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_celestial_motion.thumb.jpg.a9e9349c45f96ed7928eb32f1baf76ed.jpg

Klitwo

Was "Oumuamua" An Alien Space Probe?

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Ruud said:

The solar system itself is in outer space. Unless it is very special, we can expect that the compound we have here occur in many other places.

Anyway organic chemistry is carbon chemistry, and organic molecules are molecules containing carbon atoms. I suppose Titan has more has more organic compounds than Earth does, but there's no sign of life there. Organic compounds do not mean much by themselves.

Also, there is no distinction between the "true nature" and the "nature" of any object, and the same is true for its "true origin" and its "origin".

And not knowing what something  is doesn't mean that we can decide for ourselves what it is. It means that we don't know what it is.

Jupiter has flung out thousands of objects from our solar system. Other systems have gas giant too, which also fling out objects. For this reason we should expect visitors from outside the solar system. We just detected our first. 

---

We have a very perfectly mundane explanation for Oumuamua's visit:  a natural object whizzed by. Unless we have a very good reason to assume it is artificial, we should not leap to the conclusion that it is.

---

If you want more though, try good scifi: Rendezvous with Rama (Arthur Clarke) or Eon (Greg Bear). Wonderful tales. The characters in these novels certainly have reason to think that their visitors aren't aren't just ordinary comets or asteroids.

Thanks to Mariner 4, launched on November 28, 1964, was the first successful flyby of the planet Mars and gave mankind the first glimpse of Mars at close range.  Had we not launched Mariner 4 we wouldn't have been able to "confirm" the existance of huge craters on Mars. Until then (July 14 and July 15, 1965)...even using the world's largest telescopes at some of Mar's closest approaches of 35 million miles....the existance of craters on Mars was all "conjecture" and "speculation".....Public Domain image....> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mariner_4_craters.gif

Klitwo

Mariner_4_craters.gif

Edited by Klitwo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Kitwo. I see I have an error in a sentence I tried to correct earlier: now it reads "a very perfectly mundane explanation". I'm a bit dyslectic, you see. 

Mariner 4 provided us with evidence for craters on Mars. Craters are quite common, and we did expect them, but the huge volcanoes it found were a big surprise, as was that deep gigantic chasm.

Sagan put it this way: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The notion that Oumuamua might be artificial is plenty extraordinary. The evidence, though, is at best flimsy.

So, I think we have no good reason to think that Oumuamua is artificial, and we have the alternative possibility that it is not artificial. To me, the latter seems far more likely.

I'd better remove the word "very" from my earlier post.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ruud said:

Thanks Kitwo. I see I have an error in a sentence I tried to correct earlier: now it reads "a very perfectly mundane explanation". I'm a bit dyslectic, you see. 

Mariner 4 provided us with evidence for craters on Mars. Craters are quite common, and we did expect them, but the huge volcanoes it found were a big surprise, as was that deep gigantic chasm.

Sagan put it this way: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The notion that Oumuamua might be artificial is plenty extraordinary. The evidence, though, is at best flimsy.

So, I think we have no good reason to think that Oumuamua is artificial, and we have the alternative possibility that it is not artificial. To me, the latter seems far more likely.

I'd better remove the word "very" from my earlier post.

 

"we"?  The only thing I can agree with concerning your statement above about "Oumuamua" is: Yes...currently the evidence for "Oumuamua" being artificial is still quite "speculative".  However....the best current "observed" telescopic view we have of "Oumuamua" when it was passing through the inner solar system was at a such a great distance and with it being such a small object that nothing...even it's true shape and any surface features could be resolved even with some of the world's largest telescopes that tried to track it.  Only a NASA flyby mission that can image it at some appropriate distance can resolve any speculation and conflict about it's true nature, size, shape, surface features and possible origin.....until then it is still "speculation" and "conjecture" what "Oumuamua" actually is...a fact that even the great Carl Sagan if he were still here among us, would have probably agreed with.

Our best view of "Oumuamua", from the William Herschel Telescope on October 29, 2017. Image via Queen’s University Belfast/William Herschel Telescope....>

http://en.es-static.us/upl/2018/11/oumuamu-William-Herschel-Telescope-11-5-2018.jpg

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/609Ng8.gif

Klitwo

Edited by Klitwo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suggesting something might be artificial because it's a bit odd or unknown is not very scientific and highly illogical.

The universe is full of things we either don't know about, or understand; an interesting one just passed by - that's all we have, 'interesting'.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Galileo said..." Measure what is measurable, Make measurable what is not" so I would agree Oumuamua is not only interesting but beyond measure also, making it the subject of conjecture and assumption. This is the reason Galileo's second line makes his quote so endearing.

"The Universe is full of things we don't know about; or understand"

Yes indeed Mr Spock it is;

More @ Pbs Space Time

Edited by SIDO
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr Spock said:

Suggesting something might be artificial because it's a bit odd or unknown is not very scientific and highly illogical.

The universe is full of things we either don't know about, or understand; an interesting one just passed by - that's all we have, 'interesting'.

Using the noun "speculation" or to "speculate" on what "Oumuamua" might possibly be (artificial or natural occuring?) would probably be more appropriate...especially if it were to be reviewed in a "hypothesis" in an academic setting.  With all due respect....the use of the adjective "interesting" just doesn't seem "interesting" enough (except for a layman maybe) to arouse much "if any" scientific curiosity in a thesis that's about to be reviewed by one's peers....

P.S. Obviously the scientific community finds "Oumuamua" more than just "interesting"....otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation today!

Klitwo

Edited by Klitwo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find speculation to be self defeating as it rarely contributes to scientific fact.

You would hope people would examine the (little) evidence we have about this object and look to provide more rational basis for any assessment of it's nature.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr Spock said:

I find speculation to be self defeating as it rarely contributes to scientific fact.

You would hope people would examine the (little) evidence we have about this object and look to provide more rational basis for any assessment of it's nature.

With all due respect....I believe the "same" could be said for the adjective "interesting" too....especially when it comes to trying to accurately describe something that currently has "no" confirmed scientific description or explanation....other than the use of "speculative".....

Klitwo

Edited by Klitwo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting: arousing curiosity or interest; holding or catching the attention.

I belive the word is sufficient in this context and it's meaning unambiguous.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

Interesting: arousing curiosity or interest; holding or catching the attention.

I belive the word is sufficient in this context and it's meaning unambiguous.

With all due respect...you can draw your own premature conclusion about "Oumuamua".  I'll prefer to wait until all of the facts are in before I draw mine about the true nature and origin of "Oumuamua".  At least in that way...I will have given science the benefit of the doubt instead of science fiction....

Klitwo

Edited by Klitwo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be many things.

The diamond core of a disrupted white dwarf, a nugget of gold condensed from a neuron star merger, a probe from an advanced civiliastion.

We will never know for sure as there will be no mission to observe it up close.

In such a case the best thing to do is to assume the most mundane answer consistent with the facts we do have. I am sure that will be the consensus that will emerge in due course from the scientific community. 

Regards Andrew 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On that note this discussion is closed ?‍♂️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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