![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
"The high eccentricity both inbound and outbound indicates that it is not gravitationally bound to the Solar System and is likely an interstellar object." - shouldn't the comet be on a single conic section orbit (in this case, a hyperbola) in which case there is only one eccentricity, and "both inbound and outbound" is unnecessary? Further, since eccentricity > 1, it is by definition a hyperbolic orbit -> it's already given that the comet is not gravitationally bound to the Solar System. Banedon ( talk) 21:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I believe A/2017 U1 is moving at 44 km/sec which is about 27 miles /sec and not as written in the article. see here for example Golan's mom ( talk) 12:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the use of infoboxes. Why is the type 'infobox planet' and not 'comet' used here ? It seems to lack an important information, the perihelion date. This important parameter is only given at present in the text itself. Apparently when using an infobox 'comet', there is a keyword 'last_p' for this information. For A/2017 U1 according to the Minor planet circular quoted in the article, it is : T 2017 Sept. 9.41719 TT , to be rounded to Sept. 9, 2017 I guess to be homogeneous with other wiki pages, cf e.g. Comet_Hale–Bopp . Of course for an hyperbolic orbit 'last' perihelion is a bit strange (as it is the only one) - but that is not incorrect. Tenfeet33 ( talk) 14:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The article should explain the notation. "A/" isn't normal, and "1I" is totally new. "C/" should be explained as cometary notation. "A/" should be explained for comets that turned into asteroids (and not asteroidal notation). "1I" is new, not part of the "#C/" comets or "#P/" comets, so should definitely be explained, since it is a new class of classifications. I assume "I" means interstellar comet, since it looks like cometary notation (ie. "1P/Halley" for the first periodic comet whose periodicity was discovered). -- 70.51.45.76 ( talk) 05:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
What is the source of the light curve? Agmartin ( talk) 16:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Agmartin ( talk) 17:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The cCorrect name is 1I/ʻOumuamua (with ʻOkina), not 1I/'Oumuamua. I asked the Minor Planet Center by e-mail and got a quick answer from Gareth Williams referring to the reference “MPEC 2017-V17: NEW DESIGNATION SCHEME FOR INTERSTELLAR OBJECTS”:
Thus, the article should in fact be moved to 1I/ʻOumuamua. I tried this, but apparently the destination name is currently blocked. Thus, I propose to perform this move by someone who has sufficient access permissions. -- Karl432 ( talk) 22:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Andy Rivkin has started referring to it as a xenoästeroid https://twitter.com/asrivkin/status/923719587920797696 Agmartin ( talk) 17:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Strange there is nothing about the unexpected flight path here. Is Wikipedia biased? -- 88.112.75.34
Should "or have been in the inner region of that stellar system long enough for all ice to sublime" be "or have been in the inner region of a stellar system long enough for all ice to sublime". How would we know it sublimed in its source stellar system as opposed to one on the way? Ϣere SpielChequers 23:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Is it possible to get an audio pronunciation for this? This seems like such a minimum requirement, but I have never heard this pronounced. Parsing the phonetic pronunciation just isn't a reasonable expectation for the casual reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.165.229.159 ( talk) 15:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Try this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony873004 ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC) https://soundcloud.com/roy-gal-787702179/oumuamua-pronunciation
Article in Nature has estimated 1I/ʻOumuamua axis ratio at 10:1. Out of curiosity I checked the dimensions of the Saturn V for a comparison, 110 m x 10.1 m. Agmartin ( talk) 18:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Which part of File:A2017U1 5gsmoothWHT.jpg (shown above) is ʻOumuamua? Please clarify in the image caption; and in the description on Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
In the text:
The object continued to speed up until it went through perihelion, where it peaked at 87.7 km/s.[7] By the discovery date it had slowed down to 46 km/s and will continue to slow down until it reaches a speed of 26 km/s relative to the Sun. This interstellar speed is within ~5 km/s of other stars within the Sun's stellar neighborhood, which also indicates an interstellar origin.[24] The object will ultimately head away from the Sun at an angle of 66°[n 11] from the direction it came from. As it leaves the Solar System...
when are:
calculated to occur? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Kaldari removed it based on WP:COMMONNAME, but we already have a lot of precedents for putting in official designations (e.g. 17P/Holmes for comets, 385446 Manwë for minor planets, etc.), so I think it should be discussed here. Personally I am in favour of consistency (so reinstating the "1I"), but I would think that editors more active in astronomy than I would be more qualified to weigh in here. Double sharp ( talk) 02:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The drawing shows a path around a sun sized mass located between earth and the sun. So it’s either an error or the ship is accelerating. Looks like they were just passing therough.
Info @ The ubie . com
72.94.235.218 ( talk) 04:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Here's a quick sim I made of a fictitious comet. The perspective is rotating around the Sun to show that the Sun does not always appear to be at a focus even though it is: http://orbitsimulator.com/gravitySimulatorCloud/simulations/1511282592724_wikiDescription.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony873004 ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
"The Carina–Columba stellar association is now very far in the sky from the constellation Lyra, ..." Do we mean _not_ very far? Rhodesh ( talk) 06:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
It's not likely a coincidence that the first proved interstellar object should have such a large axis ratio, is it? It just begs to be considered of artificial origin and thus proof of extraterrestrial life having existed; its spectra would just be that or the coating of gunk it's accreted on its journey through space.
If we had any kind of decent space program, we'd capture this thing and study it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.164.86.121 ( talk) 11:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
NOTE TO ALL-this entire thread is nothing more than WP:FORUM violation and should have been deleted by the observing administrator. Engaging in such a post just encourages this sort of nonsense. 104.169.28.113 ( talk) 09:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Couln't it bee an alien spaceship? -- 82.113.121.246 ( talk) 07:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
A free version of the article is available. Agmartin ( talk) 17:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
This is a fantastic discovery. Am I the only person who read the name and also thought of " Papa-Oom-Mow-Mow"?
This article is missing all information on the object's size. - 173.187.77.148 ( talk) 00:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
the size matters.
just put size is intergalactic ... from another galaxy: Are all of you still against original thinking ?
but if not, according to my calc (if spherical) it be a bal quoter kilometre across with mass > 8 Mton < 10e10 kg
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 ( talk) 02:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The article is locked so I can't do this myself, but "from whence" is just ridiculous english trying to sound educated. Whence literally means "from where" so from "from whence" means "from from where". Someone with editing-rights should correct that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.254.45.23 ( talk) 15:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
What is the significance of this table in the Observations section? I see no references to this table from the text. Boardhead ( talk) 14:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Does the section ʻOumuamua#Evidence of interstellar origin say anything that is not already covered in the article? -- Kheider ( talk) 21:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Kheider:
Yes, it is simply for those who react with incredulity to the statement of an object being known as a fact as originating from somewhere outside of the solar system, which includes those who aren't practicing routine astronomical observation, and those without degrees in allied subjects (those whose minds are therefore consequently oriented to ways of thinking about things which predisposes them to find understanding astronomical and astrophysical subjects less easy), i.e. a synopsis for people who can't or don't want to sift through the data and terminology and want only to see the proof, for instance those who have employments and are time-pressured by other commitments but are interested because of the historical importance and are interested due to the fact of the article being on the opening page yesterday and today. 23h112e ( talk) 17:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
source: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/astronomers-spot-first-known-interstellar-comet/ "...the fact that A/2017 U1 is coming from a spot only 6° from the solar apex, the direction that our Sun is moving (at about 20 km/s) through its interstellar neighborhood and thus, statistically, the most likely incoming direction for an interstellar visitor..."
& source: Stephen Webb Measuring the Universe: The Cosmological Distance Ladder p.118
How this fact indicates the greater likelihood of interstellar orign. 23h112e ( talk) 17:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The section on Evidence of interstellar origin currently begins with:
I find this apparent minor contradiction a little irksome. The word extrasolar might be defined as "orbiting a star other than the Sun", and the Extrasolar object article pretty much confirms that. While interstellar means "occurring or situated between stars". I suppose, at a push, they're pretty much synonymous in this context but it seems kind of funky to me. ʻOumuamua came from interstellar space, we can be certain of that. And asteroids form within the accretion discs of stars, right? But how certain are we really that ʻOumuamua once orbited another star?
I would have simply edited the sentence in question to read, "By mid November 2017, astronomers were certain that it was of interstellar origin...", but origin also denotes "the point where something begins". I also note that, according to Extrasolar object, the only known extrasolar asteroid is in orbit around GD 61, whereas ʻOumuamua is the only known hyperbolic asteroid.
In short, as a merciless pedant I would probably describe ʻOumuamua as "an interstellar object of extrasolar origin" since, as far as I'm aware, asteroids don't form in interstellar space. So now I'm thinking that we should change any instance of "interstellar origin" to "extrasolar origin", including the section title.
Any thoughts? nagual design 08:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Since I'm not a scientist, I'm not clear on why the object is expected to exit the Solar System. I would expect it to be affected by the Suns gravity, and be captured by it, causing it to fall into an orbit. Why the object is not likely to do that is not explained in the article. Can someone with a little expertise in these matters clarify that? Thanks. Juneau Mike ( talk) 14:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Escape velocity explains what is happening quite well. I appreciate several of you answering my question. Thanks! Juneau Mike ( talk) 20:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
In the article, it says the asteroid is expected to 'leave the solar system' in about 20000 years. Given the velocity, would that exit not be expected to be much sooner? Voyager already left the solar system, and its velocity is not many orders of magnitude larger than the comet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.202.130.252 ( talk) 08:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
In the opening, it says the object is expected to leave the solar system in about 20,000 years. Lower down, it says the object left the solar system on 20 November. ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.246.252.97 ( talk) 00:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Is the official, formal or systematic name 1I/ʻOumuamua or 1I/2017 U1 (ʻOumuamua)? (See the last line in the lead and section Naming_of_comets#Current_system.) And since we have a nomenclature section, shouldn't the alternate names, including previously designated like C/2017 U1, be put down there?
Once we've settled that, should Wikipedia call it 1I/ʻOumuamua or ʻOumuamua? Both designations have about the same number of occurrences in the article. Unless there is some special reason for calling it 1I/ʻOumuamua in one sentence and then simply ʻOumuamua in the next, we should reduce the spelling to one form, both in the article and in all the other Wikipedia articles that mention it.
I guess this would be a formal consensus-building discussion: should we have one name for one object and, if so, what name should it be? -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 21:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Further discussion about this topic should be placed here immediately before the Consensus building subsection. Actually votes and their explanation should go on the other side.
Further discussion goes here vvv -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 23:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
This side (subsection) contains a poll of two topics:
The title of the Wikipedia article (currently ʻOumuamua) we'll leave until we have some more opinions on these first two points.
Votes go here ^^^
--
RoyGoldsmith (
talk)
23:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The etymology in the Nomenclature section currently reads, "The name comes from Hawaiian ʻou.mua.mua 'scout', (from ʻou 'reach out for', and mua, reduplicated for emphasis 'first, in advance of')." When I added the ʻou.mua.mua I was copying what the reference says verbatim, but now that it's linked to Wiktionary where the word is written as ʻoumuamua I'm wondering if the full stops, or whatever they are, should be removed. Any ideas? nagual design 17:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Given that the Oort cloud is the cosmographical boundary of the Solar System, are there any citations as to when it leaves the outer limits of said system? kencf0618 ( talk) 18:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps there should have been a nod at Rendezvous with Rama. 89.197.114.132 ( talk) 16:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm only saying that, with 40-plus days of observation arc, the course (including the instantaneous velocity of each point) should be well known. Is the total energy of ʻOumuamua after perihelion greater or less than the total energy before the fly-by? If ʻOumuamua has more energy after then the sun will have transferred some energy into the object and we've increased our orbital eccentricity. However, if it has less energy then we've lessened our eccentricity (say from 1.2000002 to 1.2000001). One can imagine a race of Krell (from Forbidden Planet) precisely throwing a rock so that it will, after dozens or hundreds of fly-bys, each one giving up a minute fraction of its speed, be captured (eccentricity < 1) by some star in another arm of the galaxy a billion years from now. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 00:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Somewhere this name section turned into a speed discussion. It looks like from the JPL Horizon data that the outbound velocity is minutely less than inbound. I am not sure of the physics but a close encounter between two moving masses should result in some transfer of kinetic energy. The amount is more apparent in the smaller mass. Did one of the references say that the trajectory was "retrograde"? I think this results in a slowing. P.S. the trajectory need not be hyperbolic. User-duck ( talk) 12:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
The link for Argument of perihelion connects to " Argument_of_periapsis".
And the number given 241.7 seems to indicate day 245.2290617 of the solar year.
Shouldn't that be September 2 @ 5:29:50?
Can someone explain the number?
info@ the Ubie . com -- 72.94.230.198 ( talk) 20:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
trajectory should be where it came from and where it is headed. there seems to be a discrepancy in the argument of periheilion sugesting it passed the sun a few days earlier.. sep 4 or so. BUT WHERE are the ORIGIN CORDINATES? (i use caps for flair and do not follow the millenial convention that they mean shouting.) -- 72.94.230.198
i think its presumptoious to call it a scout or name it after obama. it appears to be a giant footlong hotdog ( and the same color) which is extreemly freeky and if the sd220 photo is in fact the object, then it looks like a telescope. though perhaps with some artificial beings to keep it in repair. yet the time it has been out there sugests that it may simply host artificial life. we float in space here. they float in space there. you can see some of the contraversy on my page as the data is gathered. i have. not added the argument of periheilion problem yet but it looks like 241.7 is. not sept 9th.. maybe sept 4 or 5. the other matters are 'reported' here http:// the ubie . com / is-it . htm -- 72.94.230.198 ( talk) 21:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Time again for that age-old question: which variety of English? I see both. I used US, noted a GB article. User-duck ( talk) 23:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
The article currently states: "The lack of a coma indicates that it must have formed within the frost line of the stellar system of origin or have been in the inner region of that stellar system long enough for all ice to sublime, as may be the case with damocloids. Analysis of its spectrum indicates that the latter is likely true".[39][40]
After looking at the link damocloids, I realize the term means inactive comets (ran out of volatiles). I think that was the older (earliest) hypothesis, before they realized it is an asteroid. Since there seems to be reason to think it is instead a dense metallic rock asteroid, we should change the text on that entry. Your thoughts? BatteryIncluded ( talk) 23:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
How close did it get to Earth and what was its speed (relative to Earth) then? What would have been the consequences if it hit the Earth, whether sideways or (probably worse) head on?
On 14 October, it made its closest pass by Earth, at 60 times the distance to the moon.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
"The high eccentricity both inbound and outbound indicates that it is not gravitationally bound to the Solar System and is likely an interstellar object." - shouldn't the comet be on a single conic section orbit (in this case, a hyperbola) in which case there is only one eccentricity, and "both inbound and outbound" is unnecessary? Further, since eccentricity > 1, it is by definition a hyperbolic orbit -> it's already given that the comet is not gravitationally bound to the Solar System. Banedon ( talk) 21:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I believe A/2017 U1 is moving at 44 km/sec which is about 27 miles /sec and not as written in the article. see here for example Golan's mom ( talk) 12:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the use of infoboxes. Why is the type 'infobox planet' and not 'comet' used here ? It seems to lack an important information, the perihelion date. This important parameter is only given at present in the text itself. Apparently when using an infobox 'comet', there is a keyword 'last_p' for this information. For A/2017 U1 according to the Minor planet circular quoted in the article, it is : T 2017 Sept. 9.41719 TT , to be rounded to Sept. 9, 2017 I guess to be homogeneous with other wiki pages, cf e.g. Comet_Hale–Bopp . Of course for an hyperbolic orbit 'last' perihelion is a bit strange (as it is the only one) - but that is not incorrect. Tenfeet33 ( talk) 14:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The article should explain the notation. "A/" isn't normal, and "1I" is totally new. "C/" should be explained as cometary notation. "A/" should be explained for comets that turned into asteroids (and not asteroidal notation). "1I" is new, not part of the "#C/" comets or "#P/" comets, so should definitely be explained, since it is a new class of classifications. I assume "I" means interstellar comet, since it looks like cometary notation (ie. "1P/Halley" for the first periodic comet whose periodicity was discovered). -- 70.51.45.76 ( talk) 05:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
What is the source of the light curve? Agmartin ( talk) 16:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Agmartin ( talk) 17:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The cCorrect name is 1I/ʻOumuamua (with ʻOkina), not 1I/'Oumuamua. I asked the Minor Planet Center by e-mail and got a quick answer from Gareth Williams referring to the reference “MPEC 2017-V17: NEW DESIGNATION SCHEME FOR INTERSTELLAR OBJECTS”:
Thus, the article should in fact be moved to 1I/ʻOumuamua. I tried this, but apparently the destination name is currently blocked. Thus, I propose to perform this move by someone who has sufficient access permissions. -- Karl432 ( talk) 22:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Andy Rivkin has started referring to it as a xenoästeroid https://twitter.com/asrivkin/status/923719587920797696 Agmartin ( talk) 17:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Strange there is nothing about the unexpected flight path here. Is Wikipedia biased? -- 88.112.75.34
Should "or have been in the inner region of that stellar system long enough for all ice to sublime" be "or have been in the inner region of a stellar system long enough for all ice to sublime". How would we know it sublimed in its source stellar system as opposed to one on the way? Ϣere SpielChequers 23:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Is it possible to get an audio pronunciation for this? This seems like such a minimum requirement, but I have never heard this pronounced. Parsing the phonetic pronunciation just isn't a reasonable expectation for the casual reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.165.229.159 ( talk) 15:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Try this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony873004 ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC) https://soundcloud.com/roy-gal-787702179/oumuamua-pronunciation
Article in Nature has estimated 1I/ʻOumuamua axis ratio at 10:1. Out of curiosity I checked the dimensions of the Saturn V for a comparison, 110 m x 10.1 m. Agmartin ( talk) 18:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Which part of File:A2017U1 5gsmoothWHT.jpg (shown above) is ʻOumuamua? Please clarify in the image caption; and in the description on Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
In the text:
The object continued to speed up until it went through perihelion, where it peaked at 87.7 km/s.[7] By the discovery date it had slowed down to 46 km/s and will continue to slow down until it reaches a speed of 26 km/s relative to the Sun. This interstellar speed is within ~5 km/s of other stars within the Sun's stellar neighborhood, which also indicates an interstellar origin.[24] The object will ultimately head away from the Sun at an angle of 66°[n 11] from the direction it came from. As it leaves the Solar System...
when are:
calculated to occur? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Kaldari removed it based on WP:COMMONNAME, but we already have a lot of precedents for putting in official designations (e.g. 17P/Holmes for comets, 385446 Manwë for minor planets, etc.), so I think it should be discussed here. Personally I am in favour of consistency (so reinstating the "1I"), but I would think that editors more active in astronomy than I would be more qualified to weigh in here. Double sharp ( talk) 02:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The drawing shows a path around a sun sized mass located between earth and the sun. So it’s either an error or the ship is accelerating. Looks like they were just passing therough.
Info @ The ubie . com
72.94.235.218 ( talk) 04:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Here's a quick sim I made of a fictitious comet. The perspective is rotating around the Sun to show that the Sun does not always appear to be at a focus even though it is: http://orbitsimulator.com/gravitySimulatorCloud/simulations/1511282592724_wikiDescription.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony873004 ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
"The Carina–Columba stellar association is now very far in the sky from the constellation Lyra, ..." Do we mean _not_ very far? Rhodesh ( talk) 06:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
It's not likely a coincidence that the first proved interstellar object should have such a large axis ratio, is it? It just begs to be considered of artificial origin and thus proof of extraterrestrial life having existed; its spectra would just be that or the coating of gunk it's accreted on its journey through space.
If we had any kind of decent space program, we'd capture this thing and study it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.164.86.121 ( talk) 11:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
NOTE TO ALL-this entire thread is nothing more than WP:FORUM violation and should have been deleted by the observing administrator. Engaging in such a post just encourages this sort of nonsense. 104.169.28.113 ( talk) 09:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Couln't it bee an alien spaceship? -- 82.113.121.246 ( talk) 07:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
A free version of the article is available. Agmartin ( talk) 17:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
This is a fantastic discovery. Am I the only person who read the name and also thought of " Papa-Oom-Mow-Mow"?
This article is missing all information on the object's size. - 173.187.77.148 ( talk) 00:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
the size matters.
just put size is intergalactic ... from another galaxy: Are all of you still against original thinking ?
but if not, according to my calc (if spherical) it be a bal quoter kilometre across with mass > 8 Mton < 10e10 kg
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 ( talk) 02:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The article is locked so I can't do this myself, but "from whence" is just ridiculous english trying to sound educated. Whence literally means "from where" so from "from whence" means "from from where". Someone with editing-rights should correct that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.254.45.23 ( talk) 15:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
What is the significance of this table in the Observations section? I see no references to this table from the text. Boardhead ( talk) 14:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Does the section ʻOumuamua#Evidence of interstellar origin say anything that is not already covered in the article? -- Kheider ( talk) 21:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Kheider:
Yes, it is simply for those who react with incredulity to the statement of an object being known as a fact as originating from somewhere outside of the solar system, which includes those who aren't practicing routine astronomical observation, and those without degrees in allied subjects (those whose minds are therefore consequently oriented to ways of thinking about things which predisposes them to find understanding astronomical and astrophysical subjects less easy), i.e. a synopsis for people who can't or don't want to sift through the data and terminology and want only to see the proof, for instance those who have employments and are time-pressured by other commitments but are interested because of the historical importance and are interested due to the fact of the article being on the opening page yesterday and today. 23h112e ( talk) 17:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
source: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/astronomers-spot-first-known-interstellar-comet/ "...the fact that A/2017 U1 is coming from a spot only 6° from the solar apex, the direction that our Sun is moving (at about 20 km/s) through its interstellar neighborhood and thus, statistically, the most likely incoming direction for an interstellar visitor..."
& source: Stephen Webb Measuring the Universe: The Cosmological Distance Ladder p.118
How this fact indicates the greater likelihood of interstellar orign. 23h112e ( talk) 17:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The section on Evidence of interstellar origin currently begins with:
I find this apparent minor contradiction a little irksome. The word extrasolar might be defined as "orbiting a star other than the Sun", and the Extrasolar object article pretty much confirms that. While interstellar means "occurring or situated between stars". I suppose, at a push, they're pretty much synonymous in this context but it seems kind of funky to me. ʻOumuamua came from interstellar space, we can be certain of that. And asteroids form within the accretion discs of stars, right? But how certain are we really that ʻOumuamua once orbited another star?
I would have simply edited the sentence in question to read, "By mid November 2017, astronomers were certain that it was of interstellar origin...", but origin also denotes "the point where something begins". I also note that, according to Extrasolar object, the only known extrasolar asteroid is in orbit around GD 61, whereas ʻOumuamua is the only known hyperbolic asteroid.
In short, as a merciless pedant I would probably describe ʻOumuamua as "an interstellar object of extrasolar origin" since, as far as I'm aware, asteroids don't form in interstellar space. So now I'm thinking that we should change any instance of "interstellar origin" to "extrasolar origin", including the section title.
Any thoughts? nagual design 08:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Since I'm not a scientist, I'm not clear on why the object is expected to exit the Solar System. I would expect it to be affected by the Suns gravity, and be captured by it, causing it to fall into an orbit. Why the object is not likely to do that is not explained in the article. Can someone with a little expertise in these matters clarify that? Thanks. Juneau Mike ( talk) 14:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Escape velocity explains what is happening quite well. I appreciate several of you answering my question. Thanks! Juneau Mike ( talk) 20:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
In the article, it says the asteroid is expected to 'leave the solar system' in about 20000 years. Given the velocity, would that exit not be expected to be much sooner? Voyager already left the solar system, and its velocity is not many orders of magnitude larger than the comet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.202.130.252 ( talk) 08:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
In the opening, it says the object is expected to leave the solar system in about 20,000 years. Lower down, it says the object left the solar system on 20 November. ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.246.252.97 ( talk) 00:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Is the official, formal or systematic name 1I/ʻOumuamua or 1I/2017 U1 (ʻOumuamua)? (See the last line in the lead and section Naming_of_comets#Current_system.) And since we have a nomenclature section, shouldn't the alternate names, including previously designated like C/2017 U1, be put down there?
Once we've settled that, should Wikipedia call it 1I/ʻOumuamua or ʻOumuamua? Both designations have about the same number of occurrences in the article. Unless there is some special reason for calling it 1I/ʻOumuamua in one sentence and then simply ʻOumuamua in the next, we should reduce the spelling to one form, both in the article and in all the other Wikipedia articles that mention it.
I guess this would be a formal consensus-building discussion: should we have one name for one object and, if so, what name should it be? -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 21:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Further discussion about this topic should be placed here immediately before the Consensus building subsection. Actually votes and their explanation should go on the other side.
Further discussion goes here vvv -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 23:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
This side (subsection) contains a poll of two topics:
The title of the Wikipedia article (currently ʻOumuamua) we'll leave until we have some more opinions on these first two points.
Votes go here ^^^
--
RoyGoldsmith (
talk)
23:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The etymology in the Nomenclature section currently reads, "The name comes from Hawaiian ʻou.mua.mua 'scout', (from ʻou 'reach out for', and mua, reduplicated for emphasis 'first, in advance of')." When I added the ʻou.mua.mua I was copying what the reference says verbatim, but now that it's linked to Wiktionary where the word is written as ʻoumuamua I'm wondering if the full stops, or whatever they are, should be removed. Any ideas? nagual design 17:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Given that the Oort cloud is the cosmographical boundary of the Solar System, are there any citations as to when it leaves the outer limits of said system? kencf0618 ( talk) 18:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps there should have been a nod at Rendezvous with Rama. 89.197.114.132 ( talk) 16:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm only saying that, with 40-plus days of observation arc, the course (including the instantaneous velocity of each point) should be well known. Is the total energy of ʻOumuamua after perihelion greater or less than the total energy before the fly-by? If ʻOumuamua has more energy after then the sun will have transferred some energy into the object and we've increased our orbital eccentricity. However, if it has less energy then we've lessened our eccentricity (say from 1.2000002 to 1.2000001). One can imagine a race of Krell (from Forbidden Planet) precisely throwing a rock so that it will, after dozens or hundreds of fly-bys, each one giving up a minute fraction of its speed, be captured (eccentricity < 1) by some star in another arm of the galaxy a billion years from now. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 00:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Somewhere this name section turned into a speed discussion. It looks like from the JPL Horizon data that the outbound velocity is minutely less than inbound. I am not sure of the physics but a close encounter between two moving masses should result in some transfer of kinetic energy. The amount is more apparent in the smaller mass. Did one of the references say that the trajectory was "retrograde"? I think this results in a slowing. P.S. the trajectory need not be hyperbolic. User-duck ( talk) 12:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
The link for Argument of perihelion connects to " Argument_of_periapsis".
And the number given 241.7 seems to indicate day 245.2290617 of the solar year.
Shouldn't that be September 2 @ 5:29:50?
Can someone explain the number?
info@ the Ubie . com -- 72.94.230.198 ( talk) 20:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
trajectory should be where it came from and where it is headed. there seems to be a discrepancy in the argument of periheilion sugesting it passed the sun a few days earlier.. sep 4 or so. BUT WHERE are the ORIGIN CORDINATES? (i use caps for flair and do not follow the millenial convention that they mean shouting.) -- 72.94.230.198
i think its presumptoious to call it a scout or name it after obama. it appears to be a giant footlong hotdog ( and the same color) which is extreemly freeky and if the sd220 photo is in fact the object, then it looks like a telescope. though perhaps with some artificial beings to keep it in repair. yet the time it has been out there sugests that it may simply host artificial life. we float in space here. they float in space there. you can see some of the contraversy on my page as the data is gathered. i have. not added the argument of periheilion problem yet but it looks like 241.7 is. not sept 9th.. maybe sept 4 or 5. the other matters are 'reported' here http:// the ubie . com / is-it . htm -- 72.94.230.198 ( talk) 21:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Time again for that age-old question: which variety of English? I see both. I used US, noted a GB article. User-duck ( talk) 23:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
The article currently states: "The lack of a coma indicates that it must have formed within the frost line of the stellar system of origin or have been in the inner region of that stellar system long enough for all ice to sublime, as may be the case with damocloids. Analysis of its spectrum indicates that the latter is likely true".[39][40]
After looking at the link damocloids, I realize the term means inactive comets (ran out of volatiles). I think that was the older (earliest) hypothesis, before they realized it is an asteroid. Since there seems to be reason to think it is instead a dense metallic rock asteroid, we should change the text on that entry. Your thoughts? BatteryIncluded ( talk) 23:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
How close did it get to Earth and what was its speed (relative to Earth) then? What would have been the consequences if it hit the Earth, whether sideways or (probably worse) head on?
On 14 October, it made its closest pass by Earth, at 60 times the distance to the moon.