Jump to content

Talk:ʻOumuamua

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New paper

[edit]
On the Anomalous Acceleration of 1I/2017 U1 `Oumuamua Darryl Seligman, Gregory Laughlin, Konstantin Batygin (Submitted on 12 Mar 2019)

"Part of the sky"

[edit]
But as a nearby star, Vega was not in the same part of the sky at that time

Speaking as a non-astronomer: to me, "part of the sky" means the apparent constellation it's found in. But the rest of that para is about Vega's distance from the Sun at the time. Am I misunderstanding it, or is it a phrasing problem? Marnanel (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unecessary ambiguity?

[edit]

In the section on composition, the sentence "The authors calculated that a month after perihelion, that ʻOumuamua had lost 92% of the mass it had upon entering the Solar System" would appear to apply to an object that consisted largely of ice, similar to a comet.

So the uncommented transition to the first sentence of the next paragraph "Light curve observations suggest the object may be composed of dense metal-rich rock that has been reddened by millions of years of exposure to cosmic rays" creates an unnecessary non-sequitur since a "dense metal-rich rock" object would hardly lose 92% of its mass by passing the Sun at a distance of 37,000,000 k.

I don't have the expertise to fix this authoritatively. Pascalulu88 (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try now :) cyclopiaspeak! 08:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up! Pascalulu88 (talk) Pascalulu88 (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]