Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_supernovae_remnants_winners.thumb.jpg.a13d54fa405efa94ed30e7abd590ee55.jpg

goodricke1

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    474
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

312 Excellent

1 Follower

About goodricke1

  • Rank
    Star Forming

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Ireland
  1. The only assumption I would make is that if it is artificial, then it must have been intentionally directed towards us. The Voyager craft for example, are expected to travel for a quadrillion years before they would approach a planet as closely as 'Oumuamua did to Earth. I find it quite suspicious that, with over 100 years of quality images behind us, we have never detected an 11th, 12th, 13th magnitude interstellar object i.e somewhat brighter than this one. The volume of interstellar space is staggeringly vast relative to the Solar System, and this object approaching to within 0.16 AU was virtually a collision. When you add in the other unforeseen properties, this is the most interesting object since the invention of the telescope imo.
  2. If you imagine a needle travelling through space, the 'body' of the needle will reflect more light and generate the light curve. But this will not be a true value for the axial ratio, as that could only be derived from the light curve if the 'tips' of the needle were oriented directly towards us. Since this is far less likely, the published axial ratio values are most probably under-estimated. I thought 50/50 was an appropriate balance between the extreme properties of the object versus the unlikelihood that an artificial craft would appear at our moment in history. I'm not sure about your third point, yes there are far more natural objects but this has 6 or 7 unusual properties and it's not from our neighbourhood. Unfortunately we may never know, but if it was artificial it's unlikely to be either random or alone. @Klitwo, the non-gravitational acceleration is unrelated to the original speed of the object (assuming of course that it is a genuine interstellar object and that its motion was not generated artificially).
  3. I'm a bit surprised at the level of cynicism in here.... let's just take the light-curve example. Even the most conservative estimates accept that the axial ratio is 6:1. However, since it's unlikely that the object was viewed edge-on, the probability is that the ratio is higher, perhaps 15:1 or more. This is an extreme geometry for the first interstellar object and, if true, I would say the odds are better than 50/50 that it's artificial.
  4. Hmmm... the technology of the future, or any alien technology, will be easily capable of reversing death.
  5. 55, 63 and 104 Tauri are all being occulted from my location, along with a few 7th mag stars. Aldebaran is no longer in the path though.
  6. I was scanning that area the other night and the Stellarium app on my phone identified all those binocular Ms and NGCs. Much more satisfying than not knowing or grappling with maps and torches. Makes casual starhopping a lot more interesting too so highly recommended.
  7. Yes it really is that large; during Comet Holmes' outburst in 2007 it was bigger than the Sun.
  8. That's quite an anthropomorphic viewpoint; it's difficult to see how theories grappling with the unexplained origin of the Universe 14 billion years ago could be less profound than the supposed events on a random planet 10 billion years later. A survey like this was carried out at the end of the 20th century by professional scientists; Newton finished 1st and Einstein 2nd. Perhaps the deciding factor was Newton having less raw material to work with in the 17th century, whereas Einstein had a greater number of shoulders to stand on. (Hawking finished 54th by the way; we need to distinguish between having a high public profile granted by the media, as opposed to actual accomplishment which might go unnoticed in popular circles.)
  9. I'm also using an older version and get that blank box also. So the way I add a comet (or asteroid) is to go to the MPC ephemeris service: https://minorplanetcenter.net//iau/MPEph/MPEph.html I then put the object name, say 64P, in the box provided and check the "MPC 1-line" option farther down. A text file is generated which can then be uploaded to Stellarium in that same 'upload orbital elements' window. Hope that helps.
  10. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/banknotes/50-character-selection-names.pdf?la=en&hash=F0CCA0655EEC2788748D885BE036662B574B615E It's a PDF file.
  11. No offence but the fact that you would 'reject something from the outset' is nothing short of closed-minded fundamentalism. If we were 'created by someone' then that truth has to be accepted and choosing to believe otherwise is frankly irrelevant. And to say that the answer to why the universe exists is 'for no reason whatever' is so intellectually unsatisfactory that it makes me wonder why you have the slightest interest in astronomy, physics or anything else. Again no offence.
  12. No minor planets brighter than mag 17 within half a degree of Pluto at that time, according to MP Checker. Strange one.
  13. I remember SPM criticising the Germans even though he spent a lot of time at ESA HQ in Darmstadt. That was disappointing as science should be way above petty nationalism.
  14. The moon is kinda boring relative to its size; at least the likes of Europa, Enceladus etc actually have something going on. And I think I've seen most of what can be seen now with my 8-inch so yes, get Trump to press that button
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.