So Dr. Giada Arney is a NASA postdoctoral program fellow at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and a member of the Virtual Planetary Laboratory. She recently received her PhD from the University of Washington where she worked on photochemical climate and spectral simulations of worlds and traveled by global haze decks. And so this is a really exciting thing about that she's having a chance to study is what these exoplanets are like. And her colleague is Dr. Eddie Schwedermann. He's a NASA postdoctoral program fellow, also with the NASA Astrobiology Institute, alternative Earth's team at the University of California, Riverside. He also received his PhD from the University of Washington, Seattle. And his research has included modeling the spectral appearance, climate and photochemistry of terrestrial exoplanets, which is of course what we're really, really looking for. So we wanna find those astrobiology, those biosignatures. And so Eddie and Giada are gonna share with us about their work to do that. And so please welcome Drs. Giada Arney and Eddie Schwedermann. Okay, hi everybody. So I'm gonna go ahead and share my screen. So Giada's just gonna load up the presentation and then we're gonna go, we're gonna kind of trade off a little bit as we go because we're giving this joint presentation and presenting little bits of aspects from both of our works and also a general overview. And so since Brian already gave us that great introduction, I think we can just move to the next slide and kind of outline what we're gonna talk about tonight. And so the first thing we're gonna do is sort of talk about the state of characterizing exo-Earth or planets we might expect could be habitable, could be like the Earth. Of course, a lot of it's a perspective investigation and Giada's gonna talk about missions and how we might observe Earth-sized planets orbiting other stars. Then I'm gonna talk about biosignatures. What is a biosignature? How might we recognize it on exoplanet? We're gonna talk then about the Earth through time. So the Earth has represented different states throughout its history. It would have looked quite different two billion years ago than it does today. And so all of those, we have evidence for that in a geochemical record. And all of those states are, of course, plausible states for Earth-like planets to exist in. So Giada's gonna talk about that. I'm gonna talk a little bit about potential false positives for life or how we might be fooled by abiotic processes that could generate what we might think are biosignatures in exoplanet atmospheres and how we could basically stop that before it happens and rule those scenarios out. And then finally, Giada and I are gonna talk about the case of Proximus and Tori B. And it's an incredible discovery. We're so looking forward to learning more about this planet. We don't know a lot about it now, but we do know, what we do know is it's the closest it could possibly be for an exoplanet in a Hubble zone around another star. And that's just amazing news. And so if you just move to the next slide here, this is why we're talking about it. Potentially habitable planets are being discovered. This is a great graphic produced by the Planetary Habibi Lab.  So this is a two scale representation of these planets. We know at most they're mass and radius. In some cases we only know they're radius or only they're mass. And so we have to guess at the other thing. But we're pretty sure that most of these have a rocky composition, likely a secondary outcast atmosphere. Maybe not, but they definitely orbit within a range of distances from their star in which if they had an appropriate atmosphere, they could maintain liquid water on their surface. And so now that we have this growing list of potentially habitable planets, we really have to start thinking about how we're gonna characterize them. And so now I'm just gonna drop it off to Jada who's gonna talk about what missions are coming up. Yeah, so we're in a really exciting time because not only do we know about these exoplanets now, we're actually starting to find small terrestrial size, so Earth-sized exoplanets, which are obviously really interesting when you wanna think about planetary habitability. But just around the corner are missions that are not just gonna be able to find these planets and give us really basic information about their properties. Like Eddie was saying, we know their masses, sometimes we know their radii, their distance from their stars, but that's it. And so when you're concerned about planetary characteristics and just really understanding these planets as unique worlds, we need more information. And so there's a couple of missions on the horizon. One that I wanna point out is JVST or the James Webb Space Telescope, which is a 6.5 meter diameter telescope that would mainly be able to take infrared observations. Now, the James Webb Space Telescope will be able to observe exoplanets as they cross in front of their stars. So as the planet, you know, as you have your star, the planet passes in front of the star and blocks out a little bit of that starlight and the James Webb Space Telescope could potentially measure features in the planet's atmosphere as it looks for absorption of the starlight that's being backlit behind the planet passing through the planet's atmosphere. But these are really hard observations for JVST to make because JVST was not designed for exoplanets. We hardly knew about exoplanets when we started building this telescope. And so at most, if we're lucky, we might be able to characterize one or two transiting so when it passes in front of the star Earth-sized planets with JVST. In the more distant future, there's a couple other missions, but the most exciting mission or group of missions to me is what on here is called New World's Telescopes. There's a lot of different concepts for this telescope. This is a telescope that has not yet really been, it's still in design. There's a couple of different competing designs through what this New World's Telescope could be. One of the designs is being worked on is something called HAB-X, which is the habitable exoplanet finder, I think it's called. This is a telescope that would be somewhere on the order of four to six meters, four to 6.5 meters in diameter, so potentially a little smaller than the James Webb Space Telescope. And it's mainly looking for signs of habitability on a few Earth-sized planets. But the mission that I get really excited about and the mission that's actually being worked at NASA Goddard, which is where I'm at now is one called Louvoir, which stands for the large UV optical infrared telescope because astronomers love acronyms. So this would be a really huge telescope, something like nine to 16 meters in diameter. And this telescope is designed to detect tens of Earth-sized planets in the habitable zones and search for signs of life. And both HAB-X and Louvoir would be looking at reflected light from these planets.  And in order to do that, you need advanced techniques such as things called coronography or star shades, which are occultures that would fly in front of the telescope. And these are challenges because we've never done coronography. We never had to block out something with a contrast ratio as extreme as it is between planets and stars. A Earth-sized planet is about 10 billion times dimmer than its star. And so there's a lot of photons from the star you have to block out in order to see the tiny planet. But fortunately, missions like Louvoir are quite big. So here's putting it into context. The left image on this slide, you can see the telescope had HDST or the High Definition Space Telescope. That's another name for Louvoir. You can see how much bigger it would be than JWST. And on the right side, you can see a simulated image of what an exosolar system, our solar system, might look like from a great distance using this telescope. And of course, the observing time with these things is going to be expensive, like literally expensive. These are expensive telescopes, but a mission like Louvoir is designed, potentially designed to be a long-lasting, serviceable telescope that might be operable for something like decades. All right. Great. So thanks, Jada, for that. And this is a segue. Since observing time is going to be so expensive, we really want to know how we're going to recognize a planet that's habitable. And if so, if it's inhabited. And of course, the sooner that we can recognize whether the planet's habitable or inhabited, the more we can spend the time on the interesting targets. Or if we could, for example, rule out the habitability of a planet, we could go to the next target. And so here's just an image from Cassini of Saturn. And then on the lower right there, you can see a pale blue dot that's Earth. And so this is just sort of to give you perspective that when we're going to be looking at exoplanets, we're not going to have any spatial information about the planet. We're just going to have a pixel of light that's going to be a certain color. But we can unfold the light spectrum from that planet and look at evidence that there's different gaseous molecules there or maybe evidence for different surface features. So if we can go to the next slide. I just wanted to get through some definitions here. I mentioned habitability and biosignatures. And what I mean by that, of course, is that they're different. Habitability means there's evidence that the planet can or does maintain surface liquid water. That's the definition of habitability that we have. And yes, there are cases where you can imagine some kind of like exo-europa or something. But those planets, whatever potential biosphere would be there, would be completely unobservable from interstellar distances. So we really take surface liquid water to be the determining factor. Biosignature is a positive indicator of life. So something that life is producing that you would expect to be produced by life. And anti biosignature is something that maybe shouldn't be there if life is present. Life would, for example, remove it if life was present. And then what I'm going to call a false positive indicator, and I'm going to get into that later, is evidence for a process that would abiotically generate something that you would otherwise think is a biosignature. So if you saw that a biosignature and the false positive indicator, that could mean that you don't actually have a real biosignature. So if we could go to the next slide. And so here are the requirements for planetary biosignatures. I said we're going to be looking at these planets across vast distances. So whatever evidence that life produces to change the composition of the plant's atmosphere or surface has to be observable over interstellar distances. That means it's probably global in extent, has to produce observable features. So if it's, for example, gas, like oxygen has to interact with light in such a way to create a stamp or a fingerprint that can be observable. It has to build up to detectable amounts and it has to be separable from abiotic processes. So that's important. So if you think of an application form for a biosignature, let's say it's methane, we're going to ask it a few questions. Are you produced by life? OK, yes. Methane is produced by life. Bacterium, cows, for example. OK, let's move on to the next question. Do you have experience with vibrorotational transitions? So this is just a fancy way of saying, can you interact with light? And methane, you can. OK, so now we'll move on to a tough question. Have you ever been mistaken for a geological process? And unfortunately, methane fails there. Methane is produced by many geological processes on Earth. It is a major constituent in the Moon Titan. We're pretty sure that there is no Earth-like biosphere on Titan. And some of those other abiotic processes include chemical interactions at hydrothermal vents. And so methane alone is present, of course, and also in all the giant planet atmospheres. It's not alone a very good biosignature. So if we go forward, so one approach we can take to this is called an Earth-based approach. And this just means that when we're thinking about biosignatures, we kind of look to the Earth for an example. And there's advantages to that. The Earth-based biosignatures automatically pass the first few tests. We know they're produced by life. We know they're detectable and can build up. We can use existing data and models of the Earth system to sort of explore what they look like. And we'll always have more information about our own planet than any exoplanet, because we have these ground truth values. We have so much richness here on the planet we live on. OK, so this is just an infographic I put forward about the different types of planetary biosignatures. And you can categorize them basically based on how they'd manifest themselves to an observer. And so I'd start with gashes biosignatures, which are, as the name suggests, compounds produced by life that can survive in the atmosphere and build up to detectable quantities. And so the big exemplar here is oxygen, which is produced by photosynthesis. So photosynthesis is a process that takes water on the surface and carbon dioxide in the air. It combines it with plentiful photons from the sun to generate biomass. Or this is a very simple empirical formula for carbohydrates there. And oxygen as a waste product. And that oxygen as a waste product in our atmosphere over many billions of years has built up to a detectable amount. And there's also byproduct of that oxygen, which is ozone, which is also potentially a detectable gas. It's OK, we can go to the next one. So if your atmosphere is somewhat clear, photons can interact with the surface and get reflected back. And so one example, and so if life is at the surface, it can interact with that light. And so one example of that is called the vegetation red edge or VRE. And it's basically this phenomenon that occurs when you look at the wavelength dependent reflectance of leaves. You notice the green bump that they're more reflective in green wavelengths and other wavelengths. But what you don't notice with your eyes is that they're very reflective in the infrared, just redder than your eyes can see. And this is actually something that's been used by Earth observing satellites to map forests and vegetation farmland on Earth. And conceivably, it could be used to find kind of exo-vegetation on an exoplanet if you had adequate data and if the surface coverage was significant enough. And then the last thing I'll talk about here is temporal biosignatures. And so you might think there's a gas that's not by itself a biosignature like carbon dioxide is produced by volcanoes. There's carbon dioxide, of course, to a lot of Mars planets that are not habitable. But there's a geochemical cycle on Earth that recycles that carbon dioxide. There's also an interaction with the biosphere. So in northern hemisphere, during the growing season, the biosphere is sucking up carbon dioxide and reducing it slightly in the atmosphere as biomass builds up.  Some of that CO2 is released and you end up with an increase in CO2. And so that modulation is actually observed on Earth. And if it was big enough and you could get it on exoplanet, that might also be a biosignature. And so this kind of analysis was done by the Galileo spacecraft on a gravity assist flyby in the early 90s. And Carl Sagan wrote this up in a nature paper. And many people have probably heard of this. But if you haven't read it, it's a real treat because he writes it as if he has never visited Earth. And we're going to it for the first time and we're looking for evidence that there's life there. And so the Galileo spacecraft trained its instruments on Earth and found evidence of oxygen, of methane, of nitrous oxide, which is laughing gas, all compounds produced by life and seem together, established something called chemical disequilibrium. And so if we just go to the next slide, chemical disequilibrium next slide is just the idea that you have two compounds or gases that should just react together immediately or soon within a short climb scale. And that's true of methane and oxygen. They should annihilate each other. But the fact that we see both in the atmosphere suggests there's an active source for both of them. So that's a strong biosignature on Earth. And oxygenic photosynthesis, just to mention this again, is a leading biosignature candidate. People talk about it all the time because it is the potential to most energetic metabolism on Earth. It only needs very simple ingredients, water, carbon dioxide, some trace nutrients, and light from the star. To, of course, I'm papering over a lot of complicated biochemistry that needs to evolve on that planet also and biochem and the geology that needs to occur on the planet for the oxygen to build up. But it is one of the primary things we're looking, we're gonna be looking for. Yeah. Okay, and then besides oxygen, there are other gases that we might look for. I've listed some here, sulfur compounds, methyl chloride, methylmercaptin, ethane. These are some biosignature gases that maybe some of them seen alone might not be quite evidence for life, but seen with other things might be evidence. And some alone would be very intriguing. And so this is just to say that there are many different gases besides oxygen we might look for. And if we go to the next slide, we can just see that this is just a graph that shows you the gases that are emitted to Earth's atmosphere with life, that's the left side, and without life on the right side. And you can see all these gases would have much different fluxes in the atmosphere without a biosphere present. Of course, this doesn't include the actual absorption features of all of these gases and that creates some complications, but we wouldn't expect an exoplanet with a biosphere to necessarily be exactly like the Earth. So we've got to keep an open mind for all these other gases too. And then finally, you can kind of look at habitability markers in the same way. You might tell whether the planet is habitable. The fact that you don't find a biosignature doesn't necessarily mean it's not inhabited, that there's no life, but it might mean just mean that you got unlucky. And, but we certainly would like to know if the planet is habitable, we'd want to look for water vapor in the atmosphere. We'd want to look for nitrogen and carbon dioxide that show there could be a sufficient greenhouse gas, greenhouse effect. SO2 could be an indicator of volcanism. Surface features could tell us directly there's liquid water if we can observe the glint effect from the ocean. Surface heterogeneity implies continents and oceans and that could be very intriguing. We want there to be clouds and if there are variable clouds, that's great. And so, and so here is a model, but this is a pretty well-validated spectrum of the Earth from the visible all the way through the middle thermal infrared. And so you can see here, again, this is the brightness of the planet as a function of wavelength. Okay, and so the blue in the blue square is the reflected light and in the red square is the emitted light, the Earth is emitted because it's hot. It has a temperature and you can see that there are signatures from ozone. That's O3 and oxygen O2. There's that lambda to the negative four is Rayleigh scattering effect. That's why we have a blue sky and also why the Earth is blue from a distance as I showed you in that Cassini photo. And we can see evidence of both CO2 and methane as well. Okay, so I'm going to turn it over to Jada now. All right, so obviously the sort of holy grail for exoplanet science is we want to find Earth-like planets. But I think when we think about Earth-like planets, it's an interesting notion because a lot of the time when we talk about finding Earth-like planets, we're talking about finding planets like modern-day Earth, right? We want to find planets that have Earth-like atmospheres with oxygen and nitrogen and trace amounts of methane and CO2 in them just like modern-day Earth. But Earth through time, what you're seeing here, so this is a sort of pie chart that shows the different epochs of Earth's history has looked very, very different compared to modern-day Earth. So you can see the box at the top, right? Like that's now, that's humans. And if we go back into the past, say to the protozoic, there were no large macroscopic life forms on our planet through the protozoic. So that's a huge chunk of Earth's history. And then if we go even farther back into the Archaean which ended at about 2.5 billion years ago in the Archaean, as well as in the Hadean, there was very, very little oxygen in our planet's atmosphere. And as Eddie was just telling you, oxygen is sort of this canonical biosignature that we're searching for. But oxygen didn't even start to build up in our atmosphere to detectable quantities until about 2.5 billion years ago at the start of the protozoic during something called the Great Oxygenation event. So when we think about what an Earth-like planet the spectrum looks like, and we think about modern-day Earth, if we rewind the clock and go back through time, Earth is gonna look very, very different in these different epochs. And so this slide is just to sort of illustrate different sort of cartoon images of the Earth through time. And what I've seen a lot of my time-during research on and a big part of my PhD dissertation involved looking at Archaean Earth, which was again sort of that pink part of the pie chart. So between about 3.8 and 2.5 billion years ago, Archaean Earth would have been a very different world compared to modern-day Earth. It would have had a lot fewer continents compared to modern-day Earth. And a big thing in the atmosphere is that, like I said, it would have had an anoxic atmosphere because even though there was oxygenic photosynthesis operating during the Archaean, the oxygen in the atmosphere hadn't yet built up to large quantities. So there were many orders of magnitude less oxygen in the Archaean compared to modern-day Earth. And because oxygen and methane react together and they wanna destroy each other, an interesting thing about the Archaean is because you don't have the oxygen in it, you could have orders in magnitude more methane in that planet's atmosphere than you could in the modern-day atmosphere. So methane and Archaean Earth's atmosphere would be a lot more detectable compared to the modern-day atmosphere. And an interesting thing about methane-rich atmospheres is that if you had a ratio in the atmosphere of methane to CO2 greater than about 0.1 or 0.2, which is a lot more methane than we have today, you can actually trigger the formation of a global organic haze similar to the haze that's in Titan's atmosphere. An analogy I like to use for what this haze is qualitatively like is put a chemical smog. So if you've ever been to LA or any other large cities on a day where there's not a lot of atmosphere circulation, you probably have seen smog, sitting low on the horizon, close to the cities. So imagine this smog lofted tens of kilometers up in the atmosphere and enshrouding the whole planet and it would be a sort of orange color. And this is what Earth may have looked like for some periods in the Archaean. The entire Archaean would not have been hazy, but we do have geochemical evidence suggesting that this haze existed at some times in the Archaean. So here's a picture of hazy early Earth next to Saturn's mean Titan, which has a similar organic haze in its atmosphere. Now, as I was mentioning, methane is interesting, but it's also really slippery to deal with because methane can be produced by both biological and geological processes. So the biological process that produces most of the methane in Earth's atmosphere is called methanogenesis. Now, methanogenesis is a really simple metabolism. It uses really simple stuff like H2 and CO2. It's a metabolism that evolved really, really early on. We have evidence of it in the geochemical record dating back to about 3.5 billion years ago, and it likely evolved earlier than that. So it's possible that similar simple methane producing metabolisms could evolve on Earth-like exoplanets. But of course, methane can also be produced by geological processes, as Eddie mentioned. And the dominant geological process that produces methane on Earth is something called serpentinization, which occurs at the seafloor, and it's when water hydrates certain types of rocks at the seafloor, and one of the byproducts of the chemical reaction that occurs is the release of methane. And so serpentinization is itself interesting because it's a process that requires liquid water, which is a sign of habitability on a planet. And so because the dominant sources of methane on Earth-like planets are either life or the serpentinization process that needs liquid water, I think methane is a really interesting gas to detect because it signals some really interesting things that could be going on on that planet. So we're looking for these paleboudocs right now.  You might get really excited because you may think, oh, this is a planet like the one I live on. This is an Earth-like planet. But what if it looks like something else? What if it's a pale orange dot? Like what if it's an Archean Earth analog planet with a haze in its atmosphere? Would we be able to recognize that planet as quote-unquote Earth-like and correctly deduce that it might have habitable conditions and possibly life on it? So I've thought a lot about this question, doing a lot of modeling with different climate and photochemical models to generate atmospheric states for hazy early Earth. And I've generated also a spectra of what the remote observables of hazy early Earth would look like.  Okay, so here are these reflecting spectra of Earth with three different haze thicknesses in its atmosphere. So the black spectrum that you see here is a planet with no haze in the atmosphere and this is an Archean spectrum. So it lacks oxygen and ozone that our modern day spectrum has and it has a lot more methane in CO2. The blue spectrum is a spectrum with a thin haze, what I call a thin haze in it.  And I've also labeled some gaseous absorption features. So you can see where methane and water vapor absorb in this spectrum. You can see there's a lot of methane observing in the spectrum. And a thing to notice, right, is there's a huge qualitative morphological difference between the spectrum with no gase and the spectrum especially with the thick haze. And that's because the haze absorbs this blue light very, very readily. So these short wavelengths, these blue and UV wavelengths, you can see that the reflectivity on the y-axis for these hazy planets is really, really down for the thick haze planet because the haze is such a good blue and UV absorber. This blue absorbing propensity of these haze particles is the reason why Titan is orange and the reason why early Earth, if it had a haze in its atmosphere, it would also be orange. And a cool thing about this feature, right, you can see it's a really, really strong broad feature here is that it's even stronger than the spectral features for methane itself. And so it's potentially an indirect way of detecting methane in a planet's atmosphere if you don't have access to the methane spectral bands themselves. So this is the kind of spectrum that say, luvoir or habex might be able to collect. So if you can directly image an exoplanet and detect its reflected light, but with something like the James Webb Space Telescope, you're actually gonna be observing the planet in transit transmission when it passes in front of the star. So between you and the star and the telescope could be directly in the middle of it. And the starlight would be passing through the edges of the planet. So the planet would be backward by the star. So what I'm showing you here are some transit transmission spectra. The y-axis here is showing you the altitude that the light from the star can get down to into these planets atmospheres before it's absorbed. So notice how at the shorter wavelengths for the thick case spectrum, for example, if you look at say 0.4 microns, that the light can only get to about 80 kilometers into the planet's atmosphere above the planet's surface. Whereas in the no-haze spectrum, the light can get much, much deeper down into the atmosphere, somewhere around say 30 kilometers at 0.4 microns. And you've got this very strong spectral slope in the thick case spectrum, where you can see much more shallowly into the atmosphere at short wavelengths compared to longer wavelengths where you can see deeper into the atmosphere. So this slope is a characteristic of these organic cases. And so if we see similar exoplanets that have these very sloped transit transmission spectra where their planet is much more opaque at shorter wavelengths compared to longer wavelengths, because again, these organic cases are much more absorptive at the short UV and the blue wavelengths compared to longer wavelengths where they're much more transparent so light can penetrate deeper down, that would be a strong indicator that you have an organic case in the atmosphere as well as if you saw these methane bands. So you can see here these methane absorption features in these spectra, which are these bumps you see in the spectrum. And the reason why they appear as bumps here is because when you have an opaque molecule in the planet's atmosphere, you're not gonna see as deeply into the planet's atmosphere. If you look at it at a wavelength where methane absorbs, you might say no one will see down to 40 kilometers versus if you look at the place where the methane is not absorbing, you might see much more deeply. So that's why the absorption features are bumps here. And so with the James Webb Space Telescope, we can actually go out to even much more even longer wavelengths. So before I was showing you out to 1.6 microns, which is in the near infrared, but the James Webb Space Telescope is designed to study infrared astronomy. So it could go out to potentially much longer wavelengths. Now, the problem with getting to these much longer wavelengths is that the star itself gets much, much dimmer at these longer wavelengths. And so your sizzle of noise drops off very, very steeply as you push farther and farther into the infrared. In practice, you probably couldn't take observations of exoplanets at wavelengths longer than 10 microns. But I do wanna point out that this, there's a feature at about six microns that you can see labeled their haze. So that is an absorption feature that you see is that bump in the orange spectrum compared to the other two spectra. And that feature is due to the haze itself. And so this would be potentially another way of directing organic haze in a planet's atmosphere. Now, organic haze, again, it's interesting because methane itself is interesting. Methane can signal these fascinating processes like biological processes and also the serpentinization, this process that needs liquid water in order to produce methane from geology. And so how on earth would we figure out what's going on in these planets? So this complicated counter plot, I promise it's not that complicated, is showing how we might start to disentangle what's going on if we see an organic haze in a planet's atmosphere. So the color bar is showing you sort of optical depth of the haze. So how thick is the haze? How much is it actually affecting your spectrum? The Y axis is the amount of CO2 in the planet's atmosphere. The more CO2 you have in general, the more difficult it is to form a haze. And the more methane you need to form that haze. And the X axis is the flux of methane at the planet's surface that's going into the atmosphere. And then the solid line with the zeros is where you have an optical depth of unity. So this is a log plot, so log zero is one. So that's where you have an optically thick haze. Now, in the Archean, we think the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was somewhere in the range of this box. And what we find is that for Archean-like CO2 levels, you need methane flux rates on the order of about somewhere around 10 to 11-ish molecules per centimeter squared per second being produced at the surface in order to have enough methane in that planet's atmosphere to form a thick haze that's going to strongly impact your planet's spectrum. And this is actually really interesting because for these thick hazes, this is consistent with the production of methane by biology on Earth. And so if you saw a thick haze and simultaneously we're able to measure the amount of CO2 in a planet's atmosphere, you could argue that you need a methane production rate that's at least consistent with known biological methane production rates on Earth. And it's higher than known abiotic methane production rates on Earth. So on Earth today, the production rate of methane from abiotic processes, like surpritinization, is one to two orders of magnitude lower than the biological production rate. Now, of course, this isn't a smoking gun because on an exoplanet, we don't know what the abiotic production rate is. And of course, we also don't know what the biological production rate is. But again, at least we could say that using these sort of photochemical, geochemical constraints that we infer from what our own planet does that organicase in the presence of high CO2 could indicate methane production rates that are consistent with biology, even if we can't say it's biology for sure. And then we'd start to stare at the planet harder to try to see other signs of habitability. Like, does it have water? Does it have other biosignatures? Does it have these sort of temporal and surface biosignatures that Eddie was mentioning earlier? And that could start to sort of nail down the question of what exactly we're looking at. And again, these cases are cool because they have such a strong, really great detectable spectral feature. So back to Eddie now. Okay, thanks. And I might move through this section just a little bit quickly because we're running low on time. But I'm gonna talk about pulse positives for life. So how we might be fooled by what we might think are biosignatures, but in reality, are results of abiotic processes. So if we go to the next slide, sort of the conclusion at the beginning of this, at the beginning of the millennium, was that there are only a very narrow set of circumstances where you could produce oxygen, which again is a very interesting biosignature because it's produced by a synthesis. That this range of commissions is very narrow and that primarily would occur in regions outside of the solar system. It might occur inside the inner edge because you're so hot, you're evaporating all your water and your water goes into your upper atmosphere and the hydrogen is cleaved off that water by UV radiation and escapes, potentially leaves that oxygen behind. And so when the first papers about the runway greenhouse came out, and they sort of talked about this possibility why it didn't happen on Venus and if Venus potentially had more water, it could have had an oxygen atmosphere. And then there have been papers on the outer edge of the habitable zone and how if you had a ice covered surface, you can't react your photochemical products. So again, cleaving oxygen off of CO2 or water, you couldn't react that with the surface as it happens on Mars where the oxygen that's liberated from those reactions gets combined with the surface, which is why it's rusty. But if you were prevented from doing that, you might build up some oxygen in the atmosphere. So if we go to the next slide, but recently there have been many more potential difficulties here because there have been all these other proposals for how this might happen inside the habitable zone. And so if we just go to the next slide and talk about specifically, CO2 from CO2-photosis, which is probably one of the most easy of these mechanisms to understand. And if we go to the next slide. So this is just saying, if you can just click, yeah. So we're just highlighting this reaction here. CO2 plus a photon as H new goes to CO plus O cleaving an oxygen off of a CO2 molecule. And those oxygen atoms can recombine into a oxygen molecule. Now this process is strongly disfavored on the earth. And in fact, most of almost all of our oxygens from CO2 synthesis, this process is very ineffective. But if we just look at some spectra for different stars and advance here, we can see that different stars have different UV spectra. And so then they drive this reaction in different ways. And so while this is true, while it's true that this reaction and this process for building up oxygen is strongly disfavored on a planet around a sunlight star, it's actually more favored on planets or bring different kinds of stars. So if we go to the next slide, this is just sort of showing the strength of the UV ozone band, the Hartley Hurley bands on the left side there. The left upper corner is reflected light as Jada kind of illustrated different reflected light and transmitted light. So the upper left is ozone and reflected light. The bottom left is ozone and transmitted light. The upper right is oxygen in reflected light and then the bottom right is oxygen and transmitted light. And you can see the strength of these features. So this is all assuming, this is using a photochemical model and assuming that no biotic process is going on, just the photochemical reactions in the atmosphere assuming different spectral types that you'd end up with potentially detectable amounts of oxygen for certain types of stars. And so that's a good thing to know. We go next. But there's gonna be what's what I called before a false positive indicator here in the sense that while you're cleaving off these oxygen atoms from your CO2 molecule and then those later can become oxygen molecules, you're also generating a lot of CO and that CO could potentially be detectable. So on the left hand side here is just a simulated spectrum of this process happening. So it's self consistent with the photochemical model. And then we've pretended that JWST is observing this planet transiting another star where this process is favored and we're calculating what it might see. And so you can see that both the CO2, if we advance here, the CO2 is visible and then if we advance again we can see that the CO also produces bands. Now this is actually more observable than the oxygen itself. So if you saw this for a planet it might tell you that this is a planet where an abiotic process is going on. It's generating potentially abiotic oxygen. So you shouldn't be fooled by that if we go advance here. So there are other methods for doing that. One is if we advance again, just this concept that if you lack a substantial enough atmosphere you're not gonna cold trap your water like earth waters cold traps. So most of our water cleans close to the surface. It doesn't go all the way up into the atmosphere because there's enough other air around that makes that process disfavored. And so but if you remove a substantial amount of nitrogen for example from our atmosphere and if we didn't have oxygen from photosynthesis then you could potentially put your water into the upper atmosphere and have the same UV reaction happen where you cleave off oxygen from water and potentially generate oxygen. That would generate itself enough to self limit. Again, cold trap the water. So that's an equilibrium state where you have almost as much oxygen as we do on earth abiotically. But again, the way that if we advance the way to rule this out is to detect directly to tech nitrogen. And so we've kind of demonstrated that for the earth at least we can detect nitrogen in our spectrum and in the spectrum. And it would be enough to rule this process out. And if we go forward again the final thing is a little bit more complicated to understand, but it's this fact that for stars that are significantly dimmer than our sun they have a very bright pre-main sequence phase. And so they're much brighter as the planets are forming and that means that they're much more liable to lose their atmospheres, including the hydrogen that would have been part of the water. And so if we go forward, for M stars especially this is a big problem. They could lose a lot of water in the beginning of their history. That also leaves behind a lot of oxygen. Now that oxygen could react with the surface or it could build up in the atmosphere. Now if that happened, if we advance the question is just distinguishing a lot of oxygen some oxygen from a lot of oxygen and the whole history of the planet earth we've had at most 0.3 bars of oxygen. And this graph sort of shows that if we go forward again there are signs of what are called O4 bands which are when two oxygen molecules combine or collide they generate an observable signature. And so we could look for that. That would show that there was a massive oxygen atmosphere that's too massive to just be from photosynthetic life. So if we go forward, this is just again an example of what JWST would see in that circumstance if you had a very high massive oxygen atmosphere and you looked at it in transmission you would see these O4 bands come up and that's a very big counter indicator for photosynthetic life. And if we go forward again we can also see this in reflected light. The black spectrum is sort of an earth-like atmosphere and then the other bands are more massive atmospheres. And so wanted to get a little bit in on Proxima Centauri so we can go forward. And so, okay, so this one just to say that there are things to look for that would rule out these false positives. And if we could find them or rule them in or rule them out and if we could find them then we could be much more confident about our designation that the oxygen came from biology. So if we go forward we can talk about Proxima for a bit. All right. So we've probably heard of Proxima Centauri B it was announced in August and it is an earth-sized planet in the habitable zone of the closest star. So what a jackpot. Super exciting. It was discovered with the radiovelocity method. So you're measuring the Doppler shift of the light from the star as a star wobbles from the planet circling around it and giving the star a little tiny tugs. And so this method allows you to measure the planet's mass and also its distance from the star. And you know, again, that's about it. We know very little about this planet. But you know, just because it's in the habitable zone and just because it could be habitable you know, it doesn't mean it actually is. We don't have the knowledge yet to be able to say what exactly Proxima Centauri B is. But what we can start to do is think about whether or not we can actually discriminate between different atmospheric states. This planet could be a lot of different types of things. So we need to start anticipating what the spectral observables of those states are so that we can start to build the instrumentation and data reduction pipelines that we need in order to characterize this thing in the future. Okay, so one possibility is just like I described. Proxima is a very late type star. It's an M type star and it was much brighter in its early history than it is now. And so that means that Proxima Centauri probably lost a lot of water. And if it did, then it has this capacity to potentially, according to recent studies build up oxygen. So if we just advance, as I sort of showed before, this would produce observable signatures that would let us know that that oxygen could not have been from biology and was a primordial from this early history of the star. And so that's the main point of this slide. Okay, so what if it's like early Earth for the haze or perhaps without a haze? So I ran our photochemical climate model to simulate our Kean type atmospheres, both without a haze and with a haze. And not all stars are able to form a haze. However, Proxima Centauri does have the right amount of UV radiation to form a haze. And so if there's a haze on this planet, we'll be able to see it because it'll produce a whopping big spectral signature. And if it's like modern Earth, there are some complications and actually exciting aspects of this. So the fluxes into the atmosphere from biology is one part of the equation, but also how those gases, what their lifetimes are and what their abundances are is dependent on the incident spectrum. So we found when modeling photochemically an Earth-like atmosphere is that you would actually have a lot of buildup of methane, which is really good news because you would have both detectable oxygen and detectable methane. So methane is strongly favored to build up on Proxima Centauri if it had sort of an Earth-like atmosphere to begin with. So if we advance the slide, you can just see how clear this is. So the only difference here is the, so one set of lines is the spectrum of the Earth Sun and one is Earth Proxima. And you can see these big differences due to different methane bands. And so we assume the same flux of methane into the atmosphere, the photochemical lifetimes are just very, very different and that allows for methane to potentially build up to really high quantities in Proxima. All right, so we want to actually figure out how observable is this thing going to be with future instrumentation. What you're looking at on the slide is a modern-day Earth and a lot of planet orbiting Proxima Centauri. And of course, that's what we would love for it to be as observed by a lukewarm simulator. The solid colored lines you see are IWAs or inner working angles. And they are different, so the choreography that is used to nullify the starlight, to block out the starlight has a wavelength-dependent behavior and its ability to block out the starlight sort of falls off a cliff at what's called the inner working angle after which you see the star again and you can't see the planet again because it's totally outshined by the star. And so these are sort of wavelength cutoffs for how good the IWA could be. We don't know what the IWA is gonna be for any future instrumentation, so these are just different assumptions of what it could be. Ideally, you'd want something like the green line that would be the best because that'd give you the biggest spectrum and the most spectral information, but it could be something like the red line which would cut you off at like one micron which would give you a lot less information. You'd see a lot fewer, say, methane bands. You wouldn't be able to see CO2 anymore. And also notice that you actually get pretty good signal to noise. So these are error bars on the box and notice how the errors are pretty small in the near infrared just because Proxima's send emits most of its light in the near infrared, because it's quite a red star, but even in the visible region, there are larger error bars. Havax is a smaller telescope and IWAs for smaller telescopes are a lot smaller. So unfortunately, Havax would have a much more difficult time characterizing this. The best case scenario for a smaller telescope like Havax is that it might be able to get out to a little bit beyond 1.1 microns. So here in Louvre, you can see it gets out to something like almost three microns with the most optimistic IWA. So you're losing a lot of information and more realistically, we'd probably be dealing with an IWA of something like two lambda over D, which is the blue line, which you can see really does not get you much information. You can see Rayleigh scattering, but that's about it sadly. Do you want to do this one, Eddie? Well, I kind of want to just leave these up so that we can talk about questions, but this is just a cool plot put together by one of our colleagues that shows the color of the planet orbiting Proxima Centauri if it had an Earth-like atmosphere. So you're combining the red light from Proxima with sort of the blue Rayleigh scattering from Earth and you get sort of a purple lavender color. And then if you had a hazy arcane Earth, you'd just color it pink. So I think this is a great time for questions. So maybe I can just answer the first one. So I'll answer the have there been any studies of what non-carbon based life forms might be look like and what its biosignatures might look like. And so that's an intriguing question. The thing is we don't actually even know what non-carbon based life forms, what their biochemistry is even like. And so if we don't know what their biochemistry is like, we don't necessarily know what gases they put in the atmosphere and therefore what we should look for in the exoplanet atmosphere. I will say that there have been studies in what life would look like on Titan and there's been some progress in thinking about what a membrane would look like to exist in that cold liquid hydrocarbon solvent. It's called an azosome and it's made artificially in the lab. And so there's a little bit of progress there, but we're kind of looking at this earth based strategy right now just because that's what we know best. All right, it looks like there's another question or comment it looks like that Mars is also orange without haze and yeah, it is because iron oxide is another strongly blue absorbing thing. In fact, iron oxide is so you can almost sort of think of it as a false positive for haze because it has a similar spectral behavior. The difference there is Mars's atmosphere is a lot less reducing than a methane rich atmosphere would be. So when we're dealing with these exoplanets, we need a lot of spectral contextual information to figure out what we're looking at. So ideally what you wanna see is that haze signature that blue UV absorption combined with methane bands. And that would really clue you went on the fact that you're actually looking at haze and you're not looking at something else like iron oxide absorption. Yeah, it looks like we've got a question coming in. They couldn't quite get to the Q and A. It looks like Michalos would like to know a little bit more about the background spectrum and how it can be subtracted to study the signal. Could you get a little more information about that question? I think it's about how you're isolating the spectrum from the planet from the star, which is much brighter. And so maybe a little bit more about the techniques to isolate the starlight. Yeah, so I think you might be asking about how are we going to see the tiny little firefly next to the giant floodlight? That is the star, where the firefly is the planet. We're working on that. We don't have the technology yet that can do that, but there's two different techniques that are being studied. One is a coronagraph. The coronagraph is an internal occultor that lives inside the telescope.  So it's designed to block out the light that would be hitting the center of the aperture. So you position the telescope such as the star's light hits the center of the aperture and you put some sort of mask there. This is difficult. We don't yet have coronagraphs that can perform at the level of precision that you need to remove all the photons from the star, except one in every 10 billion that you need to see the planet. But there is a lot of people actively working on this problem right now. And then the second one is a star shade, which is an external occultor. So this would be something that would fly outside of the telescope and it would position itself between the star and the telescope at a pretty large distance. I don't want to make up a number, but like thousands of kilometers or more, distance from the telescope. And this is something that, again, blocks out the starlight. So it would hide the field of view from the center. So you block out the starlight that way. Okay, great. Well, it looks like we have time for, we have one last question that came in. And this is an interesting question, as Jeff asked, will good candidates with reasonable biosignatures for habitability be sent radio hello messages? So we can say hello to the potential biosignatures. Yeah, okay, I'll answer that. So we've been focusing on biosignatures, sort of the agrobial biosignatures. So how life interacts with the atmosphere. And we kind of look at sort of setting signals as technosignatures. And one of the reasons that we're kind of separated that, it's not that we don't think setting is a bad idea. We think it's a great idea. It's just a very different set of expertise needed to characterize an exoplanet atmosphere versus a detector radio signal from an ETI civilization. I will say this, if we look at that history of life on Earth plot that Jada had up earlier, I don't know if she can go back to it. Basically, the history of life on Earth is four and a half billion years. And for a substantial amount of that time, microbial life was interacting with the atmosphere and potentially generating an observable signature in the atmosphere. And only like 0.00000001% of the time was there a communicable civilization generating radio signals. So my opinion is that ETI is a microbe and it's trying to contact us through it through the changes it makes to its planet's atmosphere. All right. Well, it looks like we're right at the top of the hour, about a minute past. And so Jada would like to go ahead and stop sharing your screen. And so then we can wrap the ball. Thank you very much. This is really fascinating, this whole idea about being able to figure out how the atmospheres are like of all these exoplanets. It's very exciting. I think it's great. So basically that's gonna be it for tonight. You'll be able to find this webinar along with many others on the Night Sky Network under the outreach resources section just for the webinar. You'll post tonight's presentation on the Night Sky Network YouTube page by the end of the week, where you can also find some other videos from past webinars as well.


Would you rather pay $650 or $66 for a smartphone? Simple. With the Appalachian Advantage Plan, pay less upfront and then just a few dollars more every month. Better service, bigger savings. That's today's Appalachian Wireless. On Friday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report about vaping-related lung illnesses and officials at the Pine County Health Department are wasting no time in getting that info out to the community. We want to share the information. Anytime we get information from the state and the CDC, we want to get it out to the public as soon as possible. And the Department for Public Health is doing the investigation with the CDC. Other states are involved too. The symptoms, shortness of breath, cough, fatigue, actually other symptoms have been reported, fever in some cases. Right now there is no known cause for the illness, but all of the cases do have a history of e-cigarette use. Officials with the CDC noted that no infectious causes have been identified in the nearly 500 reported cases nationwide, saying the lung illnesses are likely associated with a chemical exposure. Cindy Hamilton with the Pike County Health Department says they are especially concerned with the amount of young people using e-cigarettes. We have a health educator in the schools. She's doing education on tobacco use in general, e-cigarettes, vaping. She's also doing opioid education. Vaping and e-cigarette use by the young adults, the numbers are unbelievable. Some people think that it's okay to use those as a method. It's better than cigarettes. It's something you could use to quit smoking, but they've not been around for that long and you just don't know what is in them. They're not approved by the FDA for a method to quit smoking. So even for adults, it's not something that I would recommend. Anyone interested in quitting smoking, contact us. Whether you're using cigarettes or e-cigarettes, it doesn't matter. Contact us. And we have the smoking cessation classes. At the time of this report, there have been no deaths attributed to vaping in Kentucky, but there is one case of severe respiratory illness being investigated. That number is expected to rise.


So today we're running on the GR130. It has a lot of these hiking routes and a few weeks ago I did the volcanic trail, the GR131 which is part of the Trans-Vulcania race. You can check out the video here and today we're doing the 130-path. Well, part of it anyway. It actually goes around the whole island. I'm gonna take it pretty easy. This is my fourth day in a row running. I've done 35 kilometers in the last three days. With this it will be 50 kilometers in four days when I finish this run. So that's pretty, that's a lot for me. So I'm gonna be careful. Just take it easy. Just getting those, getting those hours and that pounding on the legs. Today's run, well, right now it's going up. But most of it is on the downhill. So we're gonna be heading down for most of the run. So it's gonna be tough on the legs. So again, I'm just gonna keep that pace really easy. And just enjoy it. As usual I have my Bospry Rev 6 backpack when I'm going on long runs. The reservoir has about 1.3 liters of water with about 150 grams of sugar. Anyway, let's get back to running. Seems like we're on top of this hill now. The clouds are coming. Coming by. Let's go. Thanks for watching. I'm gonna put away the gimbal because I really wanna just meditate. I just wanna get into this environment, get into this run. And sometimes, well, always when you're holding a camera it's sort of distracted, right? Love sharing it with you guys though. Leave your comments down below what you think about this run. Do you like this kind of video? Hope your day is going well. Please subscribe, of course, if you haven't done so already. Check out my other running vlogs. And guys, be sure to check out my Instagram account as well where I post almost daily. The link is in the description. I'm gonna get back to my run and just like flow ahead. Flow state. That's what I'm seeking. That flow state where everything is just flowing and you're just in the zone, you know what I mean? So I need to get in the zone. I need to put away the camera. Thanks for watching. See you around.


On behalf of regional student education, I once again welcome you to our wonderful campus. Before we start, I would like to give an introduction about what we are over here. I am Anugraha Kurian. I am from Hyderabad and I am a fourth year BA student over here. I am Snehali. I am in third year BA BA. I am from Bangalore. I am Veda Vyasa. I am in second year BSc BA. I am from Anantapur district, Andhra Pradesh. So, let's begin our question and answer session. Yes, ma'am. First of all, Namaskaras to you, Sadhguru. Sadhguru, I have worked very much hard to secure the first rank in common entrance examination and placed me here. But my brother says me that it's my destiny that has put me up here. Is it really my destiny or my hard work that placed me here? Where's your brother placed, huh? See, what people are generally calling as destiny is essentially what they end up creating unconsciously. When I say unconsciously, as you sit here right now, as everybody sits here right now, there is physical activity going on within the system. There is mental process. There is emotional activity. And of course, the life energies are active. Every moment they are taking in hundreds of inputs whether you're conscious or not conscious. So if I ask you a question, since this morning from the time you woke up till now of these four dimensions of activity, how much have you conducted consciously? What percentage do you think? Few things. How much percentage do you think? Twenty-five percent. You're a very generous man. It's well below one percent. If you walk from there to there, there will be twenty-five different kind of smells that you're not conscious of that the body registers and records. There are hundred different kinds of sounds that the body registers that you're not conscious of like this throughout the day and night. In wakefulness and sleep, this is happening. When you're only conscious of less than one percent of your activity, definitely life will look like an accident. Hello? When ninety-nine percent of the things that you're doing, you're doing unconsciously, definitely life will look accidental. If the accident...  After that, suddenly they started working their mathematics in a wonderful way. But that was only one. A thousand other people who cracked their skull never recovered from that or they died. Or those who lived on, lived on much diminished. So being accidentally fortunate is not the way to exist. So whenever a pleasant accident happens, we say it's destiny. Some of you even say, God doing things to me. When did you make a partnership with him? I don't know. So shall I tell you a story? Are you okay? This happened. Sherlock Holmes, you know Sherlock Holmes? And Watson went out camping. And early morning, three thirty a.m., Sherlock Holmes nudged Watson. He opened his eyes, what? What do you see? He asked. Well, I see a clear sky and stars. What does it mean to you? He said, well, that means tomorrow is going to be a wonderful sunny day. Then he asked, what does it mean to you? He said, it means someone has stolen our tent. So we don't know what went missing and something may fall here and there by chance. But that's not the way life works. If a human being doesn't take it upon himself or herself to make their own destiny, well, they should have... they're still having an evolutionary problem. That is, they're still not yet fully there because being human means this that we can conduct our life consciously. Being human means this that we can craft our life the way we want. But this destiny business is a good insurance to handle your failure. Whenever you fail destiny, it's God's will. So this has been going on for a long time. This is not the fundamental nature of this culture.  Did we tell you or no? Nobody told you there is a God up there who will do things to you.  This means your life is your making. No interstellar influence on you. It's you. Whatever, there are a million impacts on us. But what we make out of it is still us, isn't it? What is thrown at us is not in our hands. What comes our way is not in our hands. But what we make out of it is 100% in our hands. I must tell you this. When I first went to Coimbatore and we started setting up the Yoga Center, this is a country like this, this is very strange. Now they're all clapping their hands.  Rumors going around, even media reporting this kind of things. Then, hundred prominent people in the town meet and then they say, this yoga is spreading like a disease. These are the words. We have to do something. There some young hothead says, let's take a truckload of people and pull down the whole thing because the whole Yoga Center at that time was just thatch roof sheds. So they decided they want to come there and pull down the whole thing and be finished. Today it is among the most prominent places in the country, okay? So when they said this, there was a old man who is no more, a wise man, he said, see you don't know who you're dealing with. I know this man. If you throw stones at him, he will build something out of those stones. Don't throw stones at this man. So, what comes at you, you cannot decide. But what you make out of it is your thing, isn't it? This is where your dintis. This is where you are to prove who you are because you can't decide what comes at you. But you can definitely decide what you make out of whatever comes at you. Satguru, all through school and college, we are taught to give importance to our self, self-love, self-confidence, self-esteem. What is a self-love? What's happening in your school? In society, I mean in general. They teach us to give importance to our self to such an extent that we no longer know how to be humble. So can you please tell us how we can become humble again? See, there is no need to be humble. Or there is a need to be arrogant. Now that you're asking me this question, let me tell you. My daughter travelled with me, alone with me in the car. When she was three-and-a-half months old, I drove all over the country with this little baby in the car. So she grew up in many people's homes. I made one rule because everybody, this is a problem with adults. When they see a child, they pounce on them like predatory animals. They want to teach something. It is such a... Everybody wants to teach one, two, three, four or ABCD or Mary had a little lamb. I said, see, I don't want her to know ABC one, two, three. Not do I care whether Mary had a lamb or not. So nobody, one rule is you can play with her. Nobody is going to teach her anything. So she grew up happy. By the time she's eighteen months, she was fluently speaking three languages. Because nobody thought of anything she's listening. She is not chanting Mary had a little lamb. No rhymes, no language, no mathematics, simply life. I thought I'll never send her to school but only reason was because you know her age group is important. So she went to school and when she was around twelve years of age, she came home one day, little disturbed about what happened in the school. Then she said, you're teaching everybody so many things. You're not teaching me anything. I said, see, I'm not known to do things unsolicited. Now that you've come, let's see. See, this is all you have to know. Never look down on anybody. Never look up to anybody. Then she looked at me like this. What about you kind of thing? I said, not even me. If you look up to me, you will completely miss who I am. If you look up to me, probably you will make a picture and nail me to your wall. But you will miss the whole point of who I am. You must look at me as I am, not looking up. Never look up to anybody, never look down on anybody. This looks very simple. But try it and see. In your mind you've decided what is good, what is bad, what is high, what is low, what is virtue, what is sin, what is filth, what is wealth, everything. Everything is already determined. Once you've done this, there is no way you cannot look up at something or look down on something. What you think is bad, you will look down. What you think is good, you will look up. If you remove this and just learn to look at life for what it is, you will effortlessly navigate through your life, effortlessly. Right now this is the problem. You are looking up to some people, looking down on some people and trying to be humble with them. There is no need to be humble. Treat everybody as rough as you treat yourself. That is if you're treating yourself rough. If you're pandering to yourself, try with others, then you'll get tired, then you'll treat them rough anyway. Yes? So this is simple. I'm telling you the same thing what I told her. Work miraculously for her. Never look up to anybody, never look down at anybody. Just see everything, the way it is. This is the fundamental of this culture. If you go to the temple, what do you do? Hi. What do you do? If you ever go to the temple, what do you do? Namaskaram. If you see a man, what do you do? Namaskaram. You see a woman, what do you do? Namaskaram. You see a tree, what do you do? Namaskaram. You see a rock, what do you do? Namaskaram. A cow, snake, donkey, monkey. monkey, everybody namaskaram, because fundamentally this is what it means, this is called vairagya. Vairagya means, this is not a vairagya, it does not mean giving up your life and going somewhere.  Otherwise, where is there to go, wherever you go, it's still life, isn't it? So vairagya means this, literally means vairagya means beyond color. That means you become transparent. If you're transparent, every dimension of life can pass through you, but leaves you untouched. You can handle life to the extent you wish. What you can handle, you handle, what you cannot handle, you don't. But in your life, if you do not do what you cannot do, that's not an issue. But if you do not do what you can do, you're a disaster. The moment you think something is good, something is bad, somebody is high, somebody is low, many, many things that you can do, you will not do in your life, simply because you think it's bad, simply because you think it's low or high or whatever nonsense. So in our lives, this is what is most important because it's a brief life. It's a limited amount of time for the human potential to flower. In this life, here if you're choosing what to do and what not to do, no. Everything that you can do must happen. What you cannot do, it doesn't happen, it's okay. Sathguru, I'm a student from science background. Most of the religions in this world proglaims that the God has created human beings. But our evolutionary science is saying that human beings have come from monkeys. Which one should I believe in? What do you feel closer to? Being a human, I think that I have evolved from humans. See, if you are someone who is on a reverse gear, then you must choose the first one.  Go back to God. But if you're planning to evolve, then better go with Darwin because is there room for evolution for you or are you super evolved already? I'm asking. There is room for evolution. There is room for evolution. If there is room for evolution, that means there is a possibility that you can become a better man than what you're today. So if you're going in forward gear, go with Darwin. If you're in reverse gear, go with God. Yes, because if you want to go on that path, that needs devotion. Devotion means the word devotion comes from the word dissolution. You want to dissolve into your object of… your object of devotion, whatever it is, you want to dissolve into it.  It's a wonderful way to live. It is not sounding good when you speak in language that you want to become less and less. No. When you become really nothing, you become limitless also. So devotion is one way to go.  Now if you think logically, naturally you can see life has evolved on this planet. There's no question about that.  One step backward, you will be right there. Sure you move forward quickly because some of the scientists are saying today that the DNA difference between you and a chimpanzee is only 1.23 percent. 1.23 percent is not much of a difference, isn't it? Not much of a difference, isn't it? But see, just 1.23 percent, a world of difference, isn't it so? Just such a small difference. Just see how big a difference. So if you're not happy with 1.23 percent, you must accelerate your evolution. The entire system of yoga is just this, how to accelerate your evolution. In every dimension of who you are, how to hasten this process. Now that you're talking about evolution, whatever Charles Darwin said, a goat could have become a giraffe. It took so many million years. A pig could have become an elephant and it took so many million years. And a monkey became a man and it happened rather quickly. To such a point, anthropologists are saying that there must be a missing link somewhere. It happened rather very quickly. So now, if evolution happened, when you were a monkey, you did not desire, I want to be a human being. There's no such desire in you. Nature just pushed you on. It's just life's longing. It's not a conscious thing. It's just life's longing to get better. From an amoeba to here, just imagine the volume of work that's been done. Incredible, isn't it? Whatever number of years it took, maybe nobody is very clear about that. It doesn't matter. Because it is one million years, ten million years, it doesn't matter with our lifespan, one million is as good as hundred million. So it doesn't really matter except for academics. Whatever amount of time it took, from a single-celled creature to the human being, what a tremendous amount of work has been done. But now you've been rendered in a space where your evolution has to be conscious. Fifteen thousand years ago, over fifteen thousand years ago, Adiyogi said this, when his seven sages asked, his seven disciples asked this question, how did life happen? You have heard of the nine avatars. What are they? Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Vamana, Narasimha, Parushurama, Rama. Not bad from Andhra Pradesh, Sri Krishna. So, please look at what he is saying. This is very much in parallel with what Charles Darwin is saying. First is fish, Matsya Vatara. Next is amphibious turtle. Then he's skipping all the other small forms and coming to the mammals. The first mammal we're talking about, a boar or a pig. Among all the mammals you will find, I can go into a lot of explanations, but there are people who hunt pigs. Wild boar hunters and eaters are right here. They know the hardest animal to kill is always a boar because it's so rooted in the body.  Yes or no? So if something is very crude, you say it's like a pig. So, first animal, mammal is the pig. What's next? Howtara? Vamana. Matsya? Narasimha. Narasimha means half man, half animal. Next is Vamana, means a dwarfed man. Next is Parishurama, a full-fledged man, but explosive and uncontrolled, volatile.  Next one is Rama, a peaceful man. Next one is Krishna, a loving man, an exuberant man. Next one is Buddha, who is a meditative man. Next one is supposed to be a mystical man. This is not about those individual people. This is just… these people are being used as milestones. This is the nature of development of life. In many ways, this is running parallel to Darwin's theory of evolution. Darwin's theory of evolution is only 152 years old. Adiyogi spoke about this over 15,000 years ago. And… and then naturally the next question is, can we evolve further? Because you find… you find right now when you want to study for your examination, you wish you had little more brain. Hello? Does it happen or no? So naturally question, can I evolve further? If a single-celled animal can become this much, can I go further? So Adiyogi said this. This is… modern neurologists are saying the very same thing in a different language. Adiyogi said, considering the nature of the solar system and the arithmetic, I will not go into the elaborate arithmetic of this. The way, the planet, the moon, the sun, these three are very important. There are other six which are also playing an important role, but these three are most important. The planet earth, the moon and the sun, this is why the entire yogic system is around these three aspects. These three have significant roles. Unless something fundamental about the solar system changes, he said your body cannot evolve further, but you can evolve consciously. When we say we can evolve consciously, I can show you or we can take you as an experiment if you're willing. We can put you on something and show you that your very fundamental genetics will change within a matter of three to nine months by doing certain things with your system. If you know, if you're willing to give yourself to a certain discipline, your very genetics can be altered. Your level of intelligence can be changed. The way you experience life can be changed. So he said, you can evolve consciously, but physically you cannot evolve unless something about the planetary system changes. Modern neurologists are saying something very similar. I will not go into the detail because of the time, but you can evolve. So if you're going forward, choose Darwin. If you want to go backwards, backwards is not a bad place. If you want to go backwards, don't think backwards is a negative thing. No. If you want to dissolve, you go towards God. If you want to evolve, this is one way. These are two different ways of doing the same thing. We'll be having the audience question session. Audience are all sleeping. Namaste, Sadhguru. I have a question for you. Where are you? Here. Okay, okay. You said that Indians have so knowledge about everything. You're saying that or me saying that? Now you explained it to Adi Yogi, Sadhguru. Fifteen thousand years ago we had that knowledge and knowledge is just great. We can't go backwards. See, there is no need to bring back anything. Always people are talking in terms of how to revive this, how to revive that. It's not about reviving. If you make human beings to live consciously even now, they will speak the same things of Ramas, Krishnas and Adiyogis have spoken in the past. This is one thing you must understand. This is a godless culture. All the people whom you worship or people who walk this geography at one time, we worship them. Not because they flew in the sky, walked upon the water or fell from the clouds, nothing like this.  If we have to take examples, well, we can take Rama because even today he's having real estate problems. After so many years, after nearly six thousand and odd years, still he cannot settle his property. So, this happened right through his life also.  Due to some political reasons, he's sent to the forest and he has a young wife. She's not a tribal woman, she's a princess, not fit to be in the jungle. Well, in your television serials and movies you might have seen Rama, Sita, dancing and you think it's some kind of a honeymoon. Now, going to the jungle is a punishment. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I've lived in jungles for weeks by myself, surviving in the jungle. If you stay there for a week or fifteen days and come back home, people won't recognize you. Head to toe you will be bitten by insects and you will be a different thing. Especially if you take the girls, you cannot even recognize them when they come out. Yes. So, going to the jungle was not some kind of a picnic, it was a punishment. And as if that was not enough, this Sri Lankan people came and kidnapped his wife. You know the story, this is not here, this is in Ayodhya. They took away his wife. After all he's a king. If one wife goes away, he could have found another local solution because allowed for the king. He could marry a hundred if he wanted. But the man loves his wife so much. He walks all the way down, not with an army, just with his brother, all the way down. She must have meant so much to him to... because there is no GPS location as to where Sri Lanka is. So, I want you to understand, it's over six thousand years ago. Then he gets there, builds a Tamil army. Tamil people are here also, I think. See, look at that. So, builds an army, crosses over, fights a battle, kills hundreds of people, burns down a beautiful city, then gets back his wife. Then a few months of being together, living as a king, she's fully pregnant. In that condition, again some political turmoil happens and he sends her back into the jungle. He's not getting rid of her. This must be understood. He's not getting rid of her. She means a world to him, not just that, for a king, for an emperor. Wife is pregnant is a big deal because the hair. No sonogram? So, you don't know whether it's a boy or a girl. It could be boy, it happened to be boys, but he sent her to the jungle. Today, many women's groups are asking me, Sathguru, what kind of a man is he? Just because somebody complained, he sent his wife to the jungle, we don't like him. Then I said, see, do you want a leader in this country who will put the well-being of the citizens of this nation above the well-being of his own family? Do you want such a leader or no? That's the man he is because it's causing distress to the people, whatever their own beliefs about her, so he sends her out.  He almost killed his own children. He fought a battle, nearly killed them. Fortunately, it did not happen. Then Sita dies in the jungle, never gets to see her, nor she gets to see him. You call this a successful life? It's a serial disaster, isn't it? But we worship this man, not because he's a super success, not because he can walk upon water or fly in the sky, simply because no matter what life throughout him, worst things were thrown at him. But he never became resentful, he never became angry, he never became hateful, he never became vengeful, did everything just to the extent it was necessary, remained a balanced and free man within himself. It is this freedom that we are bowing down to. We are not bowing down because he is miraculous. Everything that can go wrong in life went wrong with his life. But still, life could not get him. This man is above life. It is that one quality that we bow down to, because that's our only quality. We have valued in this culture. If you have forgotten, I'm sure your mother and grandmother's conversation, if you heard, without uttering mukti, moksha, karma, prarabdan, and never was a conversation. So the only value in this culture has always been liberation, freedom. Mukti is the goal, not God, not heaven, not the pleasures of heaven. Only liberation. Liberation does not mean you go somewhere. Liberation means you are here doing life in full intensity, but life doesn't leave a single scratch upon you. This is liberation. Thank you, Sadhguru. Now we'll have a social media question. The first question, Sadhguru, it is from Brinda. Will uniform civil code be a possibility in India? I think at least after one or two generations of utilizing the caste-based reservation in education and jobs, the third generation should not be given reservation. Well, these are two different things. It's a two-in-one question. Uniform civil code, is it a possibility? Well, we must make it possible. As long as you have a nation where different people have different rules, you will keep people different. If you want to make all of them Indians, there must be one law in the country. There is no other way you can integrate a nation. One law for you, one law for me, definitely we will be two separate people. We will never identify ourselves as one nation. So we are continuously facing this problem, but we don't have the courage to fix it. It's time to fix it. Reservation is another matter. I know there is a lot of resentment among the young students. I didn't get the seat. Somebody with lesser marks got the seat, all these things. But we must understand this. We have treated a whole mass of people in this country for thousands of years, like subhumans. Even today, if you go into the villages, they cannot draw water from the same well. They cannot drink tea from the same cup in a restaurant. It's separate. They cannot walk through certain streets. They cannot walk in front of a temple. Their dead bodies cannot go through the village. When you treat people like this, if you don't give them some privileges to get back to leveling, level playing field, it will not be fair. But at the same time, entry point reservation should be there. Promotion point definitely has to go, both in employment and in education. You give them entry, but do not promote them without the necessary credentials. This has to happen, otherwise we will sacrifice competence for reservation. Reservation is an unfortunate situation in the country because we have created a thousand years of unfortunate discrimination. To level the discrimination, this effort, have we succeeded in this in the last seven years? Well, a lot of people have moved out of the trap, cash trap. Of low cash trap, a whole lot of people have moved out. Many of them may be sitting here with proper education, holding good positions. It's fantastic to see that. But still, there is substantial amount of population still stuck there. So, as time goes by, we must calibrate the reservation. For different regions, it may be different. How it is in Tamil Nadu, how it is in Bihar, how it is in Gujarat, it's different. We must have the courage to calibrate it at least every three... Every five years at least, we must recalibrate the reservation based on the statistics, how much the movement of population has happened from poverty to reasonable level of well-being. And to what extent discrimination is leveled. Accordingly, reservation should be calibrated, but it's a political thing. No political leader wants to touch it because election is a number game. It's just like going to an examination. Thank you.


Hey, what's up YouTube? I'm Zeke and welcome to The Dream Green Show. In this episode, I'm bringing you guys a $9 option play that can make you money both ways. And it's even cheaper than the straddle strategy that I showed you guys in the last option video. Now what I mean when I say both ways is that if the stock price goes up, we make money. And if the stock price goes down, we make money. So that's what I mean by both ways. And it's even cheaper than the straddle strategy that I showed you in the last video. And this one only consists of three different legs, three different option players, combined into one to make this very cheap $9 option strategy that you can use to win if the price of these stocks goes up or down. Now, before we dive into this video, I make sure that you guys hit that thumbs up button and it helps out this channel more than you could even imagine. And also, this video is brought to you by Webull. Sign up now by clicking the link down in the description to deposit $100 and now you can receive two free stocks valued up to $2,300 with those two free stocks. You could keep them aside, the platform would decide to use it, or you could sell those two free stocks and redraw all of your money. It's literally free money. Also, I left a link in the description to Moomoo. That is a brand new brokerage app and they give it away. Tons of free stocks just from signing up, you receive a free stock up to $350 and if you deposit $2,000, you receive another free stock of GM which is around $60 right now. That stock is guaranteed. So it's also a ton of ways to earn more free money over in the app Moomoo because they're brand new. They're gonna be handing out free stocks that from Wright. So make sure that you sign up for that. Deposit your $2,000, get your free stocks and once again, that's also free money. You get your free stocks, you can sell it, redraw it and go on about your business. But I just thought I had to tell you subscribers about all of these other ways to make free money. But enough talking. Let's go ahead and dive straight into this video. Welcome back dreamers. Here we are inside my Robin Hood account. Just for example, we're picking the company for it. You guys do not have to pick this company. In fact, do your own research on your favorite companies. I just so happened to have, I'm up 51% in Ford. I have 21 shares, market value around $279.30. Over the last month, Ford has been pulling back but over the last year, Ford is up 91%. So I'm thinking it's time for Ford to make a move. It pulled back 9% over the last three months but that's still up 91% over the last year. And it's looking like they're in a little consolidation zone around the $12 price point. Once again, around the $12 price point, they seem to make a move. So I'm hoping that Ford does not stay at the $13.30 price point. Hopefully it moves up or hopefully it pulls back and we can make some money while also limiting our risk of only just $9. Now in the way that we play this strategy, you wanna hit trade and trade options. Now we're gonna go out a week to September 3rd and at the top right where it says select, if you do not see select right there, go into your options, sign up for the advanced option trading inside your Ribbon Hood account and then you'll be able to hit select. Now where we're gonna be focusing on is all calls right here. So the first thing we wanna do is buy a call. We're gonna buy a call right below the strike price of $13, at $13, the share price is at $13.30. So we're gonna hit select and we're gonna buy the $13 call which is right below the share price. The next thing that we wanna do, we wanna click sale call and we wanna pick a price that's below the call that we just bought. So we're gonna be selling this call right here and then we're gonna switch over one more time to buy a call right there and we're gonna pick a price that will still give us a little bit of money. So we're gonna pick the $14 call right here that is five cents. Remember, a call, all options is 100 shares. So you multiply the price that's on the side by 100 and that will show you how much the actual option is. So if it's five cents, multiply that by 100, that is five dollars. The $13.50, 14 cents, that's gonna be $14 and the $13 call is 41 cents, that's gonna be $41. So once we have all three options selected, we're gonna click view more and then we're gonna click this button right here. So this is gonna show us, so as long as Ford is below $13 and are above $14, so it just can't be between $13 and $14. If it is in between that price point, our max loss is $9 and right now it says total credit $40, so we will need around a $50 credit just to enter this stock, but the max that we will lose is actually just $9, that is the max that we will lose. So we will have to put down a collateral of $50 but the max that we will lose is just $9 and that is awesome to have a max loss of just $9 while right there it shows max profit of actually being unlimited. So Ford decides to shoot up to let's say $15, $16, $17 and then next week we will make money and if it shoots down, we can have another, we can have a profit of $41 which is around plus the 50 collateral, $91 added to our portfolio but it is awesome to have such a low max loss of just $9. Of course, if we were to do this once a week on Ford, if we were to do this four times a month on Ford we'll lose what, $36? That is our max loss of nine per week, $36. Okay, but if we just win one of those times and have the unlimited amount gain in a single week then that could really grow our portfolio really, really fast, so in a month, all we gotta do is win one of those four and we could see some potential great gains inside of our portfolio. So all you need is just a three leg option strategy. Once again, if you need to rewind this video, you can. But let's take a little deeper dive into this on the option profit calculator but before we do that, once again, hit review. If you wanted to buy one, review. There it goes, it says that you're gonna need a collateral of $50. I mean they're gonna hold on to that $50 until the options execute and then they'll release your $50 back to you. Plus any profits you have or if you lose your $9 for that week. So that is a very cheap option strategy that you guys can do this week. All right, here we are on the option profit calculator. We're gonna click custom three legs. The symbol that we're gonna be looking at is Ford, get price, they've got $13.32. It was $4.13.30? I think it was, let's turn that to $13.30. All right, options, we're gonna be buying the car on the, what was it? 13, right there. And then the second one we're gonna be buying is the 14, it's right here. All right, and right here is right that means sale. We're gonna be selling a car at $12.50. We're gonna be selling a car at $12.50 right here. And then right here, let's say that if the price goes down all the way to $10 or if the price goes up to $17, that's gonna be our price range. Hit calculate, buy one, hit calculate. And here we go guys, if once again, if it pulls all the way down, our profit will be $40. Now if it goes all the way up to $17, just from us risking $9, we can make $290. We can ride count really, really fast. And the only way that we'll lose our money if it stays in between $14 and $13. But even though let's say it goes up to $14 by day, September 1st, we could still make $6, still make $2, but if it starts to get too late, I like the option profit calculator because it shows you your different profit on different days. But yeah, if it do expire between $14 and $13, you could lose your max of $9 right here saying $10. I think one of the prices are wrong up here. But for the most part, if as long as it it's expired outside of these price range, this is your profit, $290 or 1400%, 900, 600, 400% to grow your account by 400% in a single week is amazing guys. So this is one of the cheaper option strategies with a very limited risk of just $9 that you guys can't execute whenever you feel like on any stock that you want. And there we go guys, those are the three-legged option strategy, very cheap that you could use in order to win both ways, whether if the stock goes up or if the stock goes down, as long as the stock do not trade sideways for the next week or if you could put it out for two weeks if you wanted to, as long as the stock don't trade sideways, you could make some major gains in just a very short time period guys. Much cheaper than holding on to a single share or four by itself, all right guys? So that's a quicker way to grow your small portfolio. If you have any questions about the strategy, drop that down in the comments section, leave a thumbs up on this video that helps out the channel more than you can even imagine. Also hit that subscribe button and hit that notification bell. And before we go, don't forget to pick up your two free stocks of Weeble. Sign up, deposit $100, get a free stock. Sign up for MooMoo, deposit $100, get another free stock.  But other than that, I'm Zeke, bringing you to Dream Green Show and I'm out. Peace.


China may attack Taiwan by 2027, U.S. top admiral says China is expanding its military and nuclear arsenal and these signs indicate that it is ready to invade Taiwan by 2027 according to the commander of the United States Indo-Pacific Command Admiral John Aquilino. Bloomberg reports, according to him, despite China's economic problems, its official defense budget has increased by 16% in recent years, exceeding $223 billion. The admiral added that in the three years since he took command, China's army has introduced an additional 400 fighter jets and over 20 large military ships into its arsenal. Beijing has also doubled its arsenal of ballistic and cruise missiles since 2020. All indications point to the People's Liberation Army meeting President Xi Jinping's directive to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Aquilino said, according to Aquilino, Chinese military forces are also practicing various tasks related to operations against Taiwan, including simulating encirclement through maritime and air blockades. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian states that Taiwan is China's internal affair, accusing Washington of causing division in the Asia Pacific region. Some people in the US have been trying to hype up the China threat narrative to escalate tensions across the strait and instigate confrontation. We firmly oppose that, he said. China's defense budget remains as much smaller than that of the United States. President Joe Biden proposed a Pentagon budget of $850 billion for the fiscal year 2025 earlier this month. This includes $500 million for replenishing armaments, which will be provided to Taiwan under the first funding request aimed at addressing aggression in the region and ensuring continuous support for Taiwan. In the spring of 2022, President Joe Biden stated that the United States was ready to use force to defend Taiwan.