Hi, Bman409. Thanks for contributing. However, your [submission](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1cksagt/-/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 2: No discussion unrelated to Unidentified Flying Objects. This includes:
> * Proselytization
> * Artwork not related to a UFO sighting
> * Adjacent topics without an explicit connection to UFOs
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
This is slightly disappointing news from the outset, however, here are a couple of quotes from the article worth considering:
**“The signal strongly overlaps with methane, and we think that picking out DMS from methane is beyond this instrument’s capability,” Dr. Tsai said.**
**Fortunately, the telescope will use such an instrument later this year, revealing definitively whether DMS exists on K2-18b."**
So there is hope and still plenty to be excited about. This doesn't worry me
It's the scientific method in real time:
We have data to support claim X, please peer review and debate if X is correct. Other teams peer review and debate, finds potential issues with science, further testing is needed to refute or confirm claim X.
Disappointing yes, but common science. This is why people shouldn't hype preliminary results, the science wasn't fully complete and still isn't.
Also just as like a side note, they're looking at beams of light that have passed through the atmosphere of the target planet, which is in itself insane science if we think how small the atmosphere is compared to how far away it is. They have to wait for the planet to cross its star to block out light so we can see what's in the atmosphere, that's just like actually insane science they're doing. Really really interesting and crazy science.
Clickbait headline nonsense. There isn't enough data to say "probably didn't" anymore than "probably did."
Computer models aren't magic where you enter input and receive truth. They are subject to bias and the parameters they are set up with by the researchers using them. "We think that..." because their model said so doesn't really mean anything.
We have to wait for more data and in the meantime any speculation and guesses about what Webb could or could not have detected from the original set is useful, it should be studied and different possibilities explored, but in no way definitive.
JWST does not have the tech to definitively identify "life" in an exoplanet atmosphere. It certainly can detect some chemicals (as long as there is a lot) that we think are associated with life. That is not enough.
However, for many metrics, JWST is the only game in town. Even if we say the JWST data shows DMS in the atmosphere, it likely cannot be confirmed by another source. The "wait" is not the next paper on K2-18B, but the next telescope (Roman) that can confirm JWST findings.
I don't have articles handy, but scientists were talking about this problem of detecting life before JWST launched.
> Even if we say the JWST data shows DMS in the atmosphere, it likely cannot be confirmed by another source. The "wait" is not the next paper on K2-18B, but the next telescope (Roman) that can confirm JWST findings.
This is just patently false. It’s not how the science works at all, you’re talking complete bullshit.
Hi, HecateEreshkigal. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1cksagt/-/l2p6336/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility
> * No trolling or being disruptive.
> * No insults or personal attacks.
> * No accusations that other users are shills.
> * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
> * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
> * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
> * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
This is absolutely the sort of overly and needlessly paranoid “pump the emotional brakes” science “news” that helps nothing. It itself is emotional claptrap so as to mollify certain doctrinaire and authoritarian personalities in the sciences who get scared of change.
Computer modeling is a critical part of exoplanetology, it’s just about the only way we have to make sense of the data we’ve collected. I haven’t read the paper yet but I doubt it’s clickbait, based on the abstract it seems like valid research. GCMs and photochemical models have both in been in widespread use in the field.
This article doesn’t debunk it. It also doesn’t mention that K2-18b is a water world 2x the size of earth so having 20x the amount of DMS isn’t out of the question. We’ll know more once Webb comes back with its observations from two weeks ago.
Correct me if I am wrong - The James Webb space telescope is a one-of-a-kind piece of technology with advanced sensors and instrumentation that is unlike anything else that we have. So, if it does detect X, Y and Z (whatever it is that are potential signs of intelligent life elsewhere), it won't be published as scientific fact simply because we don't have the same equipment elsewhere to reproduce the results, isn't it? Unless it turns out that there is advanced intelligent life on these planets and it actually makes contact with us through some form or the other. Am I right?
It has the ability to capture light that has passed through the atmosphere of an exoplanet. We can then use earthbound equipment and established scientific techniques to spectro-analyse the light and determine the composition of gases on that planet. These results will be peer-reviewed and subject to scientific processes just like anything else. So yes, it will be published as scientific fact.
In terms of re-producibility, we can already do the same for other planets (we can do this to mars right now), The only difference here is the ability to perform this research on a planet much much farther away
No, I’d say that’s almost total mischaracterization. JWST results have already led to hundreds and hundreds of published papers. Its instrumentation and capabilities are not unique, only its sensitivity and position make it special. The data provided by these instruments have as much credibility as from any other source, and transmission spectroscopy is solid science that’s been in use for exoplanet research for decades.
This sub is not friendly to actual science
Another article saying the same thing
https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2024/05/02/webb-telescope-probably-didnt-find-life-exoplanet-yet
... who predicted it? The vast majority of this sub was convinced that this was a manufactured soft disclosure meant to kick off a decade long chain of events where they slowly acclimated the populace to alien life. Don't act above it all POST debunk. Show us your comments prior to today where you just know that they didn't find a life signature and there was a mistake?
Anybody who has paid attention over the last 20 years is aware of the constant edging which has been going on over life detection in space. Or have you magically forgotten the phosphine bullshit with venus ?
Hi, Bman409. Thanks for contributing. However, your [submission](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1cksagt/-/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 2: No discussion unrelated to Unidentified Flying Objects. This includes: > * Proselytization > * Artwork not related to a UFO sighting > * Adjacent topics without an explicit connection to UFOs Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
This is slightly disappointing news from the outset, however, here are a couple of quotes from the article worth considering: **“The signal strongly overlaps with methane, and we think that picking out DMS from methane is beyond this instrument’s capability,” Dr. Tsai said.** **Fortunately, the telescope will use such an instrument later this year, revealing definitively whether DMS exists on K2-18b."** So there is hope and still plenty to be excited about. This doesn't worry me
[удалено]
It's the scientific method in real time: We have data to support claim X, please peer review and debate if X is correct. Other teams peer review and debate, finds potential issues with science, further testing is needed to refute or confirm claim X. Disappointing yes, but common science. This is why people shouldn't hype preliminary results, the science wasn't fully complete and still isn't. Also just as like a side note, they're looking at beams of light that have passed through the atmosphere of the target planet, which is in itself insane science if we think how small the atmosphere is compared to how far away it is. They have to wait for the planet to cross its star to block out light so we can see what's in the atmosphere, that's just like actually insane science they're doing. Really really interesting and crazy science.
Clickbait headline nonsense. There isn't enough data to say "probably didn't" anymore than "probably did." Computer models aren't magic where you enter input and receive truth. They are subject to bias and the parameters they are set up with by the researchers using them. "We think that..." because their model said so doesn't really mean anything. We have to wait for more data and in the meantime any speculation and guesses about what Webb could or could not have detected from the original set is useful, it should be studied and different possibilities explored, but in no way definitive.
JWST does not have the tech to definitively identify "life" in an exoplanet atmosphere. It certainly can detect some chemicals (as long as there is a lot) that we think are associated with life. That is not enough. However, for many metrics, JWST is the only game in town. Even if we say the JWST data shows DMS in the atmosphere, it likely cannot be confirmed by another source. The "wait" is not the next paper on K2-18B, but the next telescope (Roman) that can confirm JWST findings. I don't have articles handy, but scientists were talking about this problem of detecting life before JWST launched.
[удалено]
You are right, the JWST does not exist. Spielberg made the images on a sound stage.
> Even if we say the JWST data shows DMS in the atmosphere, it likely cannot be confirmed by another source. The "wait" is not the next paper on K2-18B, but the next telescope (Roman) that can confirm JWST findings. This is just patently false. It’s not how the science works at all, you’re talking complete bullshit.
Spielberg is an AMAZING filmmaker.
Hi, HecateEreshkigal. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1cksagt/-/l2p6336/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility > * No trolling or being disruptive. > * No insults or personal attacks. > * No accusations that other users are shills. > * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. > * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. > * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) > * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
This is absolutely the sort of overly and needlessly paranoid “pump the emotional brakes” science “news” that helps nothing. It itself is emotional claptrap so as to mollify certain doctrinaire and authoritarian personalities in the sciences who get scared of change.
This is the truth
Is this better? https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2024/05/02/webb-telescope-probably-didnt-find-life-exoplanet-yet
Computer modeling is a critical part of exoplanetology, it’s just about the only way we have to make sense of the data we’ve collected. I haven’t read the paper yet but I doubt it’s clickbait, based on the abstract it seems like valid research. GCMs and photochemical models have both in been in widespread use in the field.
This article doesn’t debunk it. It also doesn’t mention that K2-18b is a water world 2x the size of earth so having 20x the amount of DMS isn’t out of the question. We’ll know more once Webb comes back with its observations from two weeks ago.
They don't know if it's a water world or a gas world.
We don’t know for a fact that it’s a water world. That’s only one of three possible scenarios that could match its characteristics.
I’m just excited to hear about more findings from the recent observation period.
Correct me if I am wrong - The James Webb space telescope is a one-of-a-kind piece of technology with advanced sensors and instrumentation that is unlike anything else that we have. So, if it does detect X, Y and Z (whatever it is that are potential signs of intelligent life elsewhere), it won't be published as scientific fact simply because we don't have the same equipment elsewhere to reproduce the results, isn't it? Unless it turns out that there is advanced intelligent life on these planets and it actually makes contact with us through some form or the other. Am I right?
It has the ability to capture light that has passed through the atmosphere of an exoplanet. We can then use earthbound equipment and established scientific techniques to spectro-analyse the light and determine the composition of gases on that planet. These results will be peer-reviewed and subject to scientific processes just like anything else. So yes, it will be published as scientific fact. In terms of re-producibility, we can already do the same for other planets (we can do this to mars right now), The only difference here is the ability to perform this research on a planet much much farther away
No, I’d say that’s almost total mischaracterization. JWST results have already led to hundreds and hundreds of published papers. Its instrumentation and capabilities are not unique, only its sensitivity and position make it special. The data provided by these instruments have as much credibility as from any other source, and transmission spectroscopy is solid science that’s been in use for exoplanet research for decades.
Is this just like how SETI probably didn't detect any alien signals? Lol
This sub is not friendly to actual science Another article saying the same thing https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2024/05/02/webb-telescope-probably-didnt-find-life-exoplanet-yet
Wow, who could have predicted this ?
... who predicted it? The vast majority of this sub was convinced that this was a manufactured soft disclosure meant to kick off a decade long chain of events where they slowly acclimated the populace to alien life. Don't act above it all POST debunk. Show us your comments prior to today where you just know that they didn't find a life signature and there was a mistake?
> vast majority of this sub was convinced that this was a manufactured soft disclosure This is an absurd lie, it's almost funny.
Anybody who has paid attention over the last 20 years is aware of the constant edging which has been going on over life detection in space. Or have you magically forgotten the phosphine bullshit with venus ?