First Evidence for a Non-Gravitational Acceleration of 3I/ATLAS at Perihelion
Avi Loeb Medium 10/31/25
"By the date of its perihelion, 3I/ATLAS displayed the first evidence of a non-gravitational acceleration."
"The non-gravitational acceleration
(When it outgasses it acts like a rocket basically and speeds it up.)
was measured at the perihelion distance
of 1.36 times the Earth-Sun separation
(defined as an astronomical unit or `au’),
equivalent to 203 million kilometers.
(Not when it was at perihelion
but when it was
"at the perihelion distance")
"If 3I/ATLAS is propelled by the rocket effect of ejected gas, then momentum conservation implies that the object would lose half its mass over a characteristic timescale equal to the ejection speed divided by the measured non-gravitational acceleration. For a thermal ejection speed of a few hundred meters per second, the evaporation half-life of 3I/ATLAS is 6 months. This implies that over the month it takes 3I/ATLAS to cross a spatial scale of order its perihelion separation from the Sun, 3I/ATLAS would lose about a tenth of its mass. Such a massive mass loss should be detectable in the form of a large plume of gas surrounding 3I/ATLAS during the upcoming months of November and December 2025."
(It wont have it.)
"ESA’s Juice spacecraft would be the first to detect this large mass loss in the first week of November.
(Avi still hasn't pointed out (as others have) that data wont make it back till February.)
"Later, on December 19, 2025, 3I/ATLAS will arrive closest to Earth at a separation of 269 million kilometers, when hundreds of ground-based telescopes as well as the Hubble and Webb space telescopes will have the best opportunity to observe it. Given that data,
(If we even get it.)
it should be clear if 3I/ATLAS lost a tenth of its mass through sublimation of volatile ices when it was heated by intense sunlight at perihelion."
"Massive evaporation of 3I/ATLAS might explain its unusual brightening, as reported in a new paper (accessible here) based on observations of 3I/ATLAS from the STEREO, SOHO and GOES-19 instruments during the months of September and October 2025. The data shows a rapid rise in the brightness of 3I/ATLAS..."
(I love how we get told all of this AFTER the fact:
"observations of 3I/ATLAS...during the months of September and October 2025."
WHY IS THAT?)
"Alternatively, the non-gravitational acceleration might be the technological signature of an internal engine.
(8 billion years old?
Avi, you know better.)
This might also explain the report on 3I/ATLAS getting bluer than the Sun."
"The blue appearance at perihelion is a ninth anomaly in the list of unexpected properties of 3I/ATLAS (compiled most recently here). It could potentially be explained by a hot engine
(An 8 billion year old engine?
Designed by an advance intelligence?
That didn't make contingency plans
for a Coronal Mass Ejection?
Yeah...right...)
"or a source of artificial light."
(See comments above.)
"However, it might instead be a signature of ionized carbon monoxide (as discussed here) for a natural comet."
"The reported level of non-gravitational acceleration corresponds to a modest spatial deviation of order ten times the radius of the Earth over a period of a month,
(432,300 miles = "a modest spatial deviation"
Over a period of a month)
"insufficient to bring 3I/ATLAS significantly closer to any Solar System planet from its original gravitational path."
(Well finally something about its trajectory,
and this is very telling:
"from its original gravitational path"
That is not accounting for
getting hit by the Coronal Mass Ejection
which Avi doesn't like to discuss
And also consider:
"In addition, a small orbit correction by 3I/ATLAS
could shrink this MOID
The Minimum Orbit Intersection Distance
of Mars to zero."
The Challenge of Measuring the Mass of 3I/ATLAS
Avi Loeb 8/31/25
Exactly what do you think
the Coronal Mass Ejection did?
"a small orbit correction"
See why nobody talks about it?
That CME altered:
3I/ATLAS "original gravitational path."
There's no way it couldn't have.
It was aimed right for it.
What's your better explanation
for why we don't hear much
about the CME hitting 3I/ATLAS?
Hum?
And the subtle ways in which things are worded:
"insufficient to bring 3I/ATLAS significantly closer to any Solar System planet from its original gravitational path."
That was different
than what it is on now.)
"This brings us to an anecdote from another event that took place today. As director of Harvard’s Institute for Theory and Computation, I lead every Thursday a luncheon attended by over a hundred astrophysicists. The event features four presentations on the latest advances in astrophysics. One of today’s presentations focused on the discrepancy between the current expansion rate of the Universe and the value expected for it based on the cosmic microwave background, the relic radiation from the hot dense matter in the first 400,000 years of cosmic history after the Big Bang. It appears very difficult to explain this anomaly in the data in terms of an elegant theoretical model.
(Translation
"an elegant theoretical model"
=
We really had to make up some bull shit
in order to get this to work.)
"At the conclusion of the presentation which demonstrated beyond any statistical uncertainty that the discrepancy is real,"
(I've said before, the discrepancy is the difference between the spiritual and the physical, with the spiritual always staying ahead.)
"I pointed out to all the young theorists in the audience: “It is a bad professional practice for theoretical astrophysicists to conclude that the data must be wrong just because they do not have a theoretical explanation for it.” Needless to say, the same lesson applies to the anomalies of 3I/ATLAS.
Yup...
the Non-Gravitational Acceleration of 3I/ATLAS
Avi Loeb Medium 10/31/25
"Yesterday’s report on a non-gravitational acceleration of 3I/ATLAS near perihelion (discussed here) stems from data obtained by the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) which indicated that 3I/ATLAS was 4 arcseconds away in Right Ascension from where it was supposed to be on October 29, 2025 if its trajectory was dictated by gravity."
(Is that trajectory before or after the hit by the CME?)
"It took about a month for 3I/ATLAS to cross the perihelion distance scale of 203 million kilometers, so it must have lost at least a sixth of its mass during that time."
"This means that the dense cloud around it should carry at least 5.5 billion tons."
"This implies that we should detect a massive cloud of gas around 3I/ATLAS in November and December 2025 if the non-gravitational acceleration resulted from cometary evaporation."
(Not going to see it.)
"Between November 27, 2025 and January 27, 2026, 3I/ATLAS will be monitored by the International Asteroid Warning Network (IAWN) campaign (as described here). If the extensive IAWN data will not reveal a massive cloud of gas around 3I/ATLAS, then cometary evaporation would not constitute a natural explanation for its non-gravitational acceleration."
(That would fit the pattern we have seen with 3I/ATLAS)
"If we do not observe a massive cloud of gas around 3I/ATLAS in December, then the reported non-gravitational acceleration near perihelion might be regarded as
a technological signature of a propulsion system."
(Supernatural).
"A non-detection of an accompanying gas cloud will bring the sensation of Déjà vu. The first interstellar object 1I/`Oumuamua exhibited non-gravitational acceleration..."
(Discussed here:
Thursday, February 9, 2023
"without showing any sign of gas or dust around it, even after deep observations by the Spitzer space telescope (as reported here). This led comet experts to define 1I/`Oumuamua as a dark comet, namely a comet which does not show a visible tail. Given that a tail is the defining signature of a comet, the notion of a `dark comet’ is an oxymoron."
"A few reporters asked me today about the strong statements made by the science popularizer Brian Cox
(See:
Saturday, April 6, 2024
Thursday, April 11, 2024
Dangerous False Prophet Alert #2
Tuesday, April 16, 2024
Dangerous False Prophet Alert #3
for more about Mr. Cox.)
who argued forcefully that 3I/ATLAS is definitely a natural comet. I explained that Brian Cox did not write a single scientific paper about 3I/ATLAS. He acts as a science popularizer rather than a researcher who is engaged with the related science concerning 3I/ATLAS. In comparison, I wrote 11 scientific papers in recent months about 3I/ATLAS (accessible here). Rather than engage in sweeping statements, Brian should be challenged to explain the 9 anomalies associated with 3I/ATLAS (with 8 anomalies compiled here and the 9th anomaly being its unprecedented recent brightening while being bluer than the Sun, discussed here). Scientific truth is not decided by a popularity contest but by attention to data — especially when it is anomalous."
("deviating from what is standard, normal, or expected.")
No comments:
Post a Comment