News

36534 readers

2131 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

Signs of life on a distant planet? Not so fast, say these astronomers (www.nature.com)

submitted 10 months ago by flango@lemmy.eco.br to c/news@lemmy.world

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Bold claims of ‘biosignature’ molecules trigger an outpouring of scepticism.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] flango@lemmy.eco.br 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

This used to be such an interesting site. I hate how they paywalled everything now, it doesn't make sense

[–] Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 5 points 10 months ago

Why are other researchers skeptical?

For starters, there are questions about whether K2-18 b even has water — or a surface that could support life. Modelling studies of it and similar planets suggest that they are probably barren4,5. “A lifeless mini-Neptune scenario remains the most parsimonious explanation,” says Joshua Krissansen-Totton, a planetary scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Then there’s the issue of whether DMS or DMDS is actually present, or whether the signal is spurious. The measurement reported by the Cambridge team is “really pushing the limit of what JWST can do”, says Laura Kreidberg, an astronomer at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg, Germany.

Schmidt and his colleagues recently re-analysed the 2023 claim from the Cambridge team and found no evidence of biosignature molecules in the data6. Schmidt says that the new observations are “pretty noisy, and any reported features could still just be statistical fluctuations”. The Cambridge researchers, however, say that there is just a 0.3% probability that the signal is due to chance.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Research and publishing isn't free.

[–] Balthazar@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Nature has always been about making money, not about publishing research.

[–] ijedi1234@sh.itjust.works -1 points 10 months ago

Trump publishes his research for free.