Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Uncensored Guide to ‘Oumuamua, Aliens, and That Harvard Astronomer

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 126 posts

Re: The Uncensored Guide to ‘Oumuamua, Aliens, and That Harvard Astronomer

#11

Post by akuchling »

Zigurd wrote: post #3
untoxicness wrote: post #2

"That Harvard Astronomer" is Avi Loeb. Loeb was recently a guest on the Lex Fridman podcast where he talked about Oumuamua amongst other things. [0] I found his view on the subject fascinating and his perspective on science refreshing. [0] https://lexfridman.com/avi-loeb/

He was interviewed for the Kotke Ride Home podcast. He has a book coming out about Oumuamua. I will probably buy the book because Loeb is apparently brilliant. His evaluation of Oumuamua is very interesting. BUT the data about Oumuamua is really really tiny. The science of interstellar objects is nascent. Other than to say "If it is a natural object it is super-strange" I am not sure what else there is to say. In the…

The Washington Post has a review of the book: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/an-interstellar-accid...

Two excerpts from the review: "While this exotic explanation of the object serves as the backbone of the book, Loeb’s broader argument grows out of his bewilderment with the blowback to his hypothesis; he regards it as an omen of imaginative decay and anti-alien bias in the scientific community. ... While it’s tantalizing to imagine that ‘Oumuamua was our first brush with aliens, Loeb writes most memorably about collecting shells on the beach with his daughters, brainstorming trippy new studies with his many proteges and seeking comfort in the view of the night sky from our lonely planet."

Re: The Uncensored Guide to ‘Oumuamua, Aliens, and That Harvard Astronomer

#12

Post by avian »

willis936 wrote: post #9

Oumuamua raises some questions, but the one my mind keeps wandering to is “how common are these interstellar objects?” It poses a serious existential threat to us. We are a tiny target, but we have been able to observe these objects for a very short period of time. Unlike regular solar satellites, they are only visible for a very short period of time. Like comets, if one hit us it would end life on the planet. They d…

> We can estimate how many comets are out there with orbital mechanics models, but what about objects originating from outside the solar system?

We can estimate the frequency and size of impacts, regardless of the origin of the impacting body, from observing craters on the Earth, moon and other planets. Those show that the "end of life" impacts are pretty rare - the conclusion that also follows from the fact that we're having this discussion here.

Re: The Uncensored Guide to ‘Oumuamua, Aliens, and That Harvard Astronomer

#13

Post by jcims »

eightails wrote: post #5

How hard is it for people to just admit that we probably have inadequate evidence to reach a solid conclusion. This was the first object of its kind and we had very limited observations of it. From what I've read, none of the hypotheses regarding the measured acceleration (e.g. outgassing vs manufactured solar sail) can really be backed up in any substantial way. So it seems disengenuous to get into vitriolic argumen…

I think some of the vitriol comes around the discussion of whether or not we should develop a mission to go visit it.

Re: The Uncensored Guide to ‘Oumuamua, Aliens, and That Harvard Astronomer

#14

Post by erdos4d »

eightails wrote: post #5

How hard is it for people to just admit that we probably have inadequate evidence to reach a solid conclusion. This was the first object of its kind and we had very limited observations of it. From what I've read, none of the hypotheses regarding the measured acceleration (e.g. outgassing vs manufactured solar sail) can really be backed up in any substantial way. So it seems disengenuous to get into vitriolic argumen…

That the object could have outgassed 10% of its mass while exiting the solar system and produced a steady acceleration with no detectable change to its orbital period stretches all believability. However, I've seen similar bullshit pass as explaining such cases consistently in this field, and if anyone doubts it or makes an issue about it for too long, they get the old peer pressure applied to get them in line, or end their career. I think that is part of where the vitrol comes from. People don't like being silenced or losing their respectability because someone waved their hands a lot and said they explained something.

Re: The Uncensored Guide to ‘Oumuamua, Aliens, and That Harvard Astronomer

#15

Post by postalrat »

eightails wrote: post #5

How hard is it for people to just admit that we probably have inadequate evidence to reach a solid conclusion. This was the first object of its kind and we had very limited observations of it. From what I've read, none of the hypotheses regarding the measured acceleration (e.g. outgassing vs manufactured solar sail) can really be backed up in any substantial way. So it seems disengenuous to get into vitriolic argumen…

Of course we need to keep watching.

But at the same time why shouldn't we continue trying to understand what oumuamua is based on everything we know?

Re: The Uncensored Guide to ‘Oumuamua, Aliens, and That Harvard Astronomer

#16

Post by postalrat »

jcims wrote: post #13
eightails wrote: post #5

How hard is it for people to just admit that we probably have inadequate evidence to reach a solid conclusion. This was the first object of its kind and we had very limited observations of it. From what I've read, none of the hypotheses regarding the measured acceleration (e.g. outgassing vs manufactured solar sail) can really be backed up in any substantial way. So it seems disengenuous to get into vitriolic argumen…

I think some of the vitriol comes around the discussion of whether or not we should develop a mission to go visit it.

The conspiracy theorist in my wants to believe that if the military thought it could be from an alien civilization they already have a mission to reach it and would do what they can to prevent any sort of public mission from reaching it.

Re: The Uncensored Guide to ‘Oumuamua, Aliens, and That Harvard Astronomer

#17

Post by Gys »

eightails wrote: post #5

How hard is it for people to just admit that we probably have inadequate evidence to reach a solid conclusion. This was the first object of its kind and we had very limited observations of it. From what I've read, none of the hypotheses regarding the measured acceleration (e.g. outgassing vs manufactured solar sail) can really be backed up in any substantial way. So it seems disengenuous to get into vitriolic argumen…

Early mankind did not understand storms and thunder and invented gods to explain the phenomenon. We still have phenomenon we cannot explain but ruled out gods. So now alternatively we like extraterrestrial life for explanations :)

Re: The Uncensored Guide to ‘Oumuamua, Aliens, and That Harvard Astronomer

#18

Post by jamesdmiller »

postalrat wrote: post #16
jcims wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think some of the vitriol comes around the discussion of whether or not we should develop a mission to go visit it.

The conspiracy theorist in my wants to believe that if the military thought it could be from an alien civilization they already have a mission to reach it and would do what they can to prevent any sort of public mission from reaching it.

By this logic, the military would have started vaccinating their troops for COVID by March 2020.

Re: The Uncensored Guide to ‘Oumuamua, Aliens, and That Harvard Astronomer

#20

Post by wsay »

I think the inadequate data is the key point, especially as we've only seen two of these types of things so far - the best we can probably hope for now is to go "This object seemed odd in several ways - let's increase our observations for these kinds of objects and see what the majority turn out to be and importantly if we encounter anything which is odd in similar ways which we can identify".

So when the question is posed "What is a responsible scientist to do in this situation?" I think the answer is clearly, accept it as an "out-there" but currently not disprovable hypothesis, and if you feel strongly that it's incorrect, dedicate effort and time to showing with evidence (at least quantifiable empirical evidence) that this is the case, ideally in a published and peer-reviewed paper.

Post reply on HN