Astronomer here, the "life detection" on K2-18b was dimethyl sulfide (DMS) which may be ̶I̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶r̶e̶m̶a̶i̶n̶s̶ a marker for life.
What you get from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is raw data that needs to be treated and calibrated to some extent to be usable in scientific study. This is called data retrieval.
However, the lead scientist on this paper claiming they found DMS basically used his own very specific way to do it and found very very weak signals in that way. Other scientist tried to both reproduce it in the way he did it and also with their ways to retrieve the data, but couldn't find anything. So it turns out, it was simply a non-detection.
Edit: It might be the case that DMS can be produced abiotically (scientific works of this year) as chosensilence pointed out correctly.
My main point is, that the DMS detection itself was a non-detection in this case
So the higher minimum wage is already a thing in some countries (e.g. Germany, where degrees are also mostly free) and there is still the trend of many more ppl. studying.
In general, our world is getting more complicated and we live longer. So i dont really see the problem of more education?
Not really contradictions, there are those behaviours which you describe (i.e. speeds at the outer regions if galaxies faster than originally expected) and from those we come to things such as dark matter which describe these, but we don't yet know what they are.
It might be that the theory needs to be changed if there is no such thing as dark matter and it Is jnice calculation trick that actually mean something elsr in the real world, but as of right now it describes most things well.
Alas, there is the disconnect between different theories that don't work together (see Gravity and Quantum mechanics) or only on different scales
Fair, but I mostly meant people who really experienced and remembered it. Aged around 50+ (like Trump).
So forgetting that... Not a big deal. Remembering its old name first... OK, not remembering the current name after the old one - weird. And, finally, doing that constantly in many occasions, sign of mental problems.
I don't know, I would say after the fall of the Soviet Union its renaming was fairly common knowledge if you lived through that (even outside the former Soviet States)
You are correct about the replication problems, but this also varies heavily depending what scientific discipline you look at.
Also if you do science you may take the results oft another scientist (if they make sense and are peer revievewed) and build your next experiment on it, which may also work out and get peer reviewed.
So even with the replication problem science can work and build on thousands of experiments.
But it would be better and needed that the experiments were reproducible.
I feel like there is a misunderstanding in this thread.
The universe is described by math. Math itself is also very fundamental though.
However even the Singularities are disputed and generally not liked by physicist. We try to find other explanations for how black holes work (lots of papers on this). Moreover, we never really have a singularity, but ringularities, as all black holes rotate changing the singularity to a singularity (they probably also have a charge but that is a different matter).
And on the other hand, if you are a follower of the simulation argument (I know a few physicists that are) there are also counter arguments against this (which I believe are more likely).
I think you explain it pretty well, but one thing to add.
Due to the General Relativity and thus spacetime it is actually not directions that all point toward the singularity, but as soon as you cross the event horizon all of your future becomes the Singularity, not as a point in space, but a point in time
I mean, to be fair that is what the linkes page says, but people are misunderstanding the hypothesis everyone calls many worlds (also what the page says) as Many worlds is just a follow up of the theory not the theory itself.
Like Einsteins Relativity didn't say in the theory that we would be able to predict Mercury's orbit, but it comes from it.
As the wikipedia article cites peer reviewed study (see study tab) that even though these kind of headlines make up only ~ 2 % of all hesdlines 44 % of them answer "yes", and only 22 % answer "no" with the rest being indecisive.
True, but that is what the whistleblower warned.
He said the planes would fail randomly after around 10-12 years approximately.
He was a quaility check engineer at the assembly lines (or sth similar) where the workers were forced to assemble too quickly which caused a lot of small foreign bodies (residue) to enter components with wiring that would degrade due to this.
He also said that would degrade those components much faster than expected and told to the airplane operators causing less checks and earlier failure (than was told by Boeing)
Astronomer here, the "life detection" on K2-18b was dimethyl sulfide (DMS) which may be ̶I̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶r̶e̶m̶a̶i̶n̶s̶ a marker for life. What you get from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is raw data that needs to be treated and calibrated to some extent to be usable in scientific study. This is called data retrieval.
However, the lead scientist on this paper claiming they found DMS basically used his own very specific way to do it and found very very weak signals in that way. Other scientist tried to both reproduce it in the way he did it and also with their ways to retrieve the data, but couldn't find anything. So it turns out, it was simply a non-detection.
Edit: It might be the case that DMS can be produced abiotically (scientific works of this year) as chosensilence pointed out correctly.
My main point is, that the DMS detection itself was a non-detection in this case