https://www.thedailybeast.com/oumua...par-over-mystery-interstellar-object?ref=wrap Apparently it does not obey the laws of physics. Scientists want to find out just what it is. It looks awesome to me. Do you agree?
Apparently, space aliens are trying to send Progressives a "chill out" message and have sent a massive space joint to them in hopes they find something else to get twisted over.....
LMAO yes a clear political problem. I am using it for a few days as my avatar to ensure they keep interested in science.
The artist rendering is not representative of the description in the article: "less than a millimeter thick and about 100 meters wide". If it looks like the picture, it's just an interesting rock. If it looks like the description, it's probably something else. It's long gone now, so we shall never know.
Of course it obeys the laws of physics, as does everything in the universe. The anomaly is that it seemed to accelerate after its closest approach to the Sun. This is explained by outgassing from heating from the sun.
I shall read the article in full. However, I am not aware of telescopes that can peer to Pluto that can distinguish an object so thin as to be less than a millimeter thick or 100 meters wide.
I agree with that NASA guy whatever his name is - it's an alien 'probe', so there! I mean with a name like Oumuamua it has to be?
There are no photos of the object. And this is a quote from Loeb "We don’t have an image of it, what we see is reflected sunlight. As this object spins it reflects different amounts of sunlight so we can tell its brightness varies as it spins. It varies by a factor of 10, much more than any asteroids, which implies it’s much longer than it is wide by at least a factor of 5 to 10." So not sure where the 1mm or 100m measurements comes from as there isn't a direct quote in the link
This link also refers to a thickness of around 1mm. I cannot see how that thickness can be estimated using solar reflections as it was not possible to directly observe the object. You would have to get the exact orientation of the object relative to the observer to determine anything like as thin as that and then also account for spinning of the object. In conclusion I highly doubt the thickness measurement quoted
From the link in the OP: “The object’s “sail” shape—long and narrow with a flat surface—would allow the radiation to push it through our solar system, Bialy said. He and Loeb estimate that it was less than a millimeter thick but about 100 meters wide. That would make it “a very thin sheet that we don't know of having any natural formation in the universe,” Bialy said. “
I agree. If, however, they have some way to substantiate that measurement, then whatever this was, was not likely to have been a natural rock formation.
Context is important. "5. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION We have shown that the observed non-gravitational acceleration of ‘Oumuamua, may be explained by Solar radiation pressure. This requires a small mass-to-area ratio for ‘Oumuamua of (m/A)≈0.1 g cm−2. For a planar geometry and typical mass densities of 1–3 g cm−2 this gives an effective thickness of only 0.9–0.3 mm, respectively. For a material with lower mass density, the inferred effective thickness is proportionally larger. We find that although very thin, such an object can travel over galactic distances, maintaining its momentum and withstanding collisional destruction by dustgrains and gas, as well as centrifugal and tidal forces. For ‘Oumuamua, the limiting factor is the slow-down by"
I understand from your link that they are reverse engineering to say that a thickness of around 1mm would match the supposed observations. But what I doubt are the supposed observations/measurements of the object. The observations was a single point of light from a very small object that was not directly tracked.I would not be surprised if error measurements would account for the anomalies including the apparent unexpected acceleration.
As with ALL of cosmological science (unless direct observation from probes) assumptions must be made based on incomplete data and hypothesis results. Unless further data (impossible in this case) comes to light speculation is the best we can expect.....this often leads to new discovery however.
[Bialy] and Loeb estimate that it was less than a millimeter thick but about 100 meters wide. That would make it “a very thin sheet that we don't know of having any natural formation in the universe,” Bialy said. ... Paul M. Sutter, an astrophysicist at Ohio State University, doesn’t think there’s anything particularly esoteric about it. “In my opinion, based on all available evidence, ‘Oumuamua is a big dumb rock,” he said. Sutter said that Loeb and Bialy’s theory is questionable because we don’t have precise measurements for ‘Oumuamua. “Even if we had ideal observations, it’s easy to misunderstand or misinterpret the results,” he said. “This is the first time we’ve encountered such an object, and it already has a lot of strange properties, and we don’t have a good understanding of how those properties might influence our observations.” ... https://www.thedailybeast.com/oumua...entists-spar-over-mystery-interstellar-object
I am not calling it a comet, but thanks for your interest in the thread. Have you tried looking up what scientists think?
What is very interesting is on sciences explanations for rocks. How does a thing become a rock when reporting how thin it is? What could this coagulate around. Call in Einstein.
