Scientists Theorize Interstellar Object Oumuamua Could be Extraterrestrial Solar Sail

double post. Don't know how?

originally posted by: game over man
Why isn't anyone questioning the "artist's rendition" ? How do we know it's not a rock? It could flat out be a spaceship. If we can't scientifically debunk if it's a sail or not, then why could it not be a spaceship? How did "spaceship" get eliminated from the list of what it could be?

There is a Ted Talk on Oumuamua and they said it was spinning in all sorts of directions, so how could a sail do that?

It's probably Flesh Gordon's 'schlong-ship', encased in meteor fragments...I eagerly await NASA's 'artist rendition', which is - of course - what we all call 'proof' these days!

originally posted by: mekhanics
a reply to: jeep3r

It's a bloody ROCK.

Like a big flattish rock, with blood on it?

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: jeep3r
Good post and I think it's just hubris to think we're alone in the universe.

At this point, it's entirely hypothetical that there is life anywhere else. Call it hubris. Or call it simply accepting the current objective evidence.

We have found evidence that bacteria can survive the vacuum of space. So rock ejected from earth could easily have bacteria embeded and protected for long journeys.

Should it lie dormant, it could easily be seeding places light years away.

Just because hard evidence isn't found doesn't mean something isn't probable.

Many disliked Einstein's theories until they were proven.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Should it lie dormant, it could easily be seeding places light years away.

Maybe. But that's a very, very, very long time. And radiation and stuff.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Should it lie dormant, it could easily be seeding places light years away.

Maybe. But that's a very, very, very long time. And radiation and stuff.

True, but if bacteria can survive 550+ days on the outside of the space station with no protection, than I don't think it's far fetched to say it could survive deep in rock.

Think in the scope of how many times this feasibly has happened, and over a long period of time.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

than I don't think it's far fetched to say it could survive deep in rock.

For thousands upon thousands of years?

Maybe. I guess.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CriticalStinker

than I don't think it's far fetched to say it could survive deep in rock.

For thousands upon thousands of years?

Maybe. I guess.

The fastest comet travels at 482 km/per second.

The speed of light is 299792 km/per second.

If my math is correct, that means it could travel a light year in 621 years.

It's theorized that life has existed on earth for 3.5 billion years.

The part where it would get tricky is how many impacts has earth had? Not that many, around 250~.

Maybe there are more in that time period that have been erased due to parts of the crust being recycled... But for arguments sake, lets just say 250~ is the number.

Many of those would have multiple rocks ejected after impact. Some of those can speed up in space by being sling shot by a large bodies orbit.

Either way, If you can mathematically find a number that in some realm has a small possibility with space. I tend to say in the scope of time we're dealing with, it's a probability.

Maybe that's wishful thinking.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

The fastest comet travels at 482 km/per second.

When it's close the Sun, yes. It's a long fall, lots of time to gain speed. But they slow down as they move back out.

It's thought that Oumuamua was ejected from its home star more than a million years ago.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CriticalStinker

The fastest comet travels at 482 km/per second.

When it's close the Sun, yes. It's a long fall, lots of time to gain speed. But they slow down as they move back out.

It's thought that Oumuamua was ejected from its home star more than a million years ago.

The decrease in speed wouldn't really be too much though considering space is a vacuum though correct?

Also, considering the light bulb wasn't invented till 1879, I think it is safe to say we are still in infancy of our knowledge of many things, more specifically space.

We could hear a revelation of black holes that changes everything.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
Just because hard evidence isn't found doesn't mean something isn't probable.

Unless it's just plain wrong. Nobody can prove a negative, of course, and I'm not saying absolutely that there are no aliens out there somewhere. I'm just saying that nobody has come up with any positive proof of it yet. If aliens exist. Which they could very well not. But based on the current evidence, assuming aliens do exist is simply a mistake.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Fair enough.

Luckily I'm not a scientist, and I can jump to conclusions if I please, and I'll be honest about going so.

If the universe is infinite, it's not a question to me as to if life aside from earth exists, it's when it has and if it is/was intelligent.

But if I was a scientist, and I wrote a paper, I'd say there is no evidence as that's the most honest and accurate answer.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
Luckily I'm not a scientist, and I can jump to conclusions if I please, and I'll be honest about going so.

Perfectly fine. This isn't a forum for scientific debate. And I personally suspect (with some very sketchy evidence) that the real answer, the real truth, is a lot more complex and subtle than can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no."

a reply to: CriticalStinker

The decrease in speed wouldn't really be too much though considering space is a vacuum though correct?

Drag has nothing to do with it. Its gravity that slows it down, just like it's gravity that speeds it up.

A comet falls toward the Sun and speeds up as it does so. When it leaves it slows down, like a ball when you throw it straight up.

some info. on the object:

www.charismamag.com...

OUMUAMUA's apparent path was from the Lyra System...

Oumuamua ( The name comes from Hawaiian word for "scout") (approximately 700 feet long and a mere 100 feet wide) ((& a reported 1mm. thickness))
is leaving the solar system and won't be coming back.

It's heading in the direction of the constellation Pegasus and will cross the orbit of Neptune in about four years, (2017+4= 2021CE)

see: www.charismamag.com...

++++++++++

i recollect the odd visitor was spotted in September 2017 not in October '17 by Sarrs/Starz or anyother certified org. It was christened by the Hawaiian because that observatory seen this hyper-fast object first & reported its' presence in Sept. of '17 right at the same time as a series of planets were transiting within the constellation Virgo

the linked article publishes a few informative facts about Oumuamua that get brushed aside by other printed stories... but still skews the initial discover a month after It first got noticed for Its incredible 196,000 mph speed compared to the snail's pace of normal/local asteroids of est. 17-19,000 km hr velocity

I love to see how paintings of space rocks are yet another shining example, of NASA's long, proud history, of completely ignoring the scientific method, within their presentations, and projects!


Impressive work, indeed!

originally posted by: turbonium1
I love to see how paintings of space rocks are yet another shining example, of NASA's long, proud history, of completely ignoring the scientific method, within their presentations, and projects!


Impressive work, indeed!

What's wrong with using an artist's impression to illustrate something, especially for the general public? The scientific data is there, and it doesn't come from just NASA but from observatories and universities all around the world.

If NASA didn't put out any such images, but only the raw data, it would be boring and the public would lose interest.

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: turbonium1
I love to see how paintings of space rocks are yet another shining example, of NASA's long, proud history, of completely ignoring the scientific method, within their presentations, and projects!


Impressive work, indeed!

What's wrong with using an artist's impression to illustrate something, especially for the general public? The scientific data is there, and it doesn't come from just NASA but from observatories and universities all around the world.

If NASA didn't put out any such images, but only the raw data, it would be boring and the public would lose interest.

Nobody is allowed to see it for themselves, at observatories, so why would that be? Deep space is not open to public viewing, sorry folks!