maegul (he/they)toScience@lemmy.mlEnglish·4 months ago4 months ago
- cross-posted to:
- astronomy@mander.xyz
maegul (he/they)toScience@lemmy.mlEnglish·4 months ago4 months ago
- cross-posted to:
- astronomy@mander.xyz
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/16562180
I’d certainly seen this exoplanet somewhere in my mainstream news world somewhere … so nice to see a breakdown here from “Dr Becky” about how the science isn’t so clear cut.
Anyone else able to provide insight on what the possible outcomes of the newly acquired data will be?
EDIT: what’s with the downvotes? Genuinely confused … is there some rule/culture against youtube videos or something?
You must log in or register to comment.
Pretty good breakdown of the current science on the topic. Thanks.
Yea, I’d heard about this planet, but I didn’t know how much modelling was involved and of course what alternatives can explain the data. Still, the new data that hasn’t been analysed seems like it could be interesting.
I really don’t think this video is click bait. It’s reason for existing might be the media hype and clickbait crap that has been produced … but all the video does is dig into the published science and generally dispel what all the media hype is probably saying. It’s the opposite.
At some point, if anti-clickbait behaviour is going to be sufficiently superficial, it’s likely as bad as clickbait itself (not unlike an auto-immune disease).
You are right, this video is clickbait mitigation, not clickbait itself. The haters are just primed to hate at the drop of a hat.
Downvotes are for the stupid “life on an exoplanet” click baity bullshit.
And if she implied it at all, then I never want to hear her dumb ass say another word, and she should have whatever creds stripped.
Right, so you didn’t watch the video … it’s about the paper that’s getting so much media attention and why most in the scientific community don’t think much of it and what challenges to the initial paper have been made in subsequent publications.
The video is solely about published work, by a publishing and working scientist, and not at all some mainstream media stuff.
Gotta say, at some point, if downvoters are operating at such a superficial level, their reason for existing basically disappears. Like an AI would have done a better job here. The quality of the video is precisely because it nicely dispels whatever media hype might be out there.
I’m gonna start by apologizing first, I didn’t downvote but I won’t upvote as well because based on my experience this seems like an obvious clickbait tbh and my reasoning is it’s gonna be just another hype for theoretical newly discovered untouchable evidence that nothing can prove except the paper and yet there’s no other prove except the theory that it can only lead to one conclusion that there May be life on an exoplanet or whatever as usual, so basically nothing new to add to my knowledge just a big hype for new papers explaining the math that can or cannot be applied outside our solar system because in the end life is a gamble because no matter what it can always either exist or the dice didn’t fall perfectly so everything may fit perfect for life except life didn’t manifest at all so in conclusion there’s no solid proof whatsoever, I think I just summarized the whole video, correct me if I’m wrong.
First, no need to apologise.
Second, no I don’t think you summarised the video, IIRC, it mostly gets into the theory of the techniques used and what can be done to do a better job.
Thank you for your honesty
Dr Becky is an actual astrophysicist (PhD) and her content is great and based on a thorough analysis of published science. Maybe watch the video first next time ?
I’m gonna be honest man, you seem like you would be a chore to be around in real life