swansont

No. And AI-generated content is not a good forum post.

Moderator NoteNo. Literally nobody asked for that. We want to engage in discussion, with a human It was hinted at before, but I will make it explicit: AI content as the substance of posts is not allowed here, as explained in rule 2.13 https://scienceforums.net/guidelines/

Try to understand that I am not doing any analysis or conversion involving Oumuamua. I did a unit conversion from a paper, and showed that your math was wrong. That would matter for the number at perihelion, i.e. the maximum effect. Not the number at some other distance. The number at e.g. 3AU is going to be the number at 3AU, and it will have that number regardless of the perihelion value. The perihelion value could be used as the benchmark, so if that’s how you’ve done your analysis, that’s perfectly fine, but it doesn’t have any impact whatsoever on the measurements that give us the upper limit on the Atlas acceleration, at its distance when the data were collected. And the point I’ve been trying to make is that your numbers are bigger than that. Bigger than the upper limit. That means your analysis doesn’t work. And exchemist is right about the difficulty in getting you to share information. You post numbers and then yell at me for citing them, when it turns out you didn’t provide the entire picture. It took you two freaking pages to provide the numbers that you could have posted at the beginning of the discussion, as if it’s our fault we can’t read your mind. IOW, outgassing can completely explain the acceleration, which has an upper limit that’s smaller than this by almost a factor of two.

You said you made this correction but not why it’s necessary. Atlas hasn’t yet reached perihelion, so how does the perihelion matter on the inbound leg of the trip? I did not. I stated the value from the paper and estimated the value in SI units (I didn’t have a calculator handy, so I did a rough conversion in my head). 1 AU is 1.5 x 10^11m and d^ is (86400s)^2 or about 7 x 10^9 s^2 3 x 10^-10 au/d^2 is thus about 45 m/7 x 10^9s or about 10^-8 m/s^2, which is the number I gave. If you put it in a calculator, it’s 6 x 10^-9 m/s^2 IOW, your value is 10x too big Do you understand what an upper limit is? That the answer will not be any larger than this, so any model showing a larger number is wrong. As I showed above, this is incorrect Too bad. Following the rules is not optional. I had specified “a similarly-named account” I have no desire to get into it, but suffice to say there are lots of examples of people opening new accounts after they were banned, that will not win any awards for cleverness, so any suggestion that it would not happen is contradicted by quite a lot of empirical data.

You replied to me, but I didn’t say the quoted bit you included here. How does this address my question about what grows?

I responded to a post you made; you updated your numbers in a later post, so no, I had not read them yet. But now I have to ask: what changed? A day ago you had one prediction: And now those numbers are much smaller. But, they are still larger than the upper bound Thanks for this; owing to the new hosting, all of the old Bjarne posts were archived and unsearchable, but that thread has a link to an old post, which helps. This is a lie. You admitted in that other thread that you had posted under the user name Bjarne.

Your prediction of .67 x 10-6 is 670 times larger than the observed value of 1 x 10-9 The correction that’s needed is for distance from the sun, since your value is for 2.5 AU, and the observed value was for a slightly greater distance. But, as I pointed out, if the 1/r^2 scaling that you used is applied, that only buys you a small correction - around a factor of 4. i.e. your prediction appears to be wrong. And yet you posted a diatribe about whether that scaling was correct So, if that scaling is correct, your prediction is wrong by more than two orders of magnitude

The 2.5 AU is your number. I am criticizing your analysis. So? I’m referring to your analysis of Atlas. Using your numbers and scaling. If you think the scaling is wrong, tell us what will happen further away? Will it account for the factor of 670 that separates your predicted value at 2.5 AU from the observed value at 3 AU? As I said, I’m referring to your analysis of Atlas. You used 1/r^2 scaling. And since outgassing has been observed for Atlas, this objection seems moot. I have not said anything about ʻOumuamua’s anomaly. I don’t know why you keep bringing this up. I’m criticizing your model. You made no mention that it would not continue to scale. You need to share such details.

There was no pertinent comment at all, but one might wonder why you’d post it. The existence of the paper suggests that there is some idea I’m not the right kind of doctor to help you, but you clearly need help.

3I/ATLAS 2.5 AU: ~0.67×10−6 m/s² That’s your number. At 5 AU, using a 1/r^2 effect, it is only a factor of 4 smaller. 1.7 x 10^-7 is >100x bigger than the observed value of 1 x 10-9m/s² (from your post)

Try it and see That paper takes a position we’ve been asking you to take. “This report argues for, and exemplifies, a rigorous and empirically grounded approach to AI consciousness” The also say “Our analysis suggests that no current AI systems are conscious” Are you proposing using their standards?

Category error it is, then. The problem being that this is a science discussion site.

If the categories are logic vs science, then it seems quite likely. I wanted to check, hence my request, which you continue to ignore.

Summer ended just a few weeks ago, as did the measurement window. Seems pretty fresh. “We use astrometric data on 3I/ATLAS compiled by the Minor Planet Center from May 15 to September 23, 2025” Doesn’t seem all that outdated, nor does that affect how much bigger your prediction is than the measured value.

Sure, but there’s no ad hominem here. I’m not arguing you’re wrong because of some personal attribute. I was commenting on your (possibly feigned) confusion about what I was asking you for. Either you were confused about a simple request, or you were pretending to be. It seems it’s the latter. But I want to know what you think the rules of logic and rhetoric are and how they apply, so that I can point out how the rules of science encompass more than logic and rhetoric. The rules of science are what apply here, in speculations on SFN, regardless of how inconvenient that might be for you.

That’s the citation I gave earlier. The measured anomaly is, as you say, around 10^-9. Your prediction is much larger than that. You seem to be asserting that outgassing or radiation effects don’t account for this measured value, and I’m asking for details. Yes, that one, but it’s a measurement and not speculation about any ET-related subject matter

Are you really this obtuse, or do you just play a simpleton on TV? Queensberry Rules of logic and rhetoric. Please provide a link to these.

Not aware of these. Perhaps you could favor us with a link? I know there are Queensberry Rules governing boxing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquess_of_Queensberry_Rules and am familiar with the protocols surrounding science. But I’m not the one who has to make the adjustment here.

We’ve been demanding rigor and objectivity, which are required if one is to accept and validate an idea in science. You don’t get an exception to the requirements.

This is indistinguishable from a response about belief in a supreme being.

How would you objectively test for “stochastic inevitability”?

Your “answer as above” lacks a citation.

Which you have not stated until now, and you have not provided any links to credible sources reporting it And as I said, Atlas has a tail, so we know matter is being ejected — a non-gravitational acceleration is expected. If you want discussion, you have to provide the details, rather than expecting others to go dig for them. When you make a claim, you need to back it up. Here’s a report of an acceleration no bigger than 3 x 10^-10 au/d^2 (if my math is correct, that’s about 10^-8 m/s^2) https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/CLV.pdf So is there any evidence that the usual suspects (outgassing, radiation pressure, Yarkovsky effect) don’t account for it?

But dS = dQ/T, so if heat flow in is greater than the flow out, dQ is positive, and so is dS. Entropy increases.

Please some worked examples of it. And a properly formatted equation.