Harvard prof doesn't back down from claims that alien spacecraft may be zipping past Jupiter orbit

"If it was artificial, this is what it could be.." is not the same as "it is artificial, and this is what it is".

The idea that it is an artificial object is one that should always be considered, but needs supporting by evidence. The evidence that's been collected doesn't support his idea.

Expect a lot more to be detected over coming years, with the sharper intruments and search strategies. That won't mean there ARE any more than before, just that our vision has grown sharper. And note how open the full disclosure and discussion has been.

a reply to: JimOberg

And note how open the full disclosure and discussion has been.

Noted. Tends to dispell the belief that some have that NASA/TPTB/ the Illuminati etc. will hide this sort of thing from the public.

a reply to: TheSpanishArcher
The key words in your title "claims that alien spacecraft may be zipping past Jupiter", especially "may be" seems to be overlooked or overhyped as "is" by the media and youtubers seeking clicks.

Matt from PBS spacetime looks at the claim from different angles and thinks the biggest problem is scientifically illiterate people have not read what Harvard professor Avi Loeb actually says in his paper, which is more or less that it "may be" an alien object as your thread title says, which is one possibility. But his paper doesn't even claim it's the most likely possibility according to Matt in the PBS spacetime video, and Matt offers some more likely alternative explanations of the object which don't involve aliens. So if you don't have time to watch the video, in summary what he says is there's a possibility it could be alien, but, probably not, and he goes into detail about why he thinks that, and he says that even Avi Loeb realizes the alien probe explanation isn't the only possibility.

'Oumuamua Is Not Aliens

The arguments against Oumuamua being an artificial, rather than a natural object, presented in the PBS 'Space Time' episode, are not too convincing. To take couple of points for example:

1.) Invisible outgassing involving gas, alone, or fewer but large particles that, in bulk, reflected too little light to be observed, could have caused the acceleration of Oumuamua. Immaterial, since even invisible outgassing sufficient to accelerate it in the manner observed would have also changed it rate of rotation. Such a change was not observed.

2.) It is claimed that it has not been rigorously established that the outgassing would have changed the rotation rate of Oumuamua. In fact, such work has been done by R.Rafikov. Please find a link to to his paper below:

arxiv.org/abs/1809.06389v2

originally posted by: Ross 54
The arguments against Oumuamua being an artificial, rather than a natural object, presented in the PBS 'Space Time' episode, are not too convincing. To take couple of points for example:

1.) Invisible outgassing involving gas, alone, or fewer but large particles that, in bulk, reflected too little light to be observed, could have caused the acceleration of Oumuamua. Immaterial, since even invisible outgassing sufficient to accelerate it in the manner observed would have also changed it rate of rotation. Such a change was not observed.

2.) It is claimed that it has not been rigorously established that the outgassing would have changed the rotation rate of Oumuamua. In fact, such work has been done by R.Rafikov. Please find a link to to his paper below:

arxiv.org/abs/1809.06389v2

The paper you cite contradicts what you claim about it.

First, about whether it's a "artificial, rather than a natural object", Rafikov says this:

" we believe that the classification of ’Oumuamua as an interstellar asteroid (rather than a comet) is more robust and justified by observations at the moment.".

So Rafikov is saying he thinks it's likely an interstellar asteroid, and the previous part of the paper illustrates why he thinks it's unlikely to be a comet. I don't see anywhere that he thinks it's an artificial object. In the PBS spacetime video, Matt also seems to think the interstellar object is the most likely explanation.

So not only does Rafikov's paper not contradict what is in the spacetime video, it seems there is some agreement on the subject, though Matt hasn't completely ruled out the comet idea and in fact even Rafikov's paper allows for it to be a comet if some very unusual circumstances were to occur in the outgassing, like occurring more from the center and not so much from the ends.

The other thing you seem to miss is that Rafikov is arguing against it being a comet from our own solar system by comparing it to comets from our solar system. In the PBS spacetime video, Matt is not sure but he thinks it is possibly an interstellar object so he is not suggesting it's most likely to be a comet from our own solar system.

The focus of Rafikov's paper is to demonstrate that any sort of cometary outgassing is a very unlikely explanation for the acceleration of Oumuamua. In the PBS presentation it is implied that no such rigorous work has been done, and that acceleration via outgassing is still a viable explanation.

It appears that Rafikov wished to select between the two conventional options, cometary or asteroidal. Eliminating the first, he supposes the second.

He does not address the high improbability of the first interstellar object we observe being an asteroid. He does not offer substantial evidence that Oumuamua is an asteroid. He merely refers to pre-existing interpretations of the evidence, which are open to question. Neither does he provide an explanation for how an asteroid would accelerate in the manner observed.

a reply to: Ross 54
I think all we can conclude from Rafikov's paper is that it's unlikely to be a comet from our own solar system.

Other options are open including his preference for some kind of interstellar object. You're right that he doesn't address the acceleration method for his proposed object, so as Matt in the spacetime video says, whatever it is, probably an interstellar object, it's very interesting, and probably the first time we have ever observed such an object.

So one problem with Rafikov's paper is that he does only consider two options, and it may be neither of those two options, but that still doesn't mean it's artificial. If it's not from around here it could be completely unlike objects from our own solar system. The other problem is I thought the idea that every object had to be pigeonholed as either comet or asteroid was falling out of favor as more evidence has been collected that some objects even in our own solar system have a wide variety of compositions and some in fact may have characteristics of both and won't fit neatly into either category.

For example, even in our own solar system here's an asteroid with outgassing so it's not true that only comets can do that:

Asteroid suddenly shows off a comet-like tail

A notice sent to astronomers by the International Astronomical Union said that data from the observations is "consistent with the ejection of material or commencement of activity in early Nov. 2018."

a reply to: TheSpanishArcher

This whole Oumuamua story reminds of the book "Rendez-vous with Rama" by Arthur C. Clarke.
Fantastic read which I can only strongly recommend to all ATSers.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: JimOberg

And note how open the full disclosure and discussion has been.

Noted. Tends to dispell the belief that some have that NASA/TPTB/ the Illuminati etc. will hide this sort of thing from the public.

Actually, it supports the slow drip theory of disclosure, of which the readiness of public acceptance plays a huge part. It’s been over half a century of drops to get us to this level of openness and acceptance of the topic.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
How will the discovery of alien life in space transform our life?

It depends on what it consists of and how far away it is. If it's an atmospheric signature of simple life 50 light years away, or a radio signal from a planet 20,000 light years away, we'll probably be cool with it.

If it's a living alien that looks like a 10-foot high cross between a cockroach and a cicada and there's a thousand of them downtown, then that might cause some problems.

a reply to: KarmaComa

Me too. I didn't understand the ending about threes and stuff, though.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Ross 54
I think all we can conclude from Rafikov's paper is that it's unlikely to be a comet from our own solar system.

Other options are open including his preference for some kind of interstellar object. You're right that he doesn't address the acceleration method for his proposed object, so as Matt in the spacetime video says, whatever it is, probably an interstellar object, it's very interesting, and probably the first time we have ever observed such an object.

So one problem with Rafikov's paper is that he does only consider two options, and it may be neither of those two options, but that still doesn't mean it's artificial. If it's not from around here it could be completely unlike objects from our own solar system. The other problem is I thought the idea that every object had to be pigeonholed as either comet or asteroid was falling out of favor as more evidence has been collected that some objects even in our own solar system have a wide variety of compositions and some in fact may have characteristics of both and won't fit neatly into either category.

For example, even in our own solar system here's an asteroid with outgassing so it's not true that only comets can do that:

Asteroid suddenly shows off a comet-like tail

A notice sent to astronomers by the International Astronomical Union said that data from the observations is "consistent with the ejection of material or commencement of activity in early Nov. 2018."

It is, of course, possible to explain any feature of Oumuamua as asteroidal, if we assume that asteroids from outside our solar system have whatever novel characteristics are required. We don't know this to be the case, in general, nor that it applies to Oumuamua in particular.
I seems unlikely that the minor outgassing that has been observed in some few asteroids in our solar system would be sufficient to account for the sort of acceleration seen in Oumuamua, especially when one recalls that even the least dense class of asteroids are about twice as dense as comets. In any case, it appears unlikely that we would see such unusual behavior in the very first interstellar asteroid that happened to be confirmed.

originally posted by: CajunMetal

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: JimOberg

And note how open the full disclosure and discussion has been.

Noted. Tends to dispell the belief that some have that NASA/TPTB/ the Illuminati etc. will hide this sort of thing from the public.

Actually, it supports the slow drip theory of disclosure, of which the readiness of public acceptance plays a huge part. It’s been over half a century of drops to get us to this level of openness and acceptance of the topic.

Are you suggesting objects like this [not bound by the Sun's gravity] have been seen before but NOT disclosed?

Interesting stance on the subject in this Scientific America blogpost:

blogs.scientificamerican.com...

if we don’t even consider exploring seemingly outrageous hypotheses, there’s a chance that one day we’ll miss something really important.

Not every alien visitor is going to be in a shiny craft with flashing lights.

As I intimated before however, merely entertaining the possibility is not proof of anything, it just means that we can't exclude an explanation from the list before we start - that's not science. Continuing to insist something is what it isn't after the evidence is in is also not science.

They say the way it accelerates and maneuvers itself, that it is more than a big rock. If the Professor said its alien, then its alien. At least, it does exist.. not like the marijuana covered planet Nasa found. Inconsistent Internet

originally posted by: SoulStoner225
If the Professor said its alien, then its alien.

No, that's appeal to authority.


Oumuamua Could be the Fragment of a Disintegrated Interstellar Comet
www.universetoday.com...
arxiv.org...

I think that, either way, what's nice about this story, is that it slowly prepares the consciousnesses of the "masses" to the eventuality of "first contact". The more scientists or respected figures say "we may not be alone", the more likely "first contact" will happen, simply because, if aliens really do visit us, they aren't as unevolved as we are, and can probably "look" into a near infinite timelines, and see under which conditions they can initiate first contact without causing a major meltdown of humans, loosing their "#" because aliens "exist" (I'm thinking especially of any human deeply grounded in dogmatic religious beliefs)

a reply to: SoulStoner225

They say the way it accelerates and maneuvers itself, that it is more than a big rock.

Nothing was said about maneuvering and you may be misunderstanding what the word acceleration means.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Headline..

Oumuamua shows signs of extreme intelligence by gtfo here.