Misplaced Pages

Talk:ʻOumuamua: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:58, 3 September 2023 editKheider (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,885 edits 2 cents← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:55, 9 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,502 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:ʻOumuamua/Archive 5) (bot 
(17 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{Vital article|class=C|level=5|topic=Science|subpage=Astronomy}}
{{American English}} {{American English}}
{{ITN talk|20 November|2017}} {{ITN talk|20 November|2017}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=|1= {{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WP Astronomy|object=yes|class=B|importance=mid|solar_system=yes|ss-importance=high}} {{WikiProject Astronomy|object=yes|importance=mid|solar_system=yes|ss-importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=B|importance=Low}}
}} }}
{{annual readership|scale=log}} {{annual readership|scale=log}}
Line 24: Line 22:
: Darryl Seligman, Gregory Laughlin, Konstantin Batygin (Submitted on 12 Mar 2019) : Darryl Seligman, Gregory Laughlin, Konstantin Batygin (Submitted on 12 Mar 2019)


== Unecessary ambiguity? ==
== New study on why Hydrogen Iceberg doesn't work ==

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. ] (]) 23:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
https://avi-loeb.medium.com/oumuamua-was-not-a-hydrogen-water-iceberg-1dd2f7a6107f Looks like the hydrogen theory is bust, so to my knowledge it looks like pretty much every proposed explanation for what this thing was has been shot down. — '''''<small>]<sup>(])<small><sub>(]<sup>(])</sup></sub></small></sup></small>''''' 19:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


:Try now :) ]] 08:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
:Loeb has a conflict of interest because his funding for his pet project requires everything being aliens. -- ] (]) 12:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks for clearing that up! ] (]) ] (]) 21:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)


== Using narrow gaps instead of commas as thousand separator ==
== Closest Approach to Earth and Golden Ratio ==


According to the Manual of Style, you may use as a thousand separator either a comma or a narrow gap (by using the template gaps).
The closest approach distance in AU is currently listed as 0.1618 AU (24,200,000 km; 15,040,000 mi). The source of that is a web pages which list the closest approach as "24,000,000 km" or "15,000,000 mi" https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/news/a28958/first-interstellar-object-gets-a-name/ and those figures would result in 0.1604 AU or 0.1613 AU, not 0.1618 AU. The extra 200,000 km or 40,000 mi in those figures has been chosen by someone to make the closest approach match the Golden ratio to 4 significant figures. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Nonetheless, the Manual of Style also states that grouping of digits using narrow gaps is “especially recommended for articles related to science, technology, engineering or mathematics”. This is due to the fact that it's the normalized way in the international standards (] and ]), and also it's the recommended style by ] and ].
Ah, I see that the linked JPL database has the closest approach to Earth at the bottom listed as "0.16175 AU" which I've updated this page to have that value, since that is authoritative and the significant figures are supported by the uncertainty that the JPL data indicates. ] (]) 17:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


:: JPL listed the closest approach as -- ] (]) 20:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC) Proposal: change the article to format numbers like this "{{gaps|1|000|000}}" instead of "1,000,000". ] (]) 09:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:55, 9 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ʻOumuamua article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
This article 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.
In the newsA news item involving ʻOumuamua was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 November 2017.
Misplaced Pages
Misplaced Pages
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAstronomy: Astronomical objects / Solar System Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconSkepticism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on October 19, 2020 and October 19, 2022.

Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5


This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

New paper

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

Unecessary ambiguity?

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)

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

Using narrow gaps instead of commas as thousand separator

According to the Manual of Style, you may use as a thousand separator either a comma or a narrow gap (by using the template gaps).

Nonetheless, the Manual of Style also states that grouping of digits using narrow gaps is “especially recommended for articles related to science, technology, engineering or mathematics”. This is due to the fact that it's the normalized way in the international standards (ISO/IEC 80000 and International System of Units), and also it's the recommended style by ANSI and NIST.

Proposal: change the article to format numbers like this "1000000" instead of "1,000,000". RGLago (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: