← Back to context

Comment by cubefox

2 days ago

For example, being flat like a pancake is obviously highly unusual and very different from anything we have seen from stellar comets.

Stellar comets haven't been ejected from another solar system. We have vanishingly few examples of those, and we've not directly observed any up close.

"Flat as a pancake" is one of several theoretical possibilities from its light curve, not a known fact about the object.

"Highly unusual" in space tends to mean "there are a bunch, but we haven't seen them until now". In 1992, exoplanets were "highly unusual". Now they're everywhere.

  • Yes, and the exoplanets we found first were highly unusual and not at all what we expected to find, which triggered tons of new research to amend our models of planetary system formation and dynamics. I’m not even sure what you’re trying to argue here – we found an object that did not fit our model of what things should look like, which is very curious and calls for an explanation. That’s how science works. Doesn’t mean it’s aliens. But “oh well maybe it’s just how things are back where it’s from” does not satisfy anyone.

    • I think we are actually in agreement.

      I’m very onboard with “it was an interesting object and we should learn more”.

      I object to UFO cranks jumping to “it was a starship” conclusions like Avi Loeb wants to. Just as I would have when those weird first exoplanets showed up.

      6 replies →

  • The highly unusual properties are such that they are genuinely hard to explain for astronomers. See my neighbouring comment.