4 ms·

Oumuamua is an interplanetary object that was able to be studied for days by multiple telescopes as it passed through our solar system. Not some "fast blur on s

by bumby 4y ago

Oumuamua is an interplanetary object that was able to be studied for days by multiple telescopes as it passed through our solar system. Not some "fast blur on some airplane's sensors". You may be conflating the the article's topic with other UAP stories in the recent news.

tsimionescu 4y ago
The paper is not about 'Oumuamua, it's specifically about "highly-maneouverable UAPs": > We derive physical constraints on interpretations of “highly maneuverable” Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)
- bumby 4y ago
  If you aren’t aware of the broader context, the author (Avi Loeb) has used the various techniques within the paper to make the case that Oumuamua is of ET origins. The direct context of the article is meteorites (like Oumuamua), not the “fast blurs on aircraft sensors” you seem to be referencing.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    I know who Avi Loeb is and his previous work in this area. But this paper is very explicitly not about meteorites or objects seen by advanced telescopes, it is exactly about the fast blurs on aircraft sensors. Here is a piece from the conclusion: > For example, one of the most common sets of data within the military holdings comes from FLIR (forward looking infrared) pods. These sensors provide an accurate resolved image of relative thermal measurements across the scene. Typical UAP sightings are too far away to get a highly resolved image of the object and determination of the object’s motion is limited by the lack of range data. Not to mention, 'Oumuamua was emphatically not a UAP, it was a pretty-well-identified spatial object. UAP in fact refers exclusively to sightings that are not even clearly known to be "objects" at all, hence the move away from "UFO".
    - bumby 4y ago
      It's both. The UAP context is a meteorite (i.e., '-ite' defining that it comes in contact with the earth's atmosphere). The article seems very much about meteorites (or possible, mis-identified meteorites), using RF, military FLIR, and observational telescope data. >"Parallax data from the James Webb Space Telescope may identify the nature and 3D trajectory of more ‘Oumuamua-like or smaller interstellar objects crossing through or trapped within the solar system. Below we show that any supersonic motion by such devices through the Earth’s atmosphere would inevitably be accompanied by bright optical emission and detectable characterization signatures." He first describes how such an object (i.e., Oumuamua-like meteorite) travelling through the Earth's atmosphere can be measured through its luminosity signature. He then describes how RF and thermal (i.e. FLIR) signatures can also be used.
stametseater 4y ago
> Oumuamua is an interplanetary object that was able to be studied for days by multiple telescopes as it passed through our solar system. Not some "fast blur on some airplane's sensors". No, not a fast blur on aircraft sensors; rather a fast blur on telescope sensors. All those telescopes saw was a very dim dot of variable brightness. They couldn't even see what shape the object was and even today nobody really knows what it was shaped like. From the period of it dimming scientists have inferred what shape it might have, but they don't really know because there are many geometries which could explain the observed data. It might have been cigar shaped, or it might have been more of a flat disk (a hypothesis favored by Avi Loeb I believe, one of the authors of the OP article). Nobody really knows because nobody actually got a good look at it. The limited data the telescopes were able to get leave a lot of room to interpretatation making it perfect UFOlogist bait, just like those videos from the airplane sensors. Actually the airplane sensors got a much better look at their objects than any telescope got of Oumuamua.
- bumby 4y ago
  That’s fair, but I’d still argue it’s not a fast blur on a telescope. They had 11 days to collect data so I’d have to be very charitable to call that “fast” at least in the context of comparing it to aircraft sensors.
  - stametseater 4y ago
    They saw it moving fast relative to our system, and all they were able to make out was a faint dot. I think comparing it to a "fast blur" on an aircraft sensor is actually too charitable, because those aircraft sensors actually got better looks at their objects.
    - bumby 4y ago
      And slow relative to other celestial bodies, depending on the amount and type of data collected. I guess if we're being subjective we can call it whatever we want.

by bumby 4y ago

tsimionescu 4y ago

The paper is not about 'Oumuamua, it's specifically about "highly-maneouverable UAPs": > We derive physical constraints on interpretations of “highly maneuverable” Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)

bumby 4y ago
If you aren’t aware of the broader context, the author (Avi Loeb) has used the various techniques within the paper to make the case that Oumuamua is of ET origins. The direct context of the article is meteorites (like Oumuamua), not the “fast blurs on aircraft sensors” you seem to be referencing.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  I know who Avi Loeb is and his previous work in this area. But this paper is very explicitly not about meteorites or objects seen by advanced telescopes, it is exactly about the fast blurs on aircraft sensors. Here is a piece from the conclusion: > For example, one of the most common sets of data within the military holdings comes from FLIR (forward looking infrared) pods. These sensors provide an accurate resolved image of relative thermal measurements across the scene. Typical UAP sightings are too far away to get a highly resolved image of the object and determination of the object’s motion is limited by the lack of range data. Not to mention, 'Oumuamua was emphatically not a UAP, it was a pretty-well-identified spatial object. UAP in fact refers exclusively to sightings that are not even clearly known to be "objects" at all, hence the move away from "UFO".
  - bumby 4y ago
    It's both. The UAP context is a meteorite (i.e., '-ite' defining that it comes in contact with the earth's atmosphere). The article seems very much about meteorites (or possible, mis-identified meteorites), using RF, military FLIR, and observational telescope data. >"Parallax data from the James Webb Space Telescope may identify the nature and 3D trajectory of more ‘Oumuamua-like or smaller interstellar objects crossing through or trapped within the solar system. Below we show that any supersonic motion by such devices through the Earth’s atmosphere would inevitably be accompanied by bright optical emission and detectable characterization signatures." He first describes how such an object (i.e., Oumuamua-like meteorite) travelling through the Earth's atmosphere can be measured through its luminosity signature. He then describes how RF and thermal (i.e. FLIR) signatures can also be used.

stametseater 4y ago

> Oumuamua is an interplanetary object that was able to be studied for days by multiple telescopes as it passed through our solar system. Not some "fast blur on some airplane's sensors". No, not a fast blur on aircraft sensors; rather a fast blur on telescope sensors. All those telescopes saw was a very dim dot of variable brightness. They couldn't even see what shape the object was and even today nobody really knows what it was shaped like. From the period of it dimming scientists have inferred what shape it might have, but they don't really know because there are many geometries which could explain the observed data. It might have been cigar shaped, or it might have been more of a flat disk (a hypothesis favored by Avi Loeb I believe, one of the authors of the OP article). Nobody really knows because nobody actually got a good look at it. The limited data the telescopes were able to get leave a lot of room to interpretatation making it perfect UFOlogist bait, just like those videos from the airplane sensors. Actually the airplane sensors got a much better look at their objects than any telescope got of Oumuamua.

bumby 4y ago
That’s fair, but I’d still argue it’s not a fast blur on a telescope. They had 11 days to collect data so I’d have to be very charitable to call that “fast” at least in the context of comparing it to aircraft sensors.
- stametseater 4y ago
  They saw it moving fast relative to our system, and all they were able to make out was a faint dot. I think comparing it to a "fast blur" on an aircraft sensor is actually too charitable, because those aircraft sensors actually got better looks at their objects.
  - bumby 4y ago
    And slow relative to other celestial bodies, depending on the amount and type of data collected. I guess if we're being subjective we can call it whatever we want.