@vitna.bsky.social
Science is being undermined by ignoring anomalies.
October 31, 2025 at 5:47 PM
Science is being undermined by ignoring anomalies.
I don’t understand why astronomers aren’t concerned about underestimating 3I/Atlas’s nucleus. Dust production, spectroscopy, brightness, and now clear nickel detection all suggest a huge nucleus, yet they still trust Hubble photometry. Science gives the results it is asked for. Isn’t that odd?
August 28, 2025 at 10:37 AM
I don’t understand why astronomers aren’t concerned about underestimating 3I/Atlas’s nucleus. Dust production, spectroscopy, brightness, and now clear nickel detection all suggest a huge nucleus, yet they still trust Hubble photometry. Science gives the results it is asked for. Isn’t that odd?
Adding to all anomalies, the nucleus of 3I Atlas in the coma remains unexplained and defies known cometary behavior. The unusual CO₂ to H₂O ratio shows sublimation inconsistent with expectations. This could stem from a peculiar nucleus structure and rotation, yet it remains extremely unusual.
August 26, 2025 at 6:44 PM
Adding to all anomalies, the nucleus of 3I Atlas in the coma remains unexplained and defies known cometary behavior. The unusual CO₂ to H₂O ratio shows sublimation inconsistent with expectations. This could stem from a peculiar nucleus structure and rotation, yet it remains extremely unusual.
Why is arXiv:2508.02934 considered a relevant estimate for the nucleus size when it is based on an evidently overestimated dust production? According to arXiv:2508.00808, dust production is 0.3–4.2 kg/s, which would imply a nucleus radius of 10.6–39.6 km.
August 8, 2025 at 11:02 AM
Why is arXiv:2508.02934 considered a relevant estimate for the nucleus size when it is based on an evidently overestimated dust production? According to arXiv:2508.00808, dust production is 0.3–4.2 kg/s, which would imply a nucleus radius of 10.6–39.6 km.
This study’s interpretation in arXiv:2508.00808 differs from the data tables. The data show a brightness change of only ~0.5 mag between July 2 and July 29. Yet, based on the same heliocentric shift, a non-active asteroid should brighten by ~0.95 mag. So the comet brightens less. How?
August 8, 2025 at 10:55 AM
This study’s interpretation in arXiv:2508.00808 differs from the data tables. The data show a brightness change of only ~0.5 mag between July 2 and July 29. Yet, based on the same heliocentric shift, a non-active asteroid should brighten by ~0.95 mag. So the comet brightens less. How?
If you compare completely independent brightness‑variation measurements used to determine rotation, they show the same deviations which the authors interpret as error or shadowing (see arXiv:2508.00808 and arXiv:2507.21967). This is simply absurd. The object simply does not rotate.
August 8, 2025 at 10:48 AM
If you compare completely independent brightness‑variation measurements used to determine rotation, they show the same deviations which the authors interpret as error or shadowing (see arXiv:2508.00808 and arXiv:2507.21967). This is simply absurd. The object simply does not rotate.
You lack solid arguments and just spread accusations. I challenge you to explain how water sublimation occurs at 3.5 AU without CN gas. Clearly, you don’t understand comets; otherwise, this unprecedented event would have raised immediate concerns. I’ve already pointed out this before.
August 8, 2025 at 10:40 AM
You lack solid arguments and just spread accusations. I challenge you to explain how water sublimation occurs at 3.5 AU without CN gas. Clearly, you don’t understand comets; otherwise, this unprecedented event would have raised immediate concerns. I’ve already pointed out this before.
You overlook clear anomalies that contradict typical comet behavior and known physics. About 20 such anomalies exist, each hard to explain. The most striking is the strong water sublimation detected at 3.5AU without CN gas presence. How is this possible? Is there any precedent or similar case known?
August 8, 2025 at 10:35 AM
You overlook clear anomalies that contradict typical comet behavior and known physics. About 20 such anomalies exist, each hard to explain. The most striking is the strong water sublimation detected at 3.5AU without CN gas presence. How is this possible? Is there any precedent or similar case known?
BTW, there are many unusual features: no visible tail despite large coma, unstable coma edges, size and orbit, repeated brightness anomalies from two sources, and overall brightness lower than expected even for an inactive asteroid during July.
August 7, 2025 at 9:51 PM
BTW, there are many unusual features: no visible tail despite large coma, unstable coma edges, size and orbit, repeated brightness anomalies from two sources, and overall brightness lower than expected even for an inactive asteroid during July.
Yes, every comet is different, but they all follow common physical frameworks. Gaseous water emissions at 3.5 AU without CN detection really don’t fit usual physical explanations. If you know of any cases like this, I’d be glad to learn.
August 7, 2025 at 9:35 PM
Yes, every comet is different, but they all follow common physical frameworks. Gaseous water emissions at 3.5 AU without CN detection really don’t fit usual physical explanations. If you know of any cases like this, I’d be glad to learn.
This isn’t a good analogy. In 3I/ATLAS, we observe gaseous water, not just icy grains, and no CN is detected. With C/2002 T7, gaseous water appeared much closer to the Sun and was accompanied by CN and other volatiles — that’s a different case.
August 7, 2025 at 9:26 PM
This isn’t a good analogy. In 3I/ATLAS, we observe gaseous water, not just icy grains, and no CN is detected. With C/2002 T7, gaseous water appeared much closer to the Sun and was accompanied by CN and other volatiles — that’s a different case.
Isn't it rather strange that so much water is being produced at 3.5 AU? Especially when there's no CN being detected at all? What kind of process would be responsible for that? We've never observed anything like this before. Water should still be frozen at that distance, shouldn't it?
August 7, 2025 at 8:16 PM
Isn't it rather strange that so much water is being produced at 3.5 AU? Especially when there's no CN being detected at all? What kind of process would be responsible for that? We've never observed anything like this before. Water should still be frozen at that distance, shouldn't it?
If only the study were based on actual dust production data supported by relevant measurements, as is the case in 2508.00808. Then, of course, the nucleus size estimate would have to be significantly larger, and the work wouldn’t rely on hypothetical and clearly flawed assumptions.
arxiv.org
August 6, 2025 at 1:01 PM
If only the study were based on actual dust production data supported by relevant measurements, as is the case in 2508.00808. Then, of course, the nucleus size estimate would have to be significantly larger, and the work wouldn’t rely on hypothetical and clearly flawed assumptions.
You're wrong yet again, and still have the audacity to keep dragging it out. A coma — and that’s probably the only feature suggesting it could be a comet. Everything else contradicts that.
arxiv.org/pdf/2508.00808
arxiv.org/pdf/2508.00808
arxiv.org
August 6, 2025 at 12:46 AM
You're wrong yet again, and still have the audacity to keep dragging it out. A coma — and that’s probably the only feature suggesting it could be a comet. Everything else contradicts that.
arxiv.org/pdf/2508.00808
arxiv.org/pdf/2508.00808
A large dust coma without gas detection at 3.7 AU rules out a sublimating comet. CO should be clearly detected but isn’t. If you know a similar case from the past, please share—I’m not aware of any.
July 25, 2025 at 9:49 AM
A large dust coma without gas detection at 3.7 AU rules out a sublimating comet. CO should be clearly detected but isn’t. If you know a similar case from the past, please share—I’m not aware of any.
Moreover, surface albedo shows no signs of ice; its presence is only assumed as a dust source. This lack of direct evidence raises serious doubts about a classic cometary nature despite obvious comet-like features.
July 24, 2025 at 10:40 AM
Moreover, surface albedo shows no signs of ice; its presence is only assumed as a dust source. This lack of direct evidence raises serious doubts about a classic cometary nature despite obvious comet-like features.
By the way, 3I/ATLAS’s nucleus size is estimated at about 5.6 ± 0.7 km per several preprints, not including the coma. The coma is dusty and extensive, yet repeated spectroscopy found no volatile gases—contradicting expectations for a strong dust coma at 3.7 AU distance.
July 24, 2025 at 10:39 AM
By the way, 3I/ATLAS’s nucleus size is estimated at about 5.6 ± 0.7 km per several preprints, not including the coma. The coma is dusty and extensive, yet repeated spectroscopy found no volatile gases—contradicting expectations for a strong dust coma at 3.7 AU distance.
Mechanical dust release at such large coma without gases is unconfirmed. Comets emit gas and dust together. Either the coma or nucleus size is misestimated, or gases must be present. Otherwise, this implies a new, unknown phenomenon. We’ll see!
July 24, 2025 at 7:11 AM
Mechanical dust release at such large coma without gases is unconfirmed. Comets emit gas and dust together. Either the coma or nucleus size is misestimated, or gases must be present. Otherwise, this implies a new, unknown phenomenon. We’ll see!
If 3I/ATLAS’s nucleus is ~5.6 km, where are the other 10²² >1m objects predicted by the power law and presence of 3 such large ISOs? Strange that only huge comets fly here, contradicting all breakup models. Detection limits can’t explain this huge missing population.
July 24, 2025 at 6:38 AM
If 3I/ATLAS’s nucleus is ~5.6 km, where are the other 10²² >1m objects predicted by the power law and presence of 3 such large ISOs? Strange that only huge comets fly here, contradicting all breakup models. Detection limits can’t explain this huge missing population.
Even a crackpot should grasp that if 10^22 >1m interstellar objects existed, we’d be detecting them constantly. According to the size-frequency distribution (power law with q ≈ 3.5), surveys would *not* miss that. If an astrophysics professor ignores this, the term “crackpot” sadly fits.
July 24, 2025 at 6:11 AM
Even a crackpot should grasp that if 10^22 >1m interstellar objects existed, we’d be detecting them constantly. According to the size-frequency distribution (power law with q ≈ 3.5), surveys would *not* miss that. If an astrophysics professor ignores this, the term “crackpot” sadly fits.
No known limiting magnitude can account for the non-detection of even a fraction of the expected 10²² objects ranging from 1 meter to 5.5 kilometers in size.
July 24, 2025 at 12:08 AM
No known limiting magnitude can account for the non-detection of even a fraction of the expected 10²² objects ranging from 1 meter to 5.5 kilometers in size.
Even with r = 5.5 km, a Poisson analysis shows that detecting 3 such ISOs in 8 years is extremely unlikely — with a probability below 10⁻¹⁵ to 10⁻¹⁶.
July 23, 2025 at 9:47 PM
Even with r = 5.5 km, a Poisson analysis shows that detecting 3 such ISOs in 8 years is extremely unlikely — with a probability below 10⁻¹⁵ to 10⁻¹⁶.
I’ll add that part as well — specifically the Poisson breakdown to quantify the 8-year detection window.
July 23, 2025 at 9:37 PM
I’ll add that part as well — specifically the Poisson breakdown to quantify the 8-year detection window.
Comet ID isn’t based on looks alone — that’s expert consensus. Even if the nucleus is 5.5 km, it doesn’t change the stats: 3 large ISOs in 8 years remain unexplained
July 23, 2025 at 9:29 PM
Comet ID isn’t based on looks alone — that’s expert consensus. Even if the nucleus is 5.5 km, it doesn’t change the stats: 3 large ISOs in 8 years remain unexplained