New Theory On Mysterious Oumuamua Space Object Revealed (newsmax.com) 54
In 2017, astronomers discovered a peculiar object in the solar system called 'Oumuamua that was somehow ejected into our solar system from some chain of unfortunate events. "Now, astronomers have hypothesized that something like 'Oumuamua can come from a still-forming system, and a population of giant planets can have just the right gravitational effects to spread pieces of debris across the galaxy," according to the Live Science article written by astrophysicist Paul Sutter. From a report: The dull shaped object is only a few hundred feet long and very thin. It has a very dull red color. Live Science noted older solar systems don't eject enough raw material to saturate the galaxy. But young solar systems are different. Particularly, those with Neptune-like planets, on the edge of a solar system with reservoirs of comets around it. Enough interaction with the debris field and a Neptune-like planet could send objects like Oumuamua flying out into interstellar space. But Sutter cautions this is strictly a hypothesis. "The more we watch the skies, the more interstellar interlopers we are sure to find," he wrote.
Strictly increasing function (Score:2)
"The more we watch the skies, the more interstellar interlopers we are sure to find,"
Given that it's a strictly increasing function, sure.
Re: Strictly increasing function (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But we can't "unfind" any.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Strictly increasing function (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What is this "photo" thing, and what does it have to do with detecting and measuring the orbits of Solar system bodies?
For a start, an absolute minimum amount of data for actually getting a solution for an object's orbit is three observations. In practice, as anyone who even glances at the likes of the Minor Planet Mailing List, even tentative solutions for an object's orbit need dozens of measurements from d
Oumuamua (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
a few hundred feet long and very thin, dull red (Score:5, Funny)
only a few hundred feet long and very thin. It has a very dull red color.
You mean something like this? https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org]
As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you’ve got to laugh, haven’t you?
Re: (Score:2)
dunno, I think it was just a planetary scale artillery shell
Re: (Score:2)
"increasing inevitability"
Aside from that being a rather gross non sequitur (something can't be "increasingly" inevitable - if it's inevitable, it just IS) the vastness of the universe would argue persuasively against you.
I mean, it's far more reasonable to assume that we're NOT special, that the chemical processes that lead over time from amino acids to life are pretty normal throughout the galaxy, particularly considering that our stellar system is pedestrian by observed populations.
And then multiply that
Re: (Score:2)
the chemical processes that lead over time from amino acids to life are pretty normal throughout the galaxy
Really? You've been around, and checked?
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you're asserting that the basic physics that drive chemical reactions are locally different in different places in the universe, yeah, I'm going to go "out on a limb" and assert with high confidence that chemical processes (ie Oxidation, Reduction, Hydrogenation, Dehydrogenation, Hydrolysis, Hydration, Dehydration, Halogenation, Nitrification, Sulfonation, Ammoniation, Alkaline fusion, Alkylation, Dealkylation, Esterification, Polymerization, Polycondensation, Catalysis) all pretty much work consiste
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, I was quoting an AI with a 6000 IQ, and control of a super-luminal mining ship, 3 million years in the future.
http://reddwarfquotes.com/red-... [reddwarfquotes.com]
Additional: https://youtu.be/et0vpZvxnJY?t... [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, it's far more reasonable to assume that we're NOT special, that the chemical processes that lead over time from amino acids to life are pretty normal throughout the galaxy,
Making assumptions is itself not reasonable. We simply don't know how common abiogenesis is. It could be very common or so rare that it has only happened a few times in the history of our galaxy.
It has been compared to a fully functional 747 self-assembling from a tornado in a junkyard or landfill. That's how improbable it is. What we call 'life' is really a kind of nanotech: microrobots that can self-replicate.
If we saw actual nano-robots we'd probably be thinking 'aliens' because the idea of them just app
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
molecules that resulted in a build-up of complexity over time
And that's the whole problem: the complexity of any system must always go down over time.
This is the "arrow of time" that makes the spontaneous breaking of an egg an everyday occurrence,
while the spontaneous reassembly of a broken egg has never happened and never will.
Re: (Score:2)
The ENTROPY of a system IN TOTAL must always increase.
But this doesn't say anything about local results, and complexity != entropy.
Honestly, you can explore freshman physics yourself, and then come back when you understand it better: https://www.popularmechanics.c... [popularmechanics.com]
Re: (Score:2)
There is some evidence that life became ubiquitous as soon as it was physically possible on Earth, so it's a reasonable assumption that the chemistry is not unlikely when you consider the scale of a planet.
Citation needed on that 'evidence' but even if that is true it tells you nothing about how commonly it will arise on other planets. It is an example of one. We know almost nothing about what is required to create the nanotechnology we call 'life'. Since we know nothing about the process we cannot know exactly what is required to make it happen.
Re: (Score:2)
... which only goes to show that profoundly brain-damaged shrimps can compose grammatical but idiotic sentences. Were they religious idiots, by any chance?
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try at an ad hominem attack, but do you have any insight to add to the argument for or against the ease and ubiquity of abiogenesis? We really don't have the slightest clue how to make life from non-life. We cannot even begin to imagine how it could be done.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you planned any genocidal conquests in accord with your scripture's instructions today? You're not even good at your religion.
Re: (Score:2)
it's far more reasonable to assume that we're NOT special
The only "reasonable assumption" is that there is no "reasonable assumption"
since there is no evidence one way or the other.
Why do people insist on making assumptions, when there is no need to?
Re: (Score:2)
The reasonable assumption here is that chemical processes that are common here are common elsewhere.
As far as we can observe, the molecules that make us up aren't terribly special. There's no magic "god" particle that only exists in humans. It's just basic elements.
As far as we can observe the amino acids that are foundational to life here seem to be relatively common 'out there'. https://www.newscientist.com/a... [newscientist.com]
You're right, as far as the 'magic moment' that turns a pool of amino acids into bacteria -
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
There are two possibilities (Score:2)
There are two possibilities... We are alone in the universe OR there is other intelligent life out there. Either of these realities is mind boggling.
If we are alone, then life and its continuation would be of upmost importance and should be our focus and concern. War should be viewed as criminal, nationalism as petty and we should be ensuring that the planet continues hosting life until technology advances to move life beyond this potential gravity grave we call earth.
If there are others out there. Well th
Thank you, Captain Obvious! (Score:1)
No, really? A mess of objects causes some of them to be ejected in random directions?
Anyone who has ever ran a simulation of objects attracting each other, has seen that.
And if anything, the question would be: Why in the world wouldn't it?
I'm sure there has been a generic paper about such a basic thing since a loong time ago. Or is it just that nobody bothered, because there were actually interesting things to study, before the âoerobot" humans (you know the kind) became a thing?
Re: Thank you, Captain Obvious! (Score:2)
also "young systems with lots of free orbiting objects, are more likely to eject some objects than older systems where most of the objects have been shed, or collided with/aggregated into larger objects" seem trivially obvious.
Re: Thank you, Captain Obvious! (Score:4, Insightful)
How big of a mass concentration a.k.a. protoplanet in an orbit around the star do you need to accelerate an object the size of 'Omuamua to parabolic velocity (stellar escape velocity)? Is an Earth size protoplanet sufficient, or do you need a larger one? What size? Jupiter? Super-Jupiter? Or would be dwarf planet the size of Ceres be enough? Apparently, the number of ejected objects increases with the size of the planets (more potential for high speed) and the number of objects in instabile orbits (more objects which could get into a parabolic orbit). But where is the cutoff? Has a mature stellar system enough ejectable objects, or do you need a young one? Do mature stellar systems eject enough debris to the interstellar space to account for two of those objects found within two years (2017 and 2019)? How many developing stellar systems do we need to have a lower limit of about 1/year interstellar objects within detectable proximity to Earth? How many developing stellar systems are in our proximity, and are they sufficient for the 1/year number? How many mature stellar systems can such an object cross without being caught in the gravitational field forever?
The path from "it's obvious" to "there are many little details we have to work out" is a short one.
Re: (Score:2)
speed. Not velocity. As long as the direction doesn't bring whatever into contact with something, it'll escape, assuming a speed greater than or equal to escape SPEED....
Re: (Score:2)
Speed [Re: Thank you, Captain Obvious!] (Score:3)
And the difference between velocity and speed beeing? Except that velocity derives from Latin, and speed from Old German?
Conventionally, speed is a scalar (how fast you are moving) and velocity is a vector (all three components of the motion).
In common usage outside of physics class, though, the words are almost always used interchangeably, and "escape velocity" is the common term, even though if you have the speed to escape, it doesn't matter what the vector is (assuming it doesn't impact something before you leave).
Re: (Score:2)
it doesn't matter what the vector is (assuming it doesn't impact something before you leave).
Or instead of assuming, you specify - making it velocity.
Re: (Score:2)
Subject to gravitational forces only, an object follows a straight line in curved spacetime, and thus does have constant velocity.
Re: (Score:2)
What you say is true - but you could go into such details with anything, and make it a subject for intense study. The point is that a rock flying by in a universe full of flying rocks is not in principle mysterious.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, if we are going for obvious, there is a simpler explanation that uses only stuff we already know, and does not require the work of thinking through a bunch of hypotheticals about star system formation:
Take a black hole. Like the one at the center of our galaxy. Don't worry about whether it has a central singularity; so long as there is an event horizon it is good for this explanation.
Stars that drift too close fall in, gone. Some planets (or, if you must, call them "exoplanets" to satisfy the idiots t
Nani? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Ejected into our solar system from some unfortunate chain of events"?
First, "ejected into"? Second, what about "gravity" is unfortunate? This is orbital mechanics, plain and simple. No need to attach feelings to it.
is science a religion now? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a cover up! (Score:3)
When it does finally reach its destination, there will be great sadness.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot mine. Mine Mine Mine Mine!
Re: (Score:3)
We should be tracking its trajectory. We could then determine the position of the Great Space Fan.
Naming (Score:5, Funny)
I suspect that this object's air of mystery comes largely from its name. "Oumuamua" sounds like something written about on a old stone tablet found by Indiana Jones. You can imagine a tribal elder looking up at a star filled night sky, and muttering "it has returned". If it was named "IR-3024.3A" no-one would've got nearly as excited.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did Indiana Jones ever visit any Pacific islands? Because that very much sounds like Hawaiian words to me.
Re: (Score:2)
It's Hawaiian for "scout".
<facepalm> (Score:2)
Let me see if I've got this straight:
A "dull shaped object" was "ejected into our solar system" due to "some chain of unfortunate events" - and this mulligan stew of English-like blather is characterized as a "hypothesis?" Really?
First of all, I'd appreciate it if somebody who speaks fluent gibberish would explain to me in detail the precise conformation of dullness. Oh, and I'm hopeful this cunning linguist can also shed light on the process by which something - anything - gets ejected INTO our solar syste
Re: (Score:1)
Makes Sense (Score:2)
If you've ever seen the simulations that Mike Brown and Konstantin Batygin and have done for their Planet Nine hypothesis you see that a large number of the outer objects end up getting ejected out of the solar system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Aliens... (Score:2)
Kirk : "We got to find some humpbacks."
Scotty : "Humpbacked... people?"
Kirk : "Whales, Mr. Scott, whales! Forty to fifty feet long and about 40 tons each."