4 ms·

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 Loc

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
    Can you possibly link to those articles directly? I'm not really able to add much based on just the abstract. My thoughts on the book was that he was not making hard claims, but that the anomalies, particularly the joint probability of such anomalies, should lead us to at least be open to the idea of ET origins. His issue seemed to be that the idea was being superficially dismissed and not allowing it to be discussed, particularly with younger scientists without it potentially damaging their career. My recollection was that he wasn't even saying it was probable, just not impossible, and gatekeeping around investigating that possibility is bad science.

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
  Can you possibly link to those articles directly? I'm not really able to add much based on just the abstract. My thoughts on the book was that he was not making hard claims, but that the anomalies, particularly the joint probability of such anomalies, should lead us to at least be open to the idea of ET origins. His issue seemed to be that the idea was being superficially dismissed and not allowing it to be discussed, particularly with younger scientists without it potentially damaging their career. My recollection was that he wasn't even saying it was probable, just not impossible, and gatekeeping around investigating that possibility is bad science.