4 ms·

>"The paper the article covers offers no actual comparison between the magnitude of the signal received and the original Wow! Signal. It only shows the raw sign

by nonbel 9y ago

>"The paper the article covers offers no actual comparison between the magnitude of the signal received and the original Wow! Signal. It only shows the raw signal on his own equipment, so there's no way to determine its magnitude relative to the original. The paper handwaves the question of magnitudes away as the original telescope being more sensitive, or the comet being older now." Thanks, you could have left out the rest of the post which consists of unreliable heuristics... The heuristics are to help you decide whether to read the paper in the absence of further info. Since you already looked at it and offered substantial criticism, that was all superfluous.

rimunroe 9y ago
Restating some of what I said in an earlier[1] my point is that the article never should have been written, even by a non-scientist, because there are a ton of red flags. Making an extraordinary claim alone (like finding an explanation for the Wow! signal) should have prompted the author to ask themself, "Hmm, is this claim actually legitimate?" and then lead them to dig in a little more. If they were still unsure, they should have approached a physicist or astronomer and asked for their take. If you don't do that, then you basically just start churning out clickbait pop-science articles. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14522080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14522080
- nonbel 9y ago
  You've already spent enough time on this paper to have formed an opinion about the actual content (are the methods explained well enough? Does it make any precise predictions or just vague fluff? etc). There is no need to dwell on these issues, it is your time being wasted though. Up to you.
KekDemaga 9y ago
I personally find utility in it. If someone with a history like this says "I have a perpetual motion machine" I don't really need to look further. On the other hand if Steven Hawking said it I'd take a look.
- LeifCarrotson 9y ago
  Steven Hawking is a bit of an overcorrection in the opposite direction toward someone too famous for logical credentials to apply. Simply consider if some or all points were changed in the list: * The journal it is published in is well known internationally for its astronomy coverage. The paper is freely available in their current online edition <here>. * The author has understated their credentials. They are not just the described "professor", they are a senior research fellow at X university, and are not simply employed at the mentioned respected company, they actually were instrumental in creating it. They also didn't mention their awards or other involvements. > The article describes the author as a principal investigator at Observatory 251. This IAU code references the telescope more commonly known as Arecibo, which was the largest such telescope in the world for some 50 years. * The author is well known for their professional knowledge and research integrity. * Everything in this story is verified by multiple respected sites. I agree that there's utility in the list. The journal impact level, the quality and truthfulness of the author's credentials, the character of the author, and the article sources are the important question in this evaluation, not fame.

by nonbel 9y ago

rimunroe 9y ago

Restating some of what I said in an earlier[1] my point is that the article never should have been written, even by a non-scientist, because there are a ton of red flags. Making an extraordinary claim alone (like finding an explanation for the Wow! signal) should have prompted the author to ask themself, "Hmm, is this claim actually legitimate?" and then lead them to dig in a little more. If they were still unsure, they should have approached a physicist or astronomer and asked for their take. If you don't do that, then you basically just start churning out clickbait pop-science articles. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14522080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14522080

nonbel 9y ago
You've already spent enough time on this paper to have formed an opinion about the actual content (are the methods explained well enough? Does it make any precise predictions or just vague fluff? etc). There is no need to dwell on these issues, it is your time being wasted though. Up to you.

KekDemaga 9y ago

I personally find utility in it. If someone with a history like this says "I have a perpetual motion machine" I don't really need to look further. On the other hand if Steven Hawking said it I'd take a look.

LeifCarrotson 9y ago
Steven Hawking is a bit of an overcorrection in the opposite direction toward someone too famous for logical credentials to apply. Simply consider if some or all points were changed in the list: * The journal it is published in is well known internationally for its astronomy coverage. The paper is freely available in their current online edition <here>. * The author has understated their credentials. They are not just the described "professor", they are a senior research fellow at X university, and are not simply employed at the mentioned respected company, they actually were instrumental in creating it. They also didn't mention their awards or other involvements. > The article describes the author as a principal investigator at Observatory 251. This IAU code references the telescope more commonly known as Arecibo, which was the largest such telescope in the world for some 50 years. * The author is well known for their professional knowledge and research integrity. * Everything in this story is verified by multiple respected sites. I agree that there's utility in the list. The journal impact level, the quality and truthfulness of the author's credentials, the character of the author, and the article sources are the important question in this evaluation, not fame.