3 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

> 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.

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.