Oumuamua "not an alien spaceship", researchers conclude

But the Scientist never admit to it. They just brush away...with.."we previously believed"...

Got an example to prove any of that?

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

I feel that, if a huge spaceship comes into our orbit and parks there and waits, it would be ignored by scientists, because as far as they know...there are no aliens. Fermi said so..therefore

Fermi said what, when?

You really think scientists would ignore a huge spaceship parked in orbit?!!!!!!!!!

a reply to: oldcarpy

here's one..

Phys,org

Now read that and just imagine. They were sure before...but now...

edit:

here's one more

Sciencedaily

a reply to: oldcarpy

Fermi said there are no aliens because we havent detected them by now.

You really think scientists would ignore a huge spaceship parked in orbit?!!!!!!!!!

yes...yes I do.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

But they were not "sure" before - they only "thought". Science does not know all that much about what happens for sure deep inside the Earth - for fairly obvious reasons.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

You mean the Fermi Paradox:

Space.Com: Fermi Paradox - Where Are the Aliens?

This does not mean that ALL scientists believe there are no aliens or that Science in general believes that. There are lots of different theories about things we do not know for sure. When we find out about those things some theories are proved right and others wrong.

You see, Science is empirical, ie based on what is experienced or observed rather than theories. Theories are just theories.

If you think that scientists would not get very excited indeed about a huge alien ship parked in orbit I think you would be very much mistaken.

Real scientists would not be skeptical for the sake of skeptism which is how some scientist operate. Skeptism is supposed to be used agnostically.

Ufo's aliens etc..has unfortunate negative bias to some scientists due to cultural aspects like hoaxes. This type of skepticism is as biased as using they are aliens as the basis for thesis.

The arrogance of the paper is fairly obvious as it doesn't begin to imagine what an object from a place with different elements what look like. The data set is also fairly low with no physical evidence.

This reminds me of early anthropologists who made claims they couldn't support by trying to extract too much from too little in terms of data.

Like civilization started with Mesopotamia..or wait maybe indus valley, no it could be gobleki tepe..we didnt mate with Neanderthals they were a different species...or wait maybe we did..

When you don't have the data it's best to assume you have an incomplete story. But leave the options open.

Perhaps this was an early experiment and is thousands of years old? Who knows. I am pretty sure the scientists never even considered what a civilization would create who maybe didnt use oil and combustion to create technological advancements and travel. Imagine if binary star systems have different elements available. With properties we do not know.

a reply to: luthier

Who knows. I am pretty sure the scientists never even considered what a civilization would create who maybe didnt use oil and combustion to create technological advancements and travel.

Eh? What, you think they were looking for a spaceship powered by internal combustion engines?

Looks like these scientists looked for any actual evidence that this might be alien and concluded that there wasn't any. Pretty straightforward, really.

You got any evidence that it was? Thought not.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Many scientists don't know they are starting with an anthropic perception never mind one based from cultural bias and personal bias. Often they are more concerned with preserving their teaching legacy and all the books they wrote about a subject that could be incorrect.

Conflict of interest personal and corporate has created lazy science, lack of creativity, and lack of free true scientific thought. Just research the replication crisis in many fields and you will see it literal.

Eh? What, you think they were looking for a spaceship powered by internal combustion engines? 

No that wasn't what they did. They looked over the paper written by Avi Loeb and compared with conventional theories and it didnt favour alien origin.

I also didn't see an explanation for what it is.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: luthier

Who knows. I am pretty sure the scientists never even considered what a civilization would create who maybe didnt use oil and combustion to create technological advancements and travel.

Eh? What, you think they were looking for a spaceship powered by internal combustion engines?

Looks like these scientists looked for any actual evidence that this might be alien and concluded that there wasn't any. Pretty straightforward, really.

You got any evidence that it was? Thought not.

Well yes there was a paper written on it and this does not negate that completely.

Explain to me what they looked for if you understand it.

The way I see it is Professor Loeb had the courage to write a paper using math and philosophy to describe how this could be a visiting spacecraft. He is a cosmologist, makes sense he is working on theory.

What I feel like this paper did was say they are not convinced his theory is anymore possible than others. It does not elaborate on why they have that bias even though they have no physical evidence and no solid theory of natural origin.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Cigar-shaped interstellar object 'not an alien spaceship

Also this was never in the paper...in fact quite different.

Its composition remains unknown, including whether it is just rock or includes some metal or other ingredients

After poring over data, a team of researchers wrote that "we find no compelling evidence to favour an alien explanation".

This would make the headline blatantly false.

Ps there is no reason to only consider a "straightforward answer" when considering unknown celestial artifacts. That alone is a terrible bias.

a reply to: luthier

Basically, you much prefer Prof Loeb's hypothesis 'cos of "Aliens" and because you want it to be you just rubbish the dissenting opinion.

Space.com article

This explains what they looked at.

Did Prof Loeb have any "physical evidence" either? Of course not. Nobody went to the thing. Plenty of theories for natural origin in the study.

Your own personal bias seems to be that you desperately want it to be "Aliens".

I would love it to be the case, but no evidence so far that it is.

a reply to: luthier

This would make the headline blatantly false.

Hey - it's a "headline" - what do you expect?

a reply to: luthier

Ps there is no reason to only consider a "straightforward answer" when considering unknown celestial artifacts. That alone is a terrible bias.

It is ironic that you bang on about "bias" and then you go and called this thing an "artifact". You seem to be the one with a "bias", can you not see that?

a reply to: luthier

Many scientists don't know they are starting with an anthropic perception never mind one based from cultural bias and personal bias. Often they are more concerned with preserving their teaching legacy and all the books they wrote about a subject that could be incorrect.

Yet science manages to make stuff that works?

a reply to: oldcarpy

I never indicated I prefer one or the other. However this paper did nothing to disprove professor Loeb's paper.

It was nearly pointless to be honest. They could not say it was any less or more likely.

The error you seem to be missing is that this paper is saying anything new. These were already arguements and valid ones against Loeb's theory. However, they have no evidence against Loeb's theory at all and they have no explanation.

a reply to: oldcarpy

If it's not an artifact than it's an unknown celestial object.

Loeb again is a cosmologist. His mind is a bit more open to possibility by trade. He made a great arguement for thinking broader about unknown events. This paper did zero to discredit this instead chose to say there could very well be natural reasons we just dont know how to prove that.

a reply to: luthier

They have plenty of explanations if you actually read the thing. It was never intended to disprove Loeb's "theory". It is what it is.

a reply to: oldcarpy

It also manages to sell lots of stuff that when tested has proven to not work. Like 50 percent of pharmaceutical tests that are actually tried to be reproduced. People are flawed.

I am too. I am just saying this paper did zero to prove it was not an alien craft.

a reply to: luthier

I am too. I am just saying this paper did zero to prove it was not an alien craft.

You are right. It never said it did though, just "no compelling evidence" it was an alien craft. Take off those blinkers!