Galileo Project now fully funded for expedition to study an interstellar meteor
avi-loeb.medium.com
avi-loeb.medium.com
We suspect it does, but having material in hand from somewhere else is a huge additional data point.
Of course it's different if we have rocks or some such that we could tell came directly out of the solar system, and not assembled directly here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal#/media/File:Ho-Mg-ZnQu...
"Maybe it's a meteorite, maybe it's an alien though... Or maybe it's Elvis flying on the Loch Ness monster."
The old quip that it's a small step from the sublime to the ridiculous applies here I think.
And sure, there is lots of crazy talk around the topic. But the fact we have people trying to invent perpetual motion machines does not make every thermodynamicist and machine engineer looney.
I've been to parts of New Jersey, and proving it's civilization, let alone sentience or any form of self-awareness may be eagerly disputable.
It’s still very unlikely, but it also raises interesting questions.
I think trying to retrieve it is a good idea, but I also get a whiff of motivated reasoning in most articles describing how unique it is.
https://avi-loeb.medium.com/low-hanging-fruits-of-extraterre...
It refuses to see aliens as a silly notion and therefore it is obvious to look for archeological evidence of aliens.
Its mass/robustness was weird (very high). Its speed was also weird beyond just being high, IIRC.
I'd like to see them succeed, but it's just too unlikely they will find anything. Might get a few detailed undersea maps out of the effort though, but that's about it.
Can someone explain why it's rarer than the product of the observations? Assuming hardness and speed are totally uncorrelated that would seem to be the maximum rareness. Only if they're anti-correlated would it be "rarer", but I don't see why that would be. (I would even naively expect them to be somewhat correlated, fragile fast things would be more likely to break apart.)
When you have something which saturates measurements, it's probably not 1/273, it's probably 1/n where n > 273.
In other words, we expect the next few meteors we find will also be made of weaker materials, since every single one has been thus far.
[edit, originally said 'slower' not 'weaker materials']
This is equally puzzling to me. It sounds like you're saying outliers are more likely to be extreme outliers than less extreme outliers, which is... not true.
The real number could plausibly be 1/250, after 10,000 samples. More than that would really call for an explanation: if it was 1/100, why didn't we find another one in the first 272?
Also, the real number could plausibly be 1/100,000.0, we've never seen a counterexample. There's nothing bounding the lower end of the range.
The distribution of these probabilities is substantially lower than 273. You can work it out precisely with Bayes' Theorem, if you'd like, this is a verbal explanation of how that sort of statistical reasoning proceeds.
There's no evidence for this, you can't just point to "there's a lot of numbers and we only saw 273 of them" to justify it. The distribution seems exactly what we're trying to determine; to me it sounds like a good example of when Bayesianism breaks down.
Zero.
Other NK subs have been recovered in shallow waters off of South Korea because they were easy and had some intel aboard. Those factors don't seem to apply here.