All About UFO's

[Taiga]

So there's big debate over object (3I/ATLAS) that entered our solar system, it's putting off too much light. It's either much larger than it should be for such an object to reflect the amount of light being recorded, or it's smaller as expected and generating light. I assume as it gets closer there will be better understanding. What ever it is, does appear what is expected from run of the mil meteor or comet, so much to learn from it hopefully.

Powers that be are currently sticking with "nothing to see here" position, Hibberd, Crowl, and Loeb have other thoughts on it:

https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/HCL25.pdf

Or:

I posted about this earlier.

Loeb et.al. do not have a good track record in speculating on the nature of these extra-solar objects. Curious to see which journal is willing to publish his manuscript given his history of being wrong.

Post in thread 'All About UFO's'
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/all-about-ufos.45477/post-2363171

 

[somebodyelse]

4 days after that paper, Hubble got images. World & dog seem to think it's well within normal parameters. Loeb is again the outlier.
https://www.earth.com/news/comet-3i...patterns-as-it-zips-through-our-solar-system/

 

[Axo1989]

I posted about this earlier.

Loeb et.al. do not have a good track record in speculating on the nature of these extra-solar objects. Curious to see which journal is willing to publish his manuscript given his history of being wrong.

Post in thread 'All About UFO's'
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/all-about-ufos.45477/post-2363171

4 days after that paper, Hubble got images. World & dog seem to think it's well within normal parameters. Loeb is again the outlier.
https://www.earth.com/news/comet-3i...patterns-as-it-zips-through-our-solar-system/

You’d think someone who was familiar with the subject would be right on top and up to date with all this.

 

[Taiga]

You’d think someone who was familiar with the subject would be right on top and up to date with all this.

Yes, real scientists are collecting real data to better understand and characterize this visitor.

 

[WillBrink]

I posted about this earlier.

Interestingly, different draft versions. I didn't read both closely to see what, if anything changed much.

Loeb et.al. do not have a good track record in speculating on the nature of these extra-solar objects.

He's highly speculative and I wish there were more like him asking Qs. It's also essential to listen to what he's saying, vs what others are claiming he's saying, minus context etc.

Curious to see which journal is willing to publish his manuscript given his history of being wrong.

Considering who he is, where he's located, and his publishing history, if the paper passes peer review, I'd expect many journals will accept it. Journal publishing these days is it's own topic and can of worms of course.

Post in thread 'All About UFO's'
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/all-about-ufos.45477/post-2363171

 

[WillBrink]

4 days after that paper, Hubble got images. World & dog seem to think it's well within normal parameters. Loeb is again the outlier.
https://www.earth.com/news/comet-3i...patterns-as-it-zips-through-our-solar-system/

And I hope more outliers exist and produce debate and curiosity. We need that badly in most areas of science these days. From that article:

"The first visitor, 1I/‘Oumuamua, showed no visible coma and exhibited an excess speed of about 26 km per second, an unusual case that still sparks debate about its composition and outgassing. Its light curve and color set it apart from typical small bodies."

So, no, not written off as solved and well understood or categorized.

The only reason there was a debate and focus on that was Leob. Loeb has also stated in interviews that this latest object most likely a meteor or comet, with small possibility it's something else, and we should study it closely. He want to send something to intercept it and get close look at it.

 

[Taiga]

Interestingly, different draft versions. I didn't read both closely to see what, if anything changed much.

He's highly speculative and I wish there were more like him asking Qs. It's also essential to listen to what he's saying, vs what others are claiming he's saying, minus context etc.

Considering who he is, where he's located, and his publishing history, if the paper passes peer review, I'd expect many journals will accept it. Journal publishing these days is it's own topic and can of worms of course.

I read his manuscript when he posted it. I understand what he is “saying.” It’s a “what if” manuscript and the data are not on his side.

Also, I think you realize that each journal does its own peer review and selects their own peer reviewers. Authors are not supposed to submit manuscripts to more than one journal. If the first journal you submit your manuscript to rejects it, then you submit to the second journal of your choice. There is not one peer review to pass and then you get to have many journals accept it.

That is why some journals are more highly desirable than others. The peer review process is essentially the same, but the editors are more selective of which manuscripts of the many they receive and peer review that they are willing to publish. Peer reviewers do not issue a pass/fail, rather they provide informed comments on the strength and weaknesses of the manuscript and may make suggestions for modifications needed to better support the authors’ conclusions. The author must then make changes or explain in writing to the editor why the suggested changes are not necessary or take his manuscript elsewhere. It is ultimately up to the editor to decide on print or no-print for their journal.

Peer reviewers, at least for the journals on which I have served as a peer reviewer, are blind to the identification of the authors and their affiliations. So Loeb’s history, reputation, and location do not factor into the peer review process. Likewise, Loeb will not be informed of the identities of the peer reviewers, even if the manuscript is published.

Now we have many “questionable” journals that require authors to pay for publication. Some of their peer review processes are sketchy. I have turned down such journals requesting me to be a peer reviewer or editorial board member. Competent scientists do not submit manuscripts to such journals because they can get published in the well respected journals.

Of course, you can always find Loeb in the tabloids.

 

[WillBrink]

I read his manuscript when he posted it. I understand what he is “saying.” It’s a “what if” manuscript and the data are not on his side.

Also, I think you realize that each journal does its own peer review and selects their own peer reviewers. Authors are not supposed to submit manuscripts to more than one journal. If the first journal you submit your manuscript to rejects it, then you submit to the second journal of your choice. There is not one peer review to pass and then you get to have many journals accept it.

That is why some journals are more highly desirable than others. The peer review process is essentially the same, but the editors are more selective of which manuscripts of the many they receive and peer review that they are willing to publish. Peer reviewers do not issue a pass/fail, rather they provide informed comments on the strength and weaknesses of the manuscript and may make suggestions for modifications needed to better support the authors’ conclusions. The author must then make changes or explain in writing to the editor why the suggested changes are not necessary or take his manuscript elsewhere. It is ultimately up to the editor to decide on print or no-print for their journal.

Peer reviewers, at least for the journals on which I have served as a peer reviewer, are blind to the identification of the authors and their affiliations. So Loeb’s history, reputation, and location do not factor into the peer review process. Likewise, Loeb will not be informed of the identities of the peer reviewers, even if the manuscript is published.

Now we have many “questionable” journals that require authors to pay for publication. Some of their peer review processes are sketchy. I have turned down such journals requesting me to be a peer reviewer or editorial board member. Competent scientists do not submit manuscripts to such journals because they can get published in the well respected journals.

Of course, you can always find Loeb in the tabloids.

Modern publishing being what it is (see vid below...), he will find a journal for it if he wants. Whether it's low tier or high impact, I can't say. I'm not a peer reviewer for any physics, cosmology, or related pubs nor do I have the background to offer strong opinions on his et al conclusions. I suspect 99% of those commenting here don't either. I have done PR for a high impact sports nutri focused journal, so I know the process, which does vary somewhat journal to journal. I did know who the authors were, did not know who the other reviewers were. Many scientists resent Loeb's use of modern media, and that's par for the course in that community. I suspect many (most?) commenting here don't watch his interviews and see what he says in context vs what others claim he's saying via silly headlines in a vid, tabloid, etc. The gate keepers gonna gate keep. That's not always a negative, but most times it is. Per usual, theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder "gets" it:

 

[PierreV]

"The first visitor, 1I/‘Oumuamua, showed no visible coma and exhibited an excess speed of about 26 km per second, an unusual case that still sparks debate about its composition and outgassing. Its light curve and color set it apart from typical small bodies."

No.

The "excess speed of about 26 km per second" just made it unusual in the sense that it proved it was an interstellar object. It reached 87 km/sec at perihelion as it fell in the Sun gravity well. In simple terms that means that it wasn't orbiting the Sun in the first place and would not be captured.

What sparked debate was that it experienced, compared to what was computed, an extra acceleration, non gravitational acceleration that is, of 2.5 microns/s*s that led to a total excess speed of 17 m/s during its flyby. Typical outgassing non gravitational acceleration in comets are in the range of 100 to 10 micron/s*s. No outgassing was detected (which doesn't automatically means that there wasn't any) on Omuamua. (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ab0bb5/pdf)

The way you extract that quote seems to indicate the "26 km per second excess speed" is significant. It is, but not in the way you think it is.

Borisov, which not even Loeb considers as anything but a comet, had an hyperbolic excess speed of 32 km per second.

3I has an hyperbolic excess speed of 58 km per second.

 

[WillBrink]

No.

The "excess speed of about 26 km per second" just made it unusual in the sense that it proved it was an interstellar object. It reached 87 km/sec at perihelion as it fell in the Sun gravity well. In simple terms that means that it wasn't orbiting the Sun in the first place and would not be captured.

What sparked debate was that it experienced, compared to what was computed, an extra acceleration, non gravitational acceleration that is, of 2.5 microns/s*s that led to a total excess speed of 17 m/s during its flyby. Typical outgassing non gravitational acceleration in comets are in the range of 100 to 10 micron/s*s. No outgassing was detected (which doesn't automatically means that there wasn't any) on Omuamua. (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ab0bb5/pdf)

The way you extract that quote seems to indicate the "26 km per second excess speed" is significant. It is, but not in the way you think it is.

Borisov, which not even Loeb considers as anything but a comet, had an hyperbolic excess speed of 32 km per second.

3I has an hyperbolic excess speed of 58 km per second.

I simply pointed out that aspect from the article he posted. Whether correct or not, Leob certainly brought attention to that object, and apparently still a topic of some debate as to its behavior. It was claimed the recent Hubble pictures put it to rest the new object is nothing to get excited about, Leob claims the Hubble backs him up. Is he right? Im not a cosmologist or planetary scientist, and can't say. He's still claiming due the amount of light it's emitting, it's either huge or emitting its own source of light due calculation made. I assume accuracy will improve as it gets closer.

The media, per usual, is running crazy with it and putting all sorts of things in Leobs mouth he didn't say, but I don't really care. Leob obviously enjoys the attention and manipluates the system to his benefit, which leads the funding he's gotten for his projects. If it gets more people following and interested in all things space related, fine with me.

 

[WillBrink]

For those who want to get details from Leob's positions on the latest object, as well as other related topics, that's the interview to watch. It's scientist ( cosmologist) to scientist vs short snippets from the media putting words in his mouth or asking same goofy questions. Dr Keating always has good guests and allows them to talk and asks more specific Qs to his guests:

 

[Taiga]

Loeb took the paucity of discovery data reported by other scientists on 3I/Atlas and rapidly released a un-peer reviewed paper that included speculation within the title about the object being the result of “alien technology.” He did not wait the very short time needed for researchers to collect more refined and specific data on the object. Those data essentially crushed his speculations.

But it was too late. He already put it out there knowing the press would run wild with it. This is on him, not the media. He wanted to publish at all costs using insufficient data. This is on him publishing what he knew and expected would bring him attention regardless of the veracity of its scientific contribution. This is a major example of scientific research being “broken” as discussed in the video that you posted.

Modern publishing being what it is (see vid below...), he will find a journal for it if he wants. Whether it's low tier or high impact, I can't say. I'm not a peer reviewer for any physics, cosmology, or related pubs nor do I have the background to offer strong opinions on his et al conclusions. I suspect 99% of those commenting here don't either. I have done PR for a high impact sports nutri focused journal, so I know the process, which does vary somewhat journal to journal. I did know who the authors were, did not know who the other reviewers were. Many scientists resent Loeb's use of modern media, and that's par for the course in that community. I suspect many (most?) commenting here don't watch his interviews and see what he says in context vs what others claim he's saying via silly headlines in a vid, tabloid, etc. The gate keepers gonna gate keep. That's not always a negative, but most times it is. Per usual, theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder "gets" it:

 

[Somafunk]

. Per usual, theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder "gets" it:

Unfortunately of late Sabine has been chasing controversy/click bait stuff with the recent appeal to lay of Weinstein and his unifying theory amongst other stuff.

Shame, she used to be a good watch.

 

[WillBrink]

I often find Tyson pretentious and self important, but his take is accurate and entertaining on the topic. Object continues to show anomalous behaviors not typical of most comets, and while Leob et al like to be highly speculative, he's been clear it's most likley a comet.

"Is interstellar object 3I/ATLAS actually aliens visiting our solar system? Neil deGrasse Tyson breaks down the philosophy behind “the god of the gaps” and how the modern-day equivalent might be thinking that things are aliens."

 

[WillBrink]

Very interesting discussion with Dr Nolan on his take on the whole Peruvian mummy situation and what he thinks needed to answer what they are. He's already debunked one as clearly human, but feels there's something to some of the others and outlines how to test them properly:

 

[WillBrink]

Lots of very interesting details covered in the full show of Dr Nolan in JR. Much UFO/UAP related topics, not all. I will say anyone takes the time to watch it will see there's far more evidence in favor of high weirdness is happening vs denial and condescension offered by some.

Garry Nolan, PhD, is an immunologist and professor at Stanford University School of Medicine. He is also a business executive and Executive Director of the Board of the Sol Foundation, a research and advocacy center focused on UAP studies. https://www.thesolfoundation.org

 

[Chester]

He is also a business executive and Executive Director of the Board of the Sol Foundation

I’ve highlighted the important part for you.

 

[Axo1989]

I’ve highlighted the important part for you.

Helpful, thank you. So this is the foreshadowed doctor we’ve been asked to look forward to … a Sol-ipsist via the Bogan show? So very impressive. Or a couple of scoops from the slop bucket … hard to say.

No I can’t really come at wading through that for two and a half hours.

 

[WillBrink]

So is this the beginning of the big one? Actual disclosure? The way Sheehan makes it sound, we are one bill away from that. I will not hold my breath, that's for sure. Sheehan discusses up coming hearings coming up and names names of those he hopes to get there to testify under oath on the issue.
"lawyer Daniel Sheehan is pushing Congress to pass the Bipartisan UAP Disclosure Act, which he says would reveal people deep with the defense department and CIA have been lying to congress about having UFOs and non-human bodies."

 

[Petrushka]

I can’t imagine relying on congress for the truth about anything. If they told me what I already believe, I would begin to doubt it.