2 ms·
Is this information not helpful? I am completely disgusted by the HN tone of "it's pointless to look at this because there are potential flaws"
by sushshshsh 6y ago
Is this information not helpful?
I am completely disgusted by the HN tone of "it's pointless to look at this because there are potential flaws"
- dovin 6y agoThe paper isn't pointless, but it is highly speculative given its assumptions. Makes it feel less like a scientific paper advancing knowledge and more like a tech blog post to me.
- sushshshsh 6y agoI agree it is highly speculative, but anyone who is interested in the topic could make a name for themselves by respectfully qualifying/disproving this theory with a statistical analysis of the probability of this signal coming from the exoplanets in that area, and profiling what a qualifying candidate exoplanet would look like. Or alternatively just provide the statistics on what the chance is that the signal was errant/natural in cause
- Beldin 6y agoThe information isn't helpful. If the paper wanted to make a case for this star being a candidate for the signal's origin, the paper should have at least discussed the expected probability of finding such a start in such a volume in the Milky Way. They found 1. Or 14. Or a lot more, if you relax a constraint that isn't motivated. The "paper" concludes that both candidate volumes() of space should be searched for exoplanets. () only one "horn" (of 2) received the signal, but they don't know which one. Hence two possible volumes of space where the signal could have originated.