/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12262118

7KiB, 220x220, 220px-PIA23791-Venus-NewlyProcessedView-20200608.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Life on venus

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 00:12:23 2020 No.12262118 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12262374 >>12262614 >>12264745 >>12265926 >>12266374 >>12267368

https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.09761

> Conclusions: We find that the published 267-GHz ALMA data provide no statistical evidence for phosphine in the atmosphere of Venus.

Seems like life on venus was a big nothing burger after all.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2020 00:43:36 No.12262299 Report

Quoted By: >>12262383 >>12265559

lol

and people wonder why global warming is not believed.

Scientists are basically just careerists like every other profession the corrupted western civilization.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2020 01:03:15 No.12262374 Report

Quoted By:

>>12262118
crackpot
one rambling idiot changes nothing

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2020 01:05:28 No.12262383 Report

Quoted By:

>>12262299
low iq post
shows the corrupt motives for being anti-science
fuck off big-oil shill

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2020 02:16:37 No.12262614 Report

Quoted By: >>12264936 >>12265559

>>12262118
Nobody claimed there was life on venus. Original authors simply said they had found traces of phosgene. It will be up to more concrete evidence to know of there is phosphene or not.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2020 18:33:32 No.12264745 Report

Quoted By:

>>12262118
yep

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2020 19:47:21 No.12264936 Report

Quoted By: >>12265559 >>12267328

>>12262614
>Nobody claimed there was life on venus. Original authors simply said they had found traces of phosgene.

True then false. They said they probably ruled out everything that wasn't biological.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2020 23:01:35 No.12265559 Report

Quoted By: >>12265644 >>12266365 >>12267328

>>12262614
>>12264936
Let's be honest... the original authors clearly stated they were not claiming they had discovered life. But they thought they probably had, given that they stressed how they had ruled out everything else -- and "science reporting" went nuts with Life on Venus clickbait.

Turns out they had NOT ruled out everything -- they forgot to rule out being wrong about detecting lots of phosphine. But that's what's good about science, >>12262299. People check your work, and if you fucked up science tends to catch it and correct it. That's pretty unique among human endeavors -- to have strong bullshit-detection built into the process...

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Oct 2020 23:34:08 No.12265644 Report

Quoted By:

>>12265559
science isn't on trial on this thread, scientists are

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2020 01:05:56 No.12265926 Report

Quoted By: >>12267162 >>12267328

>>12262118
actually believing the media hype about 'life' on venus without reading the paper or thinking about how absurd it would be for us to detect the phosphene but not the 'bacteria' producing it lol

this is how you separate smoothbrains from the wrinkly brain boiz

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2020 04:14:34 No.12266365 Report

Quoted By:

>>12265559
>not ruling out possibility of false positive
let's all welcome the newest generation of "scientists"

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2020 04:20:05 No.12266374 Report

Quoted By:

>>12262118
I don’t know why you expected life on Venus in the first place, the detection of phosphine wasn’t any kind of strong indicator for life.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2020 10:36:51 No.12267162 Report

Quoted By:

>>12265926
Detecting a biosignature such as phosphene regardless of the validity of the detection is far easier than detecting microbes themselves to do which you would need to actually go to Venus with a craft able to detect them.
There's nothing absurd about it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2020 12:07:07 No.12267328 Report

Quoted By:

>>12264936
>>12265559
>>12265926

>Had probably found life
That's not true. Have you even read their paper? They ruled out all possible known sources and concluded could be of some unknown chemical or maybe biological process. They mostly stressed that more concrete evidence for phosphene was needed.

Second, you can bet that other paper in the archive ( hadnt passed peer review) will be sctutinized also and may be inconclusive. Overall more independent observations are needed before we can close the lid on this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2020 12:26:34 No.12267368 Report

Quoted By:

>>12262118
any over 110 IQ /sci/fag called back when they made the conference. in the last 10 years there have been so many false promises and brazen statements by the press, I have little to no faith in current scientific scene

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches