for 20 years, or 22 years, sorry. Jupiter is the only thing between five and I think it's 22 years. There's a unique peak. There's no chance that it isn't Jupiter. So we will definitely 100% detect Jupiter. So for the case of Mars, things get a little bit more complicated.  So a lot of objects could potentially be Mars. And if we look at the like posterior distributions, like the uncertainties of the masses and the properties of these objects, we'll see that we can very, very closely match up the masses for Venus and Earth, like we get them bang on. The periods also bang on for Venus and Earth. The masses of Jupiter and Mars are also very consistent with what we're getting, but the true values, so we don't have to worry about those. And there's a really good fit to this simulation. So what happens when we look at case two? The real case with Earth and Venus and Earth has a moon. Well, things get a little more complicated. Now instead of, now there's like a higher uncertainty on the mass of Venus. There's also like a higher eccentricity for Venus and Earth. And we also see that the Mars-like object that is being detected has a period of four years. And that's a problem because Mars doesn't have a period of four years. So this object here, this high peak corresponds to four years, and this object is a problem because it would be unstable over a long time scale. And that's really, and knowing that allows us to essentially throw out that information about the four years because it's not real. And now we get data and parameters that actually more closely correspond with the true values for Mars, and we love that. So now what happens when we add the moon to this? Well, the moon, we love it, it's great, and it's amazing. It's a little off, like adding the moon to the model is a little off for Mars. It doesn't get the correct period exactly, but it does improve the fit, and it is really dependable for getting the masses of Venus and Mars and stuff. In this case, though, the values for the period of Jupiter is a little bit higher, like 44, 87, yeah, pretty high. And the uncertainties on those values are a little higher, but it is nice that the fit with the satellite is actually a really good fit compared to the fit without the satellite. Okay, so what does this mean for the future? Well, the main thing would be to note that this work was done with an analytic model, which means it's not actually, you know, n-body, it's not as robust as we need it to be. So it'd be really nice to have a properly, like, to properly implement an n-body to compare this to the n-body. Another thing to note would be to simulate transit-folks values to retrieve radius measurements because with this method we only have mass measurements. We don't have any radii. And we can also, like, analyze the effects of stellar variability. The sun is very variable, like, on small time scales, and it'd be really good to see how that affects our retrieval of the parameters. And then we can, okay, you don't need to tell me about that. All right, so observational feasibility. Well, so remember Plato and Nautilus and those things that I was talking about before? Well, they're not going to be good enough to detect solar system analogs, I'm sorry to say. And so no known instruments have the baseline needed to detect an exoplanet solar system analog. That is a system that has a gas giant and that has, like, multiple terrestrials and also has a moon. Plato won't have the required precision, but I think it has precision, like, a noise floor down to, like, 85 seconds. And all the simulations that I was talking about that I showed, all the plot that I showed, had 30 seconds of noise. So 30 seconds compared to 85 seconds. That's a very big difference. The Nautilus mission might have the required precision, you know, based on exactly how that pans out. It hasn't been built yet, so whenever that happens, please let me know. So regardless, all you need to know is that the potential mission would need to be long-lived. So it's interesting here because TESS, for example, is looking at a lot of planets. There's a lot of planets in the, like, continuous viewing zone. And those planets would be great candidates for solar system analogs because TESS is going to be looking at them for a very long time in this continuous viewing zone. So key takeaways. Because of the transit timing variations of Venus and Earth, just two planets, two little planets, you can really correctly infer the solar system architecture and the masses and orbital properties of Venus, Earth, and the moon, Mars, and Jupiter. Also, sad, but no known instruments have the baseline to detect systems analogous to the solar system. And you can correctly retrieve the correct masses. And you need to account for long-term stability when modeling exoplanet candidates. And this is the case for that fake Mars that we found that wasn't actually Mars. And it's very important to do, like, a full stability analysis when we're modeling exoplanet candidates. I think that's all I have for you today, and I will take any questions. Okay, the question is about that fake Mars. Like, what is it exactly? And the thing with transit timing variations is that it doesn't really matter what causes the signal, the TTV signal. The information that we can retrieve from the signal depends on how well our model is. So, like, my, like, analytic model, for example, wasn't really good, and that's probably why I found that fake Mars that wasn't really Mars. So, you don't really, it's not caused by Earth and Venus, it's probably just caused by something else, but we don't really know what's caused by it's probably just the accuracy of the model. Yes? Okay, the question was whether we, as a species, have the technology to build an instrument that has a baseline required. We 100% do. It's whether or not a person would dedicate 22 years of their life to this word to find a Jupiter life planet or Mars something. Oh, okay, the question was, when I was talking about the probability of seeing a transit, so that was, like, the overall geometric probability, just like based on, you know, the radii and the period, the orbital period of the planets. So, that's just, like, overall three-dimensional, like, this is what the probability is mathematically. I believe the question was, when we see those multiple transits, how are we able to attribute them to the different objects? That takes a lot of modeling, so that, it takes a lot of, you know, like human hours, human work to actually analyze all these systems. So, there's a lot of candidates for exoplanets, and the work to do all the modeling is just, it just takes time to figure it out. The question was whether we find exoplanets that are all in the same plane as, like, the ones in the solar system. And we do, but that's only because of observationally, those are the ones that we are more likely to detect. So, it's not just, it's not that they happen to be, you know, like, the ones that look like the solar system. Those are the ones, scientifically, we are more likely to detect. So, that's why we detect so many of them, observationally. Right? Right. Thank you. It was great speaking. Okay. So, we're going to do the, announce the trivia winners, and then we'll take an intermission to get you set up, and then we'll be good to go. Okay. I'm going to tell you the trivia answers and the trivia winners. Just remember, if you are a trivia winner, please wait until the end of the second talk to come collect your prize. Okay. So, let's get started with the answers. First question. It is true that places on Earth are so extreme, they can be used as standards. We call them planetary analogs, which you hopefully learn from the first talk. We do have large telescopes. Okay. Are you ready for the trivia winners? He's only got three questions wrong. Our trivia winners are Dr. Bruce Bailey. That's a close call. I don't know. Game 12, just a gold credit, right? Oh. What's that? I don't know. Good. But you're both credit? Well, the surface is green. Yeah, and then it's just a little bit of gold. I teach you strongly. I got to teach you. Oh, no. Oh, no. Well, there's some gold there, so. What do we call it? Should we start this there? Yeah. Okay. Here's your slide, advancing. Just to make sure you guys can still hear me in the back, right? This is loud enough. Okay. Great. Thank you. Washington's Astronomy Department since the 1970s. And he even served a brief stint as chair of the James Webb Space Telescope, taking over from the Hubble Space Telescope. I was telling Megan a minute ago, I've given this talk about 10 times. Never to a more boisterous audience. Let's try to have some fun. Let me make an admission. I had to boil this talk down from 45 minutes to 30. It's much easier to make a talk bigger than it is to make it smaller. So we're going to go like hell. First of all, let me just point out something that our graduate students are keenly aware of along with everybody else in astronomy. In terms of tools for studying the sky, this is the golden age. In the last 20 years, telescopes across the entire spectrum, on the ground and up in space, have just ripped open our horizons, our research horizons.  I'll show you a picture a little bit later that illustrates what Hubble did to me. When you get an image from Hubble or Webb, you get an email. That's it. You have no idea when they're going to take the picture. You just get an email and they say, your data are in the archives. So the first thing you do is go to the archives. I mean, this is really exciting. You can't wait to see what the telescope's found. This has happened to me dozens of times, and the pattern is the same one. Absolute elation followed very quickly thereafter by sobriety. You get time on these telescopes not to take pretty pictures, but to understand the universe. And a picture could be pretty, but at the same time completely puzzling. You'll see that when I get to the right slide. Anyway, thanks to you and your tax money. Thank you for paying your taxes. These are some of the tools that are coming online. Well, here's a laser in here. Yeah, this one I want to point out. This is a telescope that's going to survey, it's a 10 meter telescope. So it's among the largest on the ground today. And it's going to survey the entire sky. Take pictures of the entire sky every two or three days in six different colors. It has the largest camera ever built in astronomy at the back end of it. It's really exciting. And I want to point this out, because during my time as chair, our faculty helped to initiate this project. And now the project leader is someone that we hired while I was the chair. I am very proud of our faculty. All telescopes operate in pretty much the same way. Little particles of light that we call photons that contain almost no energy at all, dribble down from far, far away. And we try to catch them and focus them to make an image or to get a spectrum. I'll get this right. So big is really important, because the objects we're studying, in the case of Hubble and Webb or at the outer edge of the universe, the edge of the visible universe, we're exploring the universe after the very first stars have formed. And they are very, very far away. How far away? 13.8 billion light years away. So their faint light has been traveling out in all directions for nearly 14 billion years. And to see what we're looking at, you need big. But big costs money. And budgets are not big. And so Webb is the perfect example of a project that is very confident that it could be built. It could be built for a billion dollars, and we ended up with a price tag of 10 billion. That is sobering, because almost every day you have to find a way to save money. It's the same as asking, what won't we do?  All right, so here is Webb. The light comes in from the left here. It's collected on a curved surface. This is the way all telescopes work. The telescope reflects the light usually to a second mirror up here. Webb has that. And that mirror redirects the light through a hole in the center of the primary mirror to the back here. And this is where the light is detected. Science begins not at the telescope, but right back in there. Now, why do we have 10 billion bucks? Why do we spend that much money? I mean, if you ask an astronomer how much we should spend, you're not going to get 10 billion. You're going to get something a whole lot bigger, right? So, but why go into space at all? What's wrong with building a big telescope anchored to solid ground? Any, any, oh, the answer's right. For one thing, the surface of the Earth is too bright. The lights from cities are, and now satellites, are really compromising the ability of telescopes to do research, right? But that's not, I mean, that's just one reason, but it's not the big one. The big one is that little blue haze that you see around the Earth. The stuff we breathe, it moves. There are winds. There are instabilities. And we look at the sky as if we're looking through trees. We're at the bottom of the swimming pool. There are ripples on the top, and we try to find the trees from the bottom. In other words, the atmosphere of the Earth defocuses the life that comes from so far away. These photons have been traveling for almost 14 billion years, and in the very last split second, they get a little bit mixed up as they come down through the atmosphere. So the problem is air. That's good news and bad news. Here's this picture I wanted to tell you about. The best, this is called the Cat's Eye Nebula. We're looking at gas ejected by a star just in astronomical time, just before it dies, right? So this phase of the gas ejection lasts a few thousand years.  This is a great example of that. So the research question is, what shapes these things? What don't we understand about stars and the way they lose mass? So the best we could do until Hubble is on the left. We thought we were making very good progress, but that image here on the right that Hubble took, it just happened to be released by NASA while all of us were at a conference, a research conference overseas, and jaws dropped, the beauty, but yet the challenge. There are all kinds of devils in these details. So let's spend just a second talking about Hubble. It was launched in 1990, but when it went up, we learned, unfortunately, after it was too late to do anything about it, its primary mirror had been perfectly shaped to the wrong shape. And for years, four years, we could not focus the camera. So the good thing about Hubble is that you can go up and fix it.  And from that point forward, Hubble was working better than its design specs. Here you see, I can't see, oh, sorry, the wrong buttons here. This is one of four instruments in Hubble. They're arranged in a circle around the back. There's a little 45-degree mirror that rotates back in the center of the telescope after the light has come through the primary. And that 45-degree mirror sends the light to the instruments. The one that the astronauts were installing in 2009 is a camera that I worked on from 1998 till 2009. And when they put that in the telescope, you can imagine that an eye was jubilant. A lot of other people were, too. And that camera has turned out to be the workhorse instrument on Hubble. Now, Hubble was designed the last 10 years. It's at 32 years and going strong. It works in a part of the spectrum that the James Webb telescope doesn't. So you have to think of these two as, like, red and blue telescopes. One compliments the other. And there's no scientific reason to turn off Hubble. It'll last probably another five years. Its weakest link are the little gyroscopes inside it that steer it around. And they're mechanical. There's a wheel in there. And that wheel eventually, or the bearings of that wheel eventually give out. This is a picture that I took with Hubble. And I show it to you, A, because it's beautiful, but B, because last night at about this time, I submitted a paper I've been working on for four years in which my team and I were trying to account for the incredible structures that we see here. So this last night was a big milestone for me. So a year ago Christmas, off went an Arian 5 rocket. The Arian 5 rocket has the biggest diameter. The U.S. has no rocket at the present time large enough to carry the Webb telescope up into orbit. And as a part of their contribution to the cost of the telescope, the Europeans launched this. It was, I mean, you can imagine sitting in the living room watching NASA TV and realizing that $10 billion could go up in an explosion, and that would be the end of it. NASA had a list of 340 things that were most likely to go wrong, any one of which would stop the telescope. The telescope went up, and 30 minutes later, we got our last look at the Webb telescope. At this point on, the Webb was headed a million, almost a million miles away from the Earth, and we can't see it anymore. At Hubble we can see, but not this thing. And by the time this picture was taken, that list of 340 things that could go wrong was down by a factor of 2, down to 170. But even so, the Webb telescope is way out there, and it lives in a place which is a delicate balance, the gravity of the Earth on the one side and the gravity of the Sun on the other are perfectly balanced. If you nudge the telescope towards the Sun, it will fall into the Sun. If you nudge it to the Earth, it will fall into the Earth. So getting it to its proper place was a really tricky and delicate process. And not only that, the telescope built itself essentially along the way. So I think you all remember hearing about these things. It was an incredibly complex set of operations. It was like landing one of the rovers on the moon, dropping it in a balloon, right? The engineering behind this was absolutely unbelievable. And everything worked, absolutely everything worked. In fact, we thought this telescope is steered by gas, little jets in the back of it. And so its lifetime is determined by how much gas is left after the telescope settled into its proper place. We expected to use about half of the searing gas, getting it in there, which meant the lifetime of Webb would be 10 years. We hardly used any of that gas and the lifetime of Webb, unless something comes along and hits it, the lifetime of Webb should be 20 years plus. I mean, wow. Now you've seen pictures of the telescope. There's some here on the left. This is the telescope. It works in the infrared part of the spectrum. You sense that as heat. And so the telescope can't possibly work if it's exposed to the sun. The surface gets hot and the infrared radiation that's detected is from the telescope, not from outer space. So, we built a heat shield here. Roughly five-mile-hour, highly reflected layers. The telescope has to be guided so that the sun is at the bottom all the time and the telescope is in shadow. And if that fails, and that's what the steering gas is all about, and if that fails, the telescope can't do science. Now, why did we launch it? Well, certainly one reason was to keep making progress on things we've been studying from the ground for a long time. But that's not the way the Webb... Webb wasn't designed to do that. Webb was designed... Oops. There's a slide missing in here. We'll use this one. Webb was designed... It's much bigger than Hubble. Times the collecting area. And it works in the infrared part of the spectrum. Now, we live in an expanding universe. And the expansion of the universe, first of all, makes distant things very far away. But at the same time, the expansion shifts the light, the spectrum of light that stars emit, right? That's the so-called Doppler shift. And you've all heard it. If you stood near some train tracks and a train approaches, passes you and then goes... and goes beyond, the pitch of the train goes from... to... and then shifts it to longer frequencies. In effect, takes starlight, most of which is visible light, and shifts it into the infrared. And that the rate at which the universe is expanding, stars are really, really faint in the visible part of the spectrum. But they're still bright in the infrared. Let's... I think the next... Well, okay. If there's time, I'll come back to this one. So, on the right, these are two really deep images. The one on the right, taken by Hubble, 11 days. The shutter was open for 11 days. And the little photons drizzled down onto the surface and were detected. This is a web image. 12 hours. 12 hours taken this past spring. It's the same patch of sky. Look at this little pattern right here and you'll see it right there. But the web image is so much clearer. So, our hope with web is to explore the really distant universe. And that distant universe is a much younger universe. Just as we see the sun now, as it was 8.3 minutes ago, that is the distance of the sun is 8.3 light minutes, just as we see the nearest star, as it was four and a quarter years ago, just as we see the nearest galaxy, just two million light years away. These things... Let me emphasize the point that two million years ago means we're looking at a galaxy that was two million years younger than it is right now. We have no way of telling what it looks like now without waiting another two million years for its light to get here. So, the point is the further out we look, the further back in time we go. And that's the point of web to go back as close as we can to the beginning. Now, when web was designed, scientists came up with what they thought the first stars would look like. And that guided web's design and its cost. So, what we're really interested in are the little tiny dots in here. They're the faint objects. They're the galaxies with stars that have just formed. These blue and red circles here point to objects which we know to be at the visible edge of the universe. So, what's the visible edge of the universe? The universe is 13.8 billion years old. Anything further than 13.8 billion years may have emitted light in our direction, but it hasn't come yet. The furthest thing we can see is at a distance corresponding to the age of the universe times the speed of light. That's 13.8 billion light years. That's the edge of the visible universe. Is there stuff beyond it? You bet there is. Have we seen it yet? Nope. You'll have to wait until this light gets here. But that doesn't matter that much. The first stars are the first stars. And we can study them now and understand how stars originally formed and how galaxies originally formed. And that's a story which depends on what happened even before. Starting minutes after the Big Bang the universe had become somewhat irregular and those irregularities run the movie forward and those irregularities collapse thanks to gravity into these things that we can see. So, there's a story behind each one of the galaxies that we can see with Webb. A story we're just beginning to understand. The first thing we found, though, from that picture which was taken last spring was that there were far more of these little tiny fly specs than we had expected. How many more? A hundred times more. What does that mean? So, a hundred times more is interesting. It's a fact. But it's a lifeless fact. What does it mean? What it means is that galaxy formation that, think gravity here, galaxy formation took place far earlier and far more rapidly than we had expected. There's something really wrong with our ideas of how galaxies formed and it's going to be exciting to figure out what it is. It could be that the conditions in the early universe that bring mass together or that supply the mass that the universe had more mass than we expected it to. That doesn't work. We know how much mass the universe has now. So that's just not a viable path to take. Gravity may have been stronger in the past. Say that to Isaac Newton and he would choke. Einstein, too. It's these desperate situations like the one we're beginning to see here that really lead to breakthroughs. It was the orbit of Mercury that didn't quite follow Newtonian gravity that was one of the major reasons that Einstein stepped back from Newton's Laws of Gravity and said, wait a second. We have to retool these. From that came general relativity, a new theory of gravity. It's observations like these which we hope, we presume, it always does work out that way, lead to gigantic scientific advances. Webb also took pictures of dying stars like the ones that I studied. This was one such picture and I got a paper published along with some other people, obviously, within five months of this image being released. Our team looked at that image and said, well, we kind of understand the blue part on the inside, but the red stuff out there, what did that? What did that? So already we're beginning to rethink the ways in which masses ejected from stars. It's so much fun. How am I doing on time? Oh, yeah. So Webb has taken a number of pictures, including the one on the right here of a fairly ordinary galaxy near us whose Hubble image looks like this. This is the Webb image. These two are the same scale. So this dusty, dark, dusty feature here is that one because in the infrared wavelengths, dust emits its own light. Just as embers, in a fireplace, embers continue to emit light. The light shifts from the visible part of the spectrum, the fire, like those things, into the infrared. And so you're seeing on the right the white regions are regions where dust is emitting. And the dust shows us that the galaxy is much larger in size than we might have imagined just from the Hubble image. There's a lot around the outer edge that doesn't emit optical light especially well, but really emits lots of infrared light. And one of the stunning features in this thing is this big hole right here.  And the blast wave clears the gas out, leaving behind the big hole. We didn't know that there was a supernova there. In fact, all we see now is what's left at the gas that had been pushed around. The supernova has long faded away. But this gives us an idea of how much energy supernovae produce. It isn't easy to move that much gas and we can calculate the energy involved. Webb is aiming, of course, at the planets. And here on the left is Jupiter as you probably have never seen it. It's great red spot as white. It's this thing right here. And you can see a tail around it which is what you would expect because that red spot is essentially a hurricane that appeared for the first time about 300 years ago. There were lots of people looking at Jupiter and none of them recorded a red spot until about 250, 300 years ago. And we can watch it with Hubble or Webb and it's turning around like a hurricane. It's right in between two weather bands. So hurricanes on Earth form at the border between the equatorial zone and the temperate zone. And the same thing is going on here. We don't understand how the hurricane could last this long which means we don't understand how it formed and we don't understand how it gets its power. But that again is the exciting part of this if Uranus run over. On the right here is Uranus or Neptune. I'm pretty sure it's Uranus but I'm not actually sure. And what you see here and there are aurorae at the magnetic poles of the planet which is really exciting because the magnetic fields have a lot to do with the evolution of the planet. Think of it this way. Venus has no magnetic field. It's just one great big rock. Nothing much has happened on Earth's surface in 500 million years. The Earth has a strong magnetic field which is anchored to a spinning core and that core is releasing basically energy which causes convection to occur in the mantle of the Earth which then breaks up the plates across the top and gets us plate tectonics. This spectrograph on the web will allow us to take spectra of the atmospheres of planets and to find out what's in them. Now I didn't put it in here. That's the last slide. Sorry. The infrared spectrum is where we're going to find the first signs of biological life. There are no such elements or molecules seen in the planets in the solar system with the exception of the Earth where ethane and methane are chemicals that life produces mostly cows, digestive systems and cows are spewing out ethane and methane and because ethane and methane don't last long if you expose them to the light, they disappear. On the Earth we have this continuous source of fresh methane and ethane and if we can find that in other planets, if we can find that in other planets that's a really strong sign that life exists or something that's really unusual. You can't prove that methane comes from life but if it doesn't, we don't know where it comes from. The last slide is this one. What happens next? NASA is hard at work developing a 50-year future of telescope development. The next telescope to go up will be called the Nancy Webb Telescope and it's actually built, the mirror, it's a spare mirror left over from Hubble's construction. So a piece of Hubble will go into the Nancy Rubin telescope. But that telescope, thanks to better engineering, has designed in such a way, here's the biggest Hubble camera and the Nancy Rubin telescope will have the equivalent of 18 of these things all working simultaneously. So for the first time, we can study large patches of sky in a reasonable amount of time. Beyond that, we're only limited by budgets and imagination at this point. The Webb Telescope was such an amazing success that we're asking ourselves, beginning to ask ourselves what could we do with another one? What is the science that another Webb Telescope could do that Webb can't do? So that means looking in a different part of the spectrum and designing the telescope to work there. There are many, many of these things. The cost is always the limiting factor. As I said, when I was on the design team for the camera for Hubble, we kept running out of money. And so what we wanted to do was moderate it enormously by budgetary limitations. And so what NASA is doing is starting the design of four telescopes at the same time, to find out where the technical problems are and then putting their money on the most successful of those. It's a whole new way of moving forward and it's going to be very exciting. So that's everything I have to say. And I appreciate your patience, your great audience. And I got to say, Megan is a wonderful MC too. One thing you see right away, I'm sure you've all seen it, is that there's a smile on her face Okay, is there time for questions? Because I wear hearing aids, I'm asking Megan to hear so expansion of the universe, I got that much. If we know how much mass is in the universe, how do we know that if we can't see systems that are further than... Well, we can thank gravity for that. Gravity reveals both the mass that we can see, the ordinary mass that makes light, and dark matter. And as it turns out, the universe contains about five times more dark matter than it does ordinary matter. We discovered that because things in galaxies were orbiting too fast for the mass we thought they had. We counted up the mass in all the stars in the galaxy. We used Newton's old theory of gravity and we found that things going around the center were being pulled on by much more mass than we could see in the stars. And that's, there are now several independent ways to show that dark matter exists. So, gravity is the way we measure the mass of the universe. So, how do you expect the pictures that Webb will take in 20 years to be different from the ones it's taking today? That'd be different from... The ones that Webb is taking today. So, how will Webb's pictures evolve over the years? So, Webb operates in a part of the spectrum. We'll go a little closer. Thank you. Webb operates in a part of the spectrum. I mentioned this before that Hubble is blind to. And every time we find a way to detect light that isn't visible, like radio light, infrared light, ultraviolet light, gamma rays, x-rays, every time we do that, we discover a whole new universe. One that we normally, usually, haven't predicted. So, when we design new instruments to break open a part of the spectrum, we base the design criteria on what we know and those telescopes always show us what we didn't know. And that's really exciting. These photographs, the spectrum, that's not visible from the human eye. So, the color, how do you decide how to color? That's a good question. So, the question was, these photographs we're taking, they are not with light that's visible to the human eye. So, how do we decide how to color them? How do we decide how to color them? You know, this thing is kind of true for Hubble. All it can do is take black and white images, right? And what you end up with is a series of images in different filters, in different colors of light, and you go to Photoshop and you put your own color to see. It's that simple. Okay, other questions? Yeah? Oh, where was your paper published? What journal did you submit your paper to yesterday? Will it be published? Yeah. Well, first of all, if it's accepted, it will be published in the Astrophysical Journal, which is the big research journal of the American Astronomical Society. Is there a way to simplify how you found the sweet spot with the James Webb? A million miles out, find that area where it holds it perfectly. How was that determined? I'm sorry, which sweet spot? The James Webb, where you got to be on the right spot. How did you find that? Put it. Oh, well, we've known about that since... ...persistent bronze, a French mathematician back in the 1700s. As soon as we learned about gravity, it didn't take people long to realize that there's a point between two massive objects where things are in balance. But it's a delicate balance. It's like putting a marble on top of a steep mountain. I mean, one little push and that's the end of it.  There were 18 mirrors in Webb. It took us months and months to line them all up so that all 18 mirrors contributed to one image. And within a month, one of the mirrors was out of position for no apparent reason. And it turns out that a meteorite struck that mirror and pushed it a little bit. We pushed it back and everything was fine. It probably left a little divot behind, but it's so small that we can't see it. But this is the way... I mean, this is one way for Webb to meet its demise. Yeah. The big ones are really rare, really, really rich. One more question. So, he's wondering how good are adaptive optics on the ground compared to space objects? Oh, that's a wonderful question. So, adaptive optics is the following. The question was how good are adaptive optics on ground-based telescopes compared to space-based telescopes? So, Dick and these little photons are actually waves as they travel, right? And just as waves at the top of the swimming pool will cause the image to distort, if we're good, we can measure the distortion in the wave coming down. And then we can correct the mirror. We can push on the mirror here and there to straighten the wave front back out. So, that's the way adaptive optics works. And if we could make it work perfectly, there wouldn't be a reason to go to space anymore. But it never works perfectly. And there are other problems from observing from the ground, like heat and other things. But that's the big one. Good question. Okay, we can give another hand for Steve. Thank you. Great job. Thank you. Thank you. I will... Yeah, I'll give you. Thank you. Okay, so thank you guys so much for coming out to Astronomy on Talk Tonight. Let's give another big round of applause for both of our speakers.