Not just any ol' asteroid, but a bizarre-shaped interstellar asteroid. Wow, fancy that eh? Whatever next? I'm sure NASA will think of something!! It will probably be along the lines of . . . cont. page 94. Source? Why, the BBC of course . . . who else would it be? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42053634
Though this is an interesting object because of it shape, it is not overly unique. You should try harder to make fun of the things you do not understand. By the way...this was not a BBC discovery, they simply report data....Try again,
I first saw the (fake) news of it on the BBC website, so as far as I'm concerned that was my source. You really do believe all this **** don't you?
....Heh....so we see an asteroid and figure out what shape it is so it is "Fake News" onna counta you say so? Okay...I say your "Fake News" designation is fake news.
The point is has anybody seen it, irrespective of shape? Do you know anyone who has, or are you going by hearsay?
It was published in the journal Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25020 A peer reviewed and much respected journal.
I am going by data reported as I usually do, unlike you I tend to look at what professionals with the required equipment find and share in scientific circles to gain knowledge about scientific discoveries. I rely on rather than dismiss this information because of my own curiosity and desire to be informed. In this way I can explain concepts with some level of accuracy rather than present myself as an ignorant individual with strange conspiracy theory derangement syndrome.
So peers review what they've told a journal, then confirm that what the journal has published is correct? Can't you see a little nuance there: let me explain - if Science or Nature or any other affiliated magazines didn't publish this nonsense, they'd go out of business, so what would you do if you were the editor of one or other of them? I'll tell you - you'd publish every word, because if you didn't your circulation figures would plummet and you'd be out of a job?
So, you want to start some political argument in the science section. If all you wanted was to proclaim something "fake news" why not post this in a different subsection?
I like the BBC and use its news app, but agreed: The BBC didn't discover it, the Very Large Telescope in Chile and the Institute for Astronomy in Honolulu, Hawaii did. Hence the Hawaiian name "'Oumuamua" (a messenger from afar arriving first). Cool shape. Anyone see anything about it tumbling?
The assumption that it is tumbling is the reasoning behind the guess at its shape (the image is an artistic rendering, obviously), the reflected radiation indicates a flat surface showing different sides and orientation from which the shape is assumed.
Nope. I don't w/ to start any arguments, nor can I see w/ I said w/ you believe is 'political'? W/ don't you tell me w/ it is?
Yes it does....the vehicle you saw is an Altanian surface probe common in North America and Siberian tribal areas. The shape is required to enable robotic gathering of Alien (terrestrial) life forms. Though rarely seen this one obviously neglected to use its stealth mode, as did the one you witnessed.
Have you seen a virus or bacterium? Do you see modern medicine as fake news? Is DNA fake news? Are atoms fake news? Are YOU fake news? I haven't seen you, so perhaps I should be assuming you're fake.
It's too bad we didn't catch sight of it until it passed us. We don't have anything that can approach the speed of this thing. So, we're going to be somewhat limited in studying it. Then it will be gone and never return.
No, because I've never had access to a laboratory microscope. That doesn't mean that I deny the existence of viruses or bacteria though? Some sciences are genuine and some are fake, and the ones which are genuine are always backed up with empirical evidence? No of course not! It has been useful forensic science for decades. DUH! Ditto. I won't dignify that ridiculous question by proffering a considered answer, but your sarcasm doesn't escape me. Any more stupid questions?
The reason you have an issue is what YOU interpret as Empirical Evidence? Science and most people think of fossilized bones and clear lines of decent to be empirical and you do not.
