[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, and they probably also wanted to have some fun.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Yes, and they probably also wanted to have some fun.

I guarantee they succeeded.

Much at our expense.

[Pants-of-dog]

Not at my expense. I also thought it was fun and amusing.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Not at my expense. I also thought it was fun and amusing.

You miss my point, the fact that we are discussing whether it was aliens or not, if it was there intention as a prank, implies that by you even talking about it, it is at your expense.

[Pants-of-dog]

I do not think it was a prank. I think they thought it would be a fun, and not very serious, conversation to lighten up everyone’s day.

Anyway, the motives of the researchers who did the study is irrelevant to Oumuamua’s trajectory or possible alien origin.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Anyway, the motives of the researchers who did the study is irrelevant to Oumuamua’s trajectory or possible alien origin.

Indeed, and I don't think we can ever really know for sure.

I do not think it was a prank. I think they thought it would be a fun, and not very serious, conversation to lighten up everyone’s day.

Ok, now I understand your point.

Interesting.

I suppose I'm too cynical to assume such a goodwill motive.

[Potemkin]

I do not think it was a prank. I think they thought it would be a fun, and not very serious, conversation to lighten up everyone’s day.

Anyway, the motives of the researchers who did the study is irrelevant to Oumuamua’s trajectory or possible alien origin.

I think it was Aristotle who once wrote that it is the mark of an educated mind that it can entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. These researchers have entertained the idea that 'Oumuamua might be an artificial probe powered by a solar sail. They did the calculations and found that it theoretically possible that it might be an artificial probe powered by a solar sail, in the sense that there is nothing which would directly disprove such an idea. To claim that they did this as a "prank" is to misunderstand the scientific method.

[Victoribus Spolia]

To claim that they did this as a "prank" is to misunderstand the scientific method.

Yeah, but they knew that this sort of speculation would generate headlines, especially given their institutional credibility and the pop-culture significance of the A-word.

I only assumed this was what what Pants was saying, in any event.

This is all very tongue-and-cheek I might add.

I suppose you have an opinion on this matter?

Aren't you an astro-physicist or something?

[Potemkin]

Yeah, but they knew that this sort of speculation would generate headlines, especially given their institutional credibility and the pop-culture significance of the A-word.

Indeed, and this was probably their main motivation. But that does not invalidate the paper as a work of scientific enquiry.

I only assumed this was what what Pants was saying, in any event.

I think PoD was claiming that they believed it to be an artificial probe, or were pretending to do so. Neither of which is true, of course.

This is all very tongue-and-cheek I might add.

Indeed.

I suppose you have an opinion on this matter?

My opinion is that this is an scientifically valid and interesting paper, and was probably published for its sensational headline-grabbing potential, to give a nice little boost to their name-recognition in the scientific community. And why not? Lol.

Aren't you an astro-physicist or something?

Quondam nuclear physicist.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Quondam nuclear physicist.

Stalinists should not be permitted to be nuclear physicists in my educated opinion.

Indeed, and this was probably their main motivation. But that does not invalidate the paper as a work of scientific enquiry.

Thats fair I suppose. You are basically just saying that sensationalism and intellectual sincerity are not mutually exclusive.

[Potemkin]

Stalinists should not be permitted to be nuclear physicists in my educated opinion.

Should nuclear physicists be permitted to be Stalinists?

Thats fair I suppose. You are basically just saying that sensationalism and intellectual sincerity are not mutually exclusive.

Yes.

[Pants-of-dog]

I actually thought they do not think it is actually an alien ship, but they thought it would be fun (and headline making) to do the study and see if they could disprove it. I also think their motives are unimportant. I thought it was amusing.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Should nuclear physicists be permitted to be Stalinists?

Don't change the topic.

[One Degree]

Quondam nuclear physicist.

Lol. I had not seen that before.

Is that your creation @Potemkin ?
Very witty.

[Potemkin]

Lol. I had not seen that before.

Is that your creation @Potemkin ?
Very witty.

'Quondam' is the Latin word for 'once' or 'erstwhile'. I must admit, its similarity to the word 'quantum' did not escape my notice.

[Victoribus Spolia]

did not escape my notice.

It slipped mine.

Well done.

[SolarCross]

I think it was Aristotle who once wrote that it is the mark of an educated mind that it can entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it. These researchers have entertained the idea that 'Oumuamua might be an artificial probe powered by a solar sail. They did the calculations and found that it theoretically possible that it might be an artificial probe powered by a solar sail, in the sense that there is nothing which would directly disprove such an idea. To claim that they did this as a "prank" is to misunderstand the scientific method.

I venture to bet that all of these blokes accept the premise of Fermi's Paradox. They expect that the universe is swarming with intelligent life and are puzzled at the lack of evidence for it. There is nothing outlandish to them in the idea this probe might be artificial. The outlandish idea for them to entertain would be that it could not be artificial.

[One Degree]

Nah, it is just too good of a reason to stimulate the imagination to pass up. Why would you not want to think of the possibilities?

[Pants-of-dog]

@SolarCross

The trouble with those sorts of claims is that they are unverifiable.

Without telepathy or lie detectors, there is no way of knowing what people actually believe deep down.

And even if you could, it would have no bearing on the verifiable arguments that these scientists actually make.

[SolarCross]

@SolarCross

The trouble with those sorts of claims is that they are unverifiable.

Without telepathy or lie detectors, there is no way of knowing what people actually believe deep down.

And even if you could, it would have no bearing on the verifiable arguments that these scientists actually make.

Well they are astro-physicists and they wrote a paper seriously entertaining the possibility that it was a light-sail and in summary called for more searching for similar objects. In the context of Fermi's paradox and the Drake equation it isn't a stretch at all to say that they expect the existence of alien life.

Does the probability of life beyond earth offend you?