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

101–110 of 126 posts

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

#101

Post by reventropy »

giantrobot wrote: post #80
sandworm101 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> if you propose observations of CFCs because it's a snipe hunt wasting valuable and limited instrument time. That's what they said about hot jupiters. Exoplanets could have been detected decades earlier had there not been a consistent bias against the idea of large objects orbiting so near host stars, a bias based on a single data point (our solar system).

It's unlikely many types of exoplanets could have been detected "decades" earlier. Transit and Doppler detection methods require good seeing power and accurate intensity measurements. It takes large mirrors with good optics for good seeing power and sensitive electronics for the spectral/intensity measurements. Those two things weren't readily available until the past few decades...which surprise is when exoplanet di…

Fun fact. Amateur astronomers can use photometry to detect some transiting exoplanets using as small as a 4'' telescope on a night with good seeing. Atmospheric composition is a different matter.

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

#102

Post by vfclists »

saberdancer wrote: post #95
annoyingnoob wrote: post #29

How do we jump to the conclusion of aliens with so little information? Why not God sent it?

Oumuamua changed velocity in an unexplained way. This was not expected, but there is an explanation that the object is outgassing and it increases it's velocity. This, along with strange shape made the object interesting for ET speculation.

Hasn't the outgassing theory been dismissed because there is no sign of it?

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

#103

Post by cwkoss »

giantrobot wrote: post #46
sandworm101 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His battle is only partly about Oumuamua. That is just a vehicle for his arguments. The real issue is the bias against life detection experiments generally. Want to sample soil on mars and measure oxygen absorption? Great. We will put your sensor on the next rover. Want to pour nutrients on that soil and see if anything eats it? Go away you crazy person. Want to detect methane in an exoplanet atmosphere? Here is your…

Science money is very limited. Space science money more limited. Space science money to get components on rovers yet more limited. Telescope time is also limited. Mission time on remote probes is also limited. So you devise an experiment to measure oxygen absorption that uses a probe's existing mass spectrometer. Your experiment doesn't cut into the probe's mass budget so it basically is just a scheduling issue. If y…

Is methane really a general purpose biomarker? I thought methane ice was pretty common on astrological bodies, and thus vast majority of methane in the universe is not created by biological processes.

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

#104

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

krok wrote: post #84
Itinerant662 wrote: post #74

Contrary to the narratives you’ll find elsewhere, including in Loeb’s new book, Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Life Beyond Earth, this is not a possibility worth taking seriously as a scientist. A straightforward look at the evidence shows us why." -> "Loeb offers only loud, immodest speculation about aliens and diatribes about community groupthink. Coupled with inadequate data, which is the only data we have, h…

If something is impossible to prove wrong because of inadequate data isn't that a strong suggestion that further research would be a good idea??

Gathering more data on this object is essentially impossible right now. There's a telescope coming online soon (LSST) that should detect many more objects like this, though.

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

#105

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

>> Loeb was a once-respected scientist who made important contributions to astrophysics and cosmology, particularly when it came to black holes and the first stars. But his work on extraterrestrial signatures continues to be largely unappreciated by the community — a position as justifiable as ignoring the comparable idea of Russell’s teapot — and rather than address their scientific objections, he’s stopped listening to other astronomers entirely, instead choosing to try his scientific case in the most unscientific place imaginable: the court of public opinion.

This is an attack piece that targets Avi Loeb's character. It's disturbing that the author of the piece is himself an astrophycisist and I have to wonder, if Avi Loeb is calling upon the court of public opinion, what else is this piece, published in Forbes rather than a science venue, doing exactly?

Science is a debate. For there to be a debate, there have to be differing opinions. And for there to be differing opinions, there has to be the freedom of scientists to express their opinions. Even poorly supported opinions like Avi Loeb's. What hurts science is bombastic invocations of "the large amounts of research done by other professionals who specialize in this particular field" - as an attempt to stiffle an opionion the author is not fond of with an appeal to authority.

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

#106

Post by KingFelix »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #105

>> Loeb was a once-respected scientist who made important contributions to astrophysics and cosmology, particularly when it came to black holes and the first stars. But his work on extraterrestrial signatures continues to be largely unappreciated by the community — a position as justifiable as ignoring the comparable idea of Russell’s teapot — and rather than address their scientific objections, he’s stopped listenin…

I agree and no longer read his articles, and I don't think he provides any value. He often uses statements like this to attack targets, he did the same thing with the last article that came across my news feed for Roger Penrose.

>>Hundreds of scientists have pointed this out to Penrose — repeatedly and consistently over a period of more than 10 years — who continues to ignore the field and plow ahead with his contentions.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/01/28/the-...

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

#107

Post by narrator »

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/

The guy doesn't even say it's a probe. He thinks it's likely space junk, but not from us. If you lived on some remote island not near shipping or flight lanes, you'd know people were out there because of all the plastic bottles and crap that would show up on the shore. Same thing basically. The beings who made it could have been extinct for millions of years.

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

#108

Post by giantrobot »

cwkoss wrote: post #103
giantrobot wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science money is very limited. Space science money more limited. Space science money to get components on rovers yet more limited. Telescope time is also limited. Mission time on remote probes is also limited. So you devise an experiment to measure oxygen absorption that uses a probe's existing mass spectrometer. Your experiment doesn't cut into the probe's mass budget so it basically is just a scheduling issue. If y…

Is methane really a general purpose biomarker? I thought methane ice was pretty common on astrological bodies, and thus vast majority of methane in the universe is not created by biological processes.

Atmospheric methane on a terrestrial planet would be a biomarker. Bio-suggestion maybe. Free methane in the atmosphere of a planet anywhere near the habitable zone of a star would be readily broken down. If there's a good amount detected it suggests replenishment by biological processes. Biological processes are definitely not the only source of methane. It's enough to warrant more observations or even new instruments.

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

#109

Post by asiachick »

sandworm101 wrote: post #7
ckozlowski wrote: post #4

I'd gotten the impression that Loeb isn't trying to convince the public and scientific community that it was an alien probe so much as is he trying to show it could have been. I think is agenda is to get the community looking for these things more often, perhaps out of some disappointment that if it had been an actual probe (a la "Rendezvous with Rama"), we'd already have missed it. Whether it's worth bending the sci…

His battle is only partly about Oumuamua. That is just a vehicle for his arguments. The real issue is the bias against life detection experiments generally. Want to sample soil on mars and measure oxygen absorption? Great. We will put your sensor on the next rover. Want to pour nutrients on that soil and see if anything eats it? Go away you crazy person. Want to detect methane in an exoplanet atmosphere? Here is your…

I listened to Avi on the latest Mindscape podcast. I'm 99% on his side but I would have loved to hear responses to the idea, how do you distinguish this from hunting for ghosts, souls, E.S.P., telepathy, etc... Someone who believed in those things would pretty much make all the same arguments (eg, have an open mind).

I'm sure there are good arguments to distinguish why searching harder in the directions Avi wants things to go is different from searching for ghosts. It would be nice have heard them.

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

#110

Post by interestica »

giantrobot wrote: post #80
sandworm101 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> if you propose observations of CFCs because it's a snipe hunt wasting valuable and limited instrument time. That's what they said about hot jupiters. Exoplanets could have been detected decades earlier had there not been a consistent bias against the idea of large objects orbiting so near host stars, a bias based on a single data point (our solar system).

It's unlikely many types of exoplanets could have been detected "decades" earlier. Transit and Doppler detection methods require good seeing power and accurate intensity measurements. It takes large mirrors with good optics for good seeing power and sensitive electronics for the spectral/intensity measurements. Those two things weren't readily available until the past few decades...which surprise is when exoplanet di…

> Those two things weren't readily available until the past few decades...which surprise is when exoplanet discoveries started happening.

I think the other poster might be alluding to a chicken-and-egg situation: could a stronger theoretical basis for the existence of 'Hot Jupiters' have driven development toward the goal of their detection 20 years earlier?

Post reply on HN