3 ms·

For anyone interested, the author (Avi Loeb) has a very accessible book titled "Extraterrestrial" that goes into the details of why the Oumuamua interplanetary

by bumby 4y ago

For anyone interested, the author (Avi Loeb) has a very accessible book titled "Extraterrestrial" that goes into the details of why the Oumuamua interplanetary object may be more likely to be a "space buoy" or light sail than a comet.

7thaccount 4y ago
I watched a video recently of a physicist criticizing his recent work. He is a Harvard professor, so obviously a smart guy, but there are things to think about here. First of all, he's going on and on about the establishment and how they're not doing enough and so on. He was literally calling out Jill Tartar the famous SETI scientist that was the inspiration for the contact book/movie. It is a little weird to poop on someone who has spent their entire life begging congress for money to do more research looking for alien life. He sounded completely irrational during it and suggested they didn't want to do anything when SETI does everything they can with their very limited funding. He then tried making fun of her for not publishing as many papers when his publishing record is suspect due to the sheer number of papers he puts out. Someone pointed out that being an author on 7 papers a month is basically impossible. When other scientists started looking in more depth, they noticed that the papers were mostly all very rough sketches of water cooler ideas and not the kind of quality that would normally be acceptable in journals if you weren't already a Harvard physicist. Then, I find some of his statements to baffle me as they seem obviously immature. He's basically said that it has to be an alien probe as nothing else makes sense. Other scientists are just saying...well sure...it could be that, but it seems more likely that we just haven't figured out the non-alien cause yet. I'd appreciate some feedback from an actual physicist on the matter.
- Loquebantur 4y ago
  Taking "some video" on the internet featuring "some physicist"(?) as basis for anything is ill-advised. Worse, you are actually engaging in character assassination here by repeating that nonsense.
  - 7thaccount 4y ago
    I watched his chat with SETI in full and it was unprofessional to say the least. I stand by that. Here's an article talking about it: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/02/16/watch-harvard-astronomer-mansplains-seti-to-the-legend-who-inspired-carl-sagans-contact/?sh=41ecb8a9620b https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/02/16/watc... As to the part on the papers, I was open that it was just hearsay and asked for someone with better background to weigh in. Here's a physicist going into some depth on what I referred to: https://youtu.be/aY985qzn7oI https://youtu.be/aY985qzn7oI
stametseater 4y ago
I haven't read that book yet, but if I understand correctly his reasoning for the "space buoy" hypothesis is that Oumuamua's velocity was quite close to the Local Standard of Rest. Is that accurate? At least, that's the reasoning he claims in his "Six Strange Facts About`Oumuamua" article: https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.08832 https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.08832 In his book, does he address the counterargument (https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.01910 https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.01910) that such a velocity is entirely in line with expected parameters, being within the predicted distribution of values for intestellar objects detected by asteroid surveys, which was published months before Oumuamua was even discovered (https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.02237 https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.02237) ?
- bumby 4y ago
  He outlines a number of anomalies but one of the larger points is that it deviates from its expected trajectory, leading to the possibility it’s a light sail. But I don’t recall if he addresses any specific studies. I didn’t get the impression that he’s married to the idea that it’s a buoy. My main takeaway from the book is that he wants the establishment to at least be open to the idea of it being a of extraterrestrial origin rather than immediately dismissing the idea. He outlines some of the perverse incentives in academia that prevents many from seriously considering that idea.
  - stametseater 4y ago
    If his book addresses the counterargument and dismisses it, fair enough. But if he doesn't address the counterargument at all, then I have to conclude that he is deliberately misleading his readers by selectively presenting only the evidence that supports his favored conclusions. I haven't read the book yet so I don't know how or if he responded, but some sort of response is certainly warranted. He claimed these orbital parameters were "strange" but here is a paper published before the discovery of Oumuamua that says Oumuamua's parameters are mundane and expected. That's not the sort of counterargument that should be ignored.
    - bumby 4y ago

by bumby 4y ago

7thaccount 4y ago

I watched a video recently of a physicist criticizing his recent work. He is a Harvard professor, so obviously a smart guy, but there are things to think about here. First of all, he's going on and on about the establishment and how they're not doing enough and so on. He was literally calling out Jill Tartar the famous SETI scientist that was the inspiration for the contact book/movie. It is a little weird to poop on someone who has spent their entire life begging congress for money to do more research looking for alien life. He sounded completely irrational during it and suggested they didn't want to do anything when SETI does everything they can with their very limited funding. He then tried making fun of her for not publishing as many papers when his publishing record is suspect due to the sheer number of papers he puts out. Someone pointed out that being an author on 7 papers a month is basically impossible. When other scientists started looking in more depth, they noticed that the papers were mostly all very rough sketches of water cooler ideas and not the kind of quality that would normally be acceptable in journals if you weren't already a Harvard physicist. Then, I find some of his statements to baffle me as they seem obviously immature. He's basically said that it has to be an alien probe as nothing else makes sense. Other scientists are just saying...well sure...it could be that, but it seems more likely that we just haven't figured out the non-alien cause yet. I'd appreciate some feedback from an actual physicist on the matter.

Loquebantur 4y ago
Taking "some video" on the internet featuring "some physicist"(?) as basis for anything is ill-advised. Worse, you are actually engaging in character assassination here by repeating that nonsense.
- 7thaccount 4y ago
  I watched his chat with SETI in full and it was unprofessional to say the least. I stand by that. Here's an article talking about it: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/02/16/watch-harvard-astronomer-mansplains-seti-to-the-legend-who-inspired-carl-sagans-contact/?sh=41ecb8a9620b https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/02/16/watc... As to the part on the papers, I was open that it was just hearsay and asked for someone with better background to weigh in. Here's a physicist going into some depth on what I referred to: https://youtu.be/aY985qzn7oI https://youtu.be/aY985qzn7oI

stametseater 4y ago

I haven't read that book yet, but if I understand correctly his reasoning for the "space buoy" hypothesis is that Oumuamua's velocity was quite close to the Local Standard of Rest. Is that accurate? At least, that's the reasoning he claims in his "Six Strange Facts About`Oumuamua" article: https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.08832 https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.08832 In his book, does he address the counterargument (https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.01910 https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.01910) that such a velocity is entirely in line with expected parameters, being within the predicted distribution of values for intestellar objects detected by asteroid surveys, which was published months before Oumuamua was even discovered (https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.02237 https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.02237) ?

bumby 4y ago
He outlines a number of anomalies but one of the larger points is that it deviates from its expected trajectory, leading to the possibility it’s a light sail. But I don’t recall if he addresses any specific studies. I didn’t get the impression that he’s married to the idea that it’s a buoy. My main takeaway from the book is that he wants the establishment to at least be open to the idea of it being a of extraterrestrial origin rather than immediately dismissing the idea. He outlines some of the perverse incentives in academia that prevents many from seriously considering that idea.
- stametseater 4y ago
  If his book addresses the counterargument and dismisses it, fair enough. But if he doesn't address the counterargument at all, then I have to conclude that he is deliberately misleading his readers by selectively presenting only the evidence that supports his favored conclusions. I haven't read the book yet so I don't know how or if he responded, but some sort of response is certainly warranted. He claimed these orbital parameters were "strange" but here is a paper published before the discovery of Oumuamua that says Oumuamua's parameters are mundane and expected. That's not the sort of counterargument that should be ignored.
  - bumby 4y ago