• ZerushOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Authors are not conspiranoics

    R. Joseph1*, C. Impey2, O. Planchon3, R. del Gaudio4, M. Abu Safa5, A.R. Sumanarathna6, E. Ansbro7, D. Duvall8, G. Bianciardi9, C. H. Gibson10, R. Schild11, 1Astrobiology Research Center, California, USA2Department of Astronomy, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ 857213Biogéosciences laboratory, University of Burgundy, Dijon, France4Department of Biology, University of Naples Federico II, Italy5Dept. of Applied Physics, Palestine Polytechnic University, Hebron, Palestine6Dept. of Research and Innovation, Eco Astronomy International Research Center, Tetouan, Morocco7Space Exploration Ltd, Boyle, County Roscommon, Ireland.8Dept. of Zoology, Oklahoma State University (emeritus), Stillwater, OK, USA9Università degli Studi di Siena, Italy. 10Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, University of California (emeritus), San Diego, USA11Center for Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian (emeritus), Cambridge, MA, USA

    Have you read the paper, also the references at the end? Or is that you belief more in little green mens instead of plasma phenomenons, which explains a lot of the Unidentified Flying Objects?

    • forrgott@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I did read it, in fact. I disagree with the methodology, as well as the unsubstantiated non scientific guesswork involved in reaching many of their conclusions.

      This is nothing but speculation. It is not a rigorous analysis of empirical data. I’m short, it’s not science.

      • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Did we read the same paper? I didn’t see any conclusions based on unsubstantiated non-scientific guesswork. I saw some speculation, but always tempered with explicit acknowledgement that it was hypothetical and speculative. The only conclusion they reached was that many reported UAPs could potentially be explained by plasma activity in the thermosphere.

        Yes, they do hypothesize that it’s conceivable that dusty plasmas could foster conditions which could allow for the synthesis of amino acids and even RNA. They do also hypothesize that the structure and complexity of the plasmas could allow for the possibility of a non-organic kind of life. But then they are very quick to say that both of those hypotheticals are purely speculation, and that the plasma behavior can be explained by electromagnetic differentials without necessitating intelligence.

        Overall, the paper seems like a collaboration between a number of authors working on different tangentially related topics, broadly under the heading of “extra-terrestrial cellular plasmas”: electromagnetic life, abiogenesis in the environment of plasma, and the complex behavior of plasma bodies observed in the thermosphere. Those in the first two camps seen very excitable (I would speculate they are responsible for all the !s and ?s in the paper) and prone to speculation, with those in the latter camp reigning in that speculation and trying to bring focus back to the main conservative claim: that observed plasma phenomena are consistent with many UAP reports.