Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

The Interstellar Asteroid Oumuamua

43 posts in this topic

The 'big cigar in the sky' otherwise known as Oumuamua is making astronomers and just curious people like me scratch our heads. What is it really? Where did it come from? How did it end up in our solar system or was it 'sent' here? Is it just a piece of space trash from some other system or what? How could it speed up while in our solar system? Is there someone/thing driving it or is it on auto pilot or is it a ship of some kind at all? Astronomy magazine has an article here:  http://astronomy.com/news/2018/03/interstellar-asteroid-oumuamua-came-from-binary-star-system

but I open this thread for people to both have fun speculating about it or also to try and have a serious look at it, and wonder about it. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cybil said:

The 'big cigar in the sky' otherwise known as Oumuamua is making astronomers and just curious people like me scratch our heads. What is it really? Where did it come from? How did it end up in our solar system or was it 'sent' here? Is it just a piece of space trash from some other system or what? How could it speed up while in our solar system? Is there someone/thing driving it or is it on auto pilot or is it a ship of some kind at all? Astronomy magazine has an article here:  http://astronomy.com/news/2018/03/interstellar-asteroid-oumuamua-came-from-binary-star-system

but I open this thread for people to both have fun speculating about it or also to try and have a serious look at it, and wonder about it. 

 

It's just a normal asteroid that appears to have a hyperbolic orbit, due to a gravity boost from transneptunian objects. All asteriods were ejected from Earth during the flood, where super-critical water broke out from beneath the Earth's crust. This is why our moon is more severely damaged on the side that faces the Earth than it is on the opposite side.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh, what? I don’t know what is more horrendous, your grasp of orbital mechanics or the attempt to verify the flood myth... Oh wait, I get it, April 1st, good one. I thought you were serious.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LeCheese said:

It's Rama ( right again Mr. Clarke )

When they pick up a message along the lines of, 'Dave, what are you doing?' or the song 'Daisy' emitted from that thing, we'll know that HAL 9000 is back. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the space turd has anything to do with HAL 9000 or sends a message, I for one hope it plays Ziggy Stardust!

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2019, 9:22:50, slammer said:

Huh, what? I don’t know what is more horrendous, your grasp of orbital mechanics or the attempt to verify the flood myth... Oh wait, I get it, April 1st, good one. I thought you were serious.

 

I must have a pretty decent understanding of orbital mechanics actually. Scientists have already posited the idea and Cornell University has already researched whether or not Oumuamua's hyperbolic orbit could be the result of "Solar Scattering" They found that the idea could not be completely ruled out. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.06044.pdf

 

Guess the joke is on you, buddy.

 

Also, I suspect that if you actually were ever to debate me on whether or not the Earth was once covered with water via the event I previously described, it would not even be a real debate. It would just be me, destroying you with science and my superior knowledge of mechanics. Have a nice day.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3.4.2019, 00:28:27, Fromm said:

 

I must have a pretty decent understanding of orbital mechanics actually. Scientists have already posited the idea and Cornell University has already researched whether or not Oumuamua's hyperbolic orbit could be the result of "Solar Scattering" They found that the idea could not be completely ruled out. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.06044.pdf

 

Guess the joke is on you, buddy.

 

Also, I suspect that if you actually were ever to debate me on whether or not the Earth was once covered with water via the event I previously described, it would not even be a real debate. It would just be me, destroying you with science and my superior knowledge of mechanics. Have a nice day.

True I probably would not be able to answer and I would be destroyed as I would not be able to get a word out for laughing.

Seriously you are misquoting and I call bull on your superior knowledge.

(arXiv:1712.06044v1 [astro-ph.EP] 17 Dec 2017On Distinguishing Interstellar Objects Like ‘Oumuamua From Products of SolarSystem ScatteringJason T. Wright1, 21Department of Astronomy & Astrophysics / 525 Davey Laboratory /The Pennsylvania State University / University Park, PA, 16802, USA2Center for Exoplanets and Habitable Worlds / 525 Davey Laboratory /The Pennsylvania State University / University Park, PA, 16802, USAKeywords:celestial mechanics—Oort Cloud—Kuiper belt: general—minor planets, asteroids: indi-vidual (1I/2017 U1 (‘Oumuamua))COULD ‘OUMUAMUA POSSIBLY BE A SOLAR SYSTEM OBJECT?The recent discovery of the apparently interstellar1asteroid 1I/2017 U1 (‘Oumuamua)2has led to speculation aboutits origin. (Schneider 2017) explored the possibility that it is a Solar System object scattered from a Solar Systemplanet and concludes that none of the known planets could be the scatterer, nor could the hypothetical “Planet Nine”proposed byBatygin & Brown(2016).Schneider(2017) concludes that if ‘Oumuamua is a Solar System object, itmust have been scattered by “another, yet unknown planet.”If this were true, then one might search for such a planet in the directions of the incoming trajectory of ‘Oumuamuaand similar objects discovered in the future. However, the orbitalenergy of ‘Oumuamua is too large to be the resultof a single scattering event fromanyhypothetical Solar System object"

 

Then, from the Cornell univeristy department of Astrophysics:

Spitzer Observations of Interstellar Object 1I/`Oumuamua

(Submitted on 20 Nov 2018)

1I/`Oumuamua is the first confirmed interstellar body in our Solar System. Here we report on observations of `Oumuamua made with the Spitzer Space Telescope on 2017 November 21--22 (UT). We integrated for 30.2~hours at 4.5 micron (IRAC channel 2). We did not detect the object and place an upper limit on the flux of 0.3 uJy (3sigma). This implies an effective spherical diameter less than [98, 140, 440] meters and albedo greater than [0.2, 0.1, 0.01] under the assumption of low, middle, or high thermal beaming parameter eta, respectively. With an aspect ratio for `Oumuamua of 6:1, these results correspond to dimensions of [240:40, 341:57, 1080:180] meters, respectively. We place upper limits on the amount of dust, CO, and CO2 coming from this object that are lower than previous results; we are unable to constrain the production of other gas species. Both our size and outgassing limits are important because `Oumuamua's trajectory shows non-gravitational accelerations that are sensitive to size and mass and presumably caused by gas emission. We suggest that `Oumuamua may have experienced low-level post-perihelion volatile emission that produced a fresh, bright, icy mantle. This model is consistent with the expected eta value and implied high albedo value for this solution, but, given our strict limits on CO and CO2, requires another gas species --- probably H2O --- to explain the observed non-gravitational acceleration. Our results extend the mystery of `Oumuamua's origin and evolution.

Ain´t fact checking a bitch?

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/04/2019, 00:28:27, Fromm said:

 

I must have a pretty decent understanding of orbital mechanics actually. Scientists have already posited the idea and Cornell University has already researched whether or not Oumuamua's hyperbolic orbit could be the result of "Solar Scattering" They found that the idea could not be completely ruled out. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.06044.pdf

 

Guess the joke is on you, buddy.

 

Heh? What you on about?

 

The question in that letter was "COULD ‘OUMUAMUA POSSIBLY BE A SOLAR SYSTEM OBJECT?"

 

And the conclusion was:

 

"This limit alone does not prove beyond all doubt that ‘Oumuamua is of interstellar origin: a more complex scattering history is not excluded by this analysis, nor is a scattering event off of an unbound object such as a passing brown dwarf. One might also consider whether fast-moving fragments can be generated from collisions in the outer Solar System. However, Mamajek (2017) demonstrates that the kinematics of ‘Oumuamua are exactly what “might be expected of interstellar field objects,” and indeed its v∞ is consistent with predictions by Cook et al. (2016), so its origins in interstellar space seem all but certain (although Schneider (2017) cleverly points out the (extraordinarily unlikely) possibility that it could be a former Solar System object returning from an interstellar voyage.)
Nonetheless, the limit described above—or, even better, tighter refinements of this limit in terms of the scatterer’s escape velocity—can be used to reject the possibility that objects detected in the future on hyperbolic orbits might be the result of a scattering from an as-yet-undetected outer Solar System planet; or to verify that searches for an such a planet might be profitable."

 

In other words, no. No it's not a solar system object. And nothing in that article hints and anything otherwise.

 

And the writer of that piece has nothing to do with Cornell University by the way.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, slammer said:

The recent discovery of the apparently interstellar1asteroid 1I/2017 U1 (‘Oumuamua)2has led to speculation aboutits origin. (Schneider 2017) explored the possibility that it is a Solar System object scattered from a Solar Systemplanet and concludes that none of the known planets could be the scatterer, nor could the hypothetical “Planet Nine”proposed byBatygin & Brown(2016).Schneider(2017) concludes that if ‘Oumuamua is a Solar System object, itmust have been scattered by “another, yet unknown planet.”If this were true, then one might search for such a planet in the directions of the incoming trajectory of ‘Oumuamuaand similar objects discovered in the future. However, the orbitalenergy of ‘Oumuamua is too large to be the resultof a single scattering event fromanyhypothetical Solar System object"

 

 

Then, from the Cornell univeristy department of Astrophysics:

Spitzer Observations of Interstellar Object 1I/`Oumuamua

(Submitted on 20 Nov 2018)

1I/`Oumuamua is the first confirmed interstellar body in our Solar System. Here we report on observations of `Oumuamua made with the Spitzer Space Telescope on 2017 November 21--22 (UT). We integrated for 30.2~hours at 4.5 micron (IRAC channel 2). We did not detect the object and place an upper limit on the flux of 0.3 uJy (3sigma)...

Ain´t fact checking a bitch?

I'm not sure why you posted any of this. You first quoted part of a paper I have already read and then part of another paper that talks about Oumuamua's albedo and outgassing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, theGman said:

 

Heh? What you on about?

 

The question in that letter was "COULD ‘OUMUAMUA POSSIBLY BE A SOLAR SYSTEM OBJECT?"

 

And the conclusion was:

 

"This limit alone does not prove beyond all doubt that ‘Oumuamua is of interstellar origin: a more complex scattering history is not excluded by this analysis, nor is a scattering event off of an unbound object such as a passing brown dwarf. One might also consider whether fast-moving fragments can be generated from collisions in the outer Solar System. However, Mamajek (2017) demonstrates that the kinematics of ‘Oumuamua are exactly what “might be expected of interstellar field objects,” and indeed its v∞ is consistent with predictions by Cook et al. (2016), so its origins in interstellar space seem all but certain (although Schneider (2017) cleverly points out the (extraordinarily unlikely) possibility that it could be a former Solar System object returning from an interstellar voyage.)
Nonetheless, the limit described above—or, even better, tighter refinements of this limit in terms of the scatterer’s escape velocity—can be used to reject the possibility that objects detected in the future on hyperbolic orbits might be the result of a scattering from an as-yet-undetected outer Solar System planet; or to verify that searches for an such a planet might be profitable."

 

In other words, no. No it's not a solar system object. And nothing in that article hints and anything otherwise.

 

And the writer of that piece has nothing to do with Cornell University by the way.

 

Greetings Gman. I think if you read that part over again, you will find it does not mean what you think it means. I also had trouble with the way certain things were worded in this paper and was lucky enough to actually contact the author to verify that I had a correct understanding of it. The reason I linked to this paper was because it was the best analysis I could find with regards to Oumuamau and solar system scattering. Solar system scattering is basically just a term used to describe the effect gravity has when objects bound to our solar system encounter one another.

 

A comet or an asteriod, having its orbit change due to multiple encounters with TNO's(as I described in my first post) would be an example of what the author calls a complex scattering. I specifically asked him about this. And, as he also states in the quote above, this analysis cannot rule out a complex scattering. And I don't know of any analysis which can. If you find one, please let me know.  From a picture of it, I have to say it looks like it was involved in some collision. So its interesting.

 

You are correct that the author does not work at cornelll. He's at Pennsylvania State University

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fromm said:

Greetings Gman. I think if you read that part over again, you will find it does not mean what you think it means.

 

Nope, it's very clear. Here is the abstract:

 

"Schneider (2018) explored the possibility that 'Oumuamua is a Solar System object, and concluded that if it is, it must have been scattered by "another, yet unknown planet." I provide an extremely conservative upper limit on post-scattering velocities in the Solar System to show that 'Oumuamua is moving far to quickly to be the result of any hypothetical single scattering event between any bound Solar System objects within 21 au (a distance within which our understanding of objects capable of scattering 'Oumuamua is presumably complete)."

 

4 hours ago, Fromm said:

I also had trouble with the way certain things were worded in this paper

 

I didn't have trouble. Honestly. It's (broadly) my field.

 

4 hours ago, Fromm said:

and was lucky enough to actually contact the author to verify that I had a correct understanding of it.

 

OK, that's just not true.

 

4 hours ago, Fromm said:

The reason I linked to this paper was because it was the best analysis I could find with regards to Oumuamau and solar system scattering. Solar system scattering is basically just a term used to describe the effect gravity has when objects bound to our solar system encounter one another.

 

A comet or an asteriod, having its orbit change due to multiple encounters with TNO's(as I described in my first post) would be an example of what the author calls a complex scattering. I specifically asked him about this. And, as he also states in the quote above, this analysis cannot rule out a complex scattering. And I don't know of any analysis which can. If you find one, please let me know.  From a picture of it, I have to say it looks like it was involved in some collision. So its interesting.

 

Sorry, but either you are straight up trolling, or you are trying read up on it (which is good!) and are just coming to false conclusions. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now, but all indications are that Oumuamua is an interstellar object.

 

This paper isn't even necessarily specifically about Oumuamua. As the title says: "On Distinguishing Interstellar Objects Like ‘Oumuamua From Products of Solar System Scattering". It's a derivation of a limit which "can be used to reject the possibility that objects detected in the future on hyperbolic orbits might be the result of a scattering from an as-yet undetected outer Solar System planet; or to verify that searches for an such a planet might be profitable"

 

4 hours ago, Fromm said:

You are correct that the author does not work at cornelll. He's at Pennsylvania State University

 

I am assuming you initially said Cornell because the arXiv database is hosted by Cornell.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*SIGH!* Sighs Slammer, pinching the bridge of his nose with thumb and forefinger. *SIGH!* He sighs again.

A, You are either a grade “B” troll or B, unable to understand that pseudo-science is just that… pseudo-science.

Amma going with “A” but in case of “B” I´ll try and make it simple… “Oumuamua ain´t from ´rewnd `ere.“ The idea that it and all the other asteroids were ejected from Earth by a massive ejaculation of water is bollocks, everybody knows that the planets and the asteroids were spewed up by the flying spaghetti monster after a heavy night on the booze. But there are others who have written so many papers on this topic. Do a google, keep away from the nut-jobs and you may be surprised.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, theGman said:

 

Nope, it's very clear. Here is the abstract:

 

"Schneider (2018) explored the possibility that 'Oumuamua is a Solar System object, and concluded that if it is, it must have been scattered by "another, yet unknown planet." I provide an extremely conservative upper limit on post-scattering velocities in the Solar System to show that 'Oumuamua is moving far to quickly to be the result of any hypothetical single scattering event between any bound Solar System objects within 21 au (a distance within which our understanding of objects capable of scattering 'Oumuamua is presumably complete)."

 

 

I didn't have trouble. Honestly. It's (broadly) my field.

 

 

OK, that's just not true.

 

 

Sorry, but either you are straight up trolling, or you are trying read up on it (which is good!) and are just coming to false conclusions. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now, but all indications are that Oumuamua is an interstellar object.

 

This paper isn't even necessarily specifically about Oumuamua. As the title says: "On Distinguishing Interstellar Objects Like ‘Oumuamua From Products of Solar System Scattering". It's a derivation of a limit which "can be used to reject the possibility that objects detected in the future on hyperbolic orbits might be the result of a scattering from an as-yet undetected outer Solar System planet; or to verify that searches for an such a planet might be profitable"

 

 

I am assuming you initially said Cornell because the arXiv database is hosted by Cornell.

'

Ok. Thank you, Gman. I dont really have anything else to say about this. If you really want to, you could just send Jason Wright an email and ask him If Oumuamua's orbit could be the result of complex scattering. 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/04/2019, 06:47:25, Fromm said:

Ok. Thank you, Gman. I dont really have anything else to say about this. If you really want to, you could just send Jason Wright an email and ask him If Oumuamua's orbit could be the result of complex scattering. 

 

You are just invoking a God of the gaps argument. I don't need to ask the author what he thinks on the issue, it's clear in the paper:

 

Quote

This limit alone does not prove beyond all doubt that ‘Oumuamua is of interstellar origin: a more complex scattering history is not excluded by this analysis, nor is a scattering event off of an unbound object such as a passing brown dwarf. One might also consider whether fast-moving fragments can be generated from collisions in the outer Solar System.

 

It's science speak for "I am as sure as I can be that this is an interstellar object." There is no need to keep quoting this paper. It does nothing to support your theory of complex scattering any more than it supports the theory that aliens put the thing there.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man dude, I never even quoted the paper.I just posted a link to it to show that real scientists have considered the possibility solar scattering and that my idea of complex scattering is not the result of a "horrendous understanding of orbital mechanics" as the the first person who responded to my post foolishly stated. It was also the most meaningful and direct analysis I could find on scattering. If you know of analysis which can completely rule out a complex scattering, then please post it here.

 

I think the reason why You started quoting the paper is because you thought that it disproved my idea about Oumuamua. It does not. And if this was not your reason for quoting it, then I am completely baffled as to why you would do so. I think you simply did not understand what you were reading, which is not a big deal. There can be 20 different things an author might be asked to clarify before a paper passes a peer review.  You almost acting as if this whole thing is some kind of personal attack against you.

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Fromm said:

Man dude, I never even quoted the paper.I just posted a link to it to show that real scientists have considered the possibility solar scattering

 

If you post a link to something, be prepared to be quoted on it. Yes, the paper considered the possibility of solar scattering and concluded that it wasn't solar scattering.

 

Quote

and that my idea of complex scattering is not the result of a "horrendous understanding of orbital mechanics" as the the first person who responded to my post foolishly stated. It was also the most meaningful and direct analysis I could find on scattering.

 

That's fine. And like I said, the paper considered the possibility of solar scattering and concluded that it wasn't solar scattering. There is nothing else to infer from that. It does nothing whatsoever to back up your theory of complex scattering.

 

Quote

If you know of analysis which can completely rule out a complex scattering, then please post it here.

 

I don't. But the burden of proof is on you. You have a theory. You have to prove it.

 

My theory is that aliens put the asteroid there. The burden of proof is then on me. Until then, it's just conjecture. What I cannot do is then link to that paper, say that paper does not rule out my theory and then conclude that that gives my theory some sort of credence.

 

Quote

I think the reason why You started quoting the paper is because you thought that it disproved my idea about Oumuamua. It does not.

 

I quoted the paper because you linked to the paper. You have a theory, you linked to the paper. I was pointing out that the paper does not back up your theory. 

 

Quote

And if this was not your reason for quoting it, then I am completely baffled as to why you would do so. I think you simply did not understand what you were reading, which is not a big deal. There can be 20 different things an author might be asked to clarify before a paper passes a peer review.  You almost acting as if this whole thing is some kind of personal attack against you.

 

It's an attack against science, logic and reasoning. It's a topic close to my heart. It's a very important topic in the world right now. It's why I attended the March for Science and will attend the next one. It's why I am discussing this here with you. You know this. Because where you know where your argument is coming from. You said so in your first post:

 

On 31/03/2019, 16:14:03, Fromm said:

It's just a normal asteroid that appears to have a hyperbolic orbit, due to a gravity boost from transneptunian objects. All asteriods were ejected from Earth during the flood, where super-critical water broke out from beneath the Earth's crust. This is why our moon is more severely damaged on the side that faces the Earth than it is on the opposite side.

 

It's creationism. Slammer knows this too and that's why he picked you up on it.

3

Share this post


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

 

 

It's creationism. Slammer knows this too and that's why he picked you up on it.

By the power of Greyskull Batman. Just been reading through the link, I did not realize that the situation with learning was so dire that people actually take this arsegravy seriously. It´s like The Onion and the Daily Mash suddenly went gaga and got a bad infection of god on the brain.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2019, 8:33:51, theGman said:

 the burden of proof is on you. You have a theory. You have to prove it.

 

My theory is that aliens put the asteroid there. The burden of proof is then on me. Until then, it's just conjecture. What I cannot do is then link to that paper, say that paper does not rule out my theory and then conclude that that gives my theory some sort of credence.

 

 

 

True that. Just to be clear, I can not prove it. The paper I linked to does not prove it. My idea is complete speculation and I can certainly can understand why you or anyone would think it's outrageous.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0