7 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

It is absolutely correct that, hypothetically, the numbers you mention are consistent.

But first I need to clarify:

1. On August 1, when the outgassing effect you referred to was measured, 3I/ATLAS was about 3 AU from the Earth, or, if you prefer, about 4 AU from the Sun.

   So the "2.5 AU" figure you referred to above is still misleading.

The 2.5 AU is your number. I am criticizing your analysis.

7 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

1. ʻOumuamua’s non-gravitational acceleration was determined from precise astrometry collected between October and January 2017/2018, after the object was discovered by Pan-STARRS1 on October 19, 2017.

   The observations covered a range of about 1.4 to 2.0 AU from the Sun on its way out of the solar system (Micheli et al. 2018, Nature 559, 223–226).

   It was in this interval that residuals from a purely gravitational trajectory became clear, and where an outgassing-like 1/r² law could be fitted to the data.

2. After ~2 AU, ʻOumuamua quickly became too faint to be tracked by telescopes, and therefore there are no measurements of the anomaly beyond 2 AU.

3. Any values at 3–4 AU are thus not observations, but simply extrapolations of the model.

So? I’m referring to your analysis of Atlas. Using your numbers and scaling.

If you think the scaling is wrong, tell us what will happen further away? Will it account for the factor of 670 that separates your predicted value at 2.5 AU from the observed value at 3 AU?

7 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

1. In the study of comets and interstellar objects, the so-called outgassing law (often expressed as an acceleration proportional 1/r² law has long been the standard model to describe non-gravitational forces in orbits. However, this law has been criticized in cases where its application lacks direct physical correspondence — particularly with ʻOumuamua, where an “outgassing-like” acceleration was observed, but no gas or dust was detected.

   Critics have suggested that in such cases the law may be a mathematical parametrization of an unknown anomalous effect rather than a physical gas mechanism (e.g., Seccull & Jewitt, 2018; Bialy & Loeb, 2018).

As I said, I’m referring to your analysis of Atlas. You used 1/r^2 scaling. And since outgassing has been observed for Atlas, this objection seems moot.

7 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

This all means you have no observations to support that ʻOumuamua’s anomaly must, in practice, continue to follow Micheli’s equation.

I have not said anything about ʻOumuamua’s anomaly. I don’t know why you keep bringing this up.

7 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

So the conclusion here: - is that you expect it to apply beyond 2 AU, and therefore you must demonstrate it.

That’s why you need to show us your calculations.

I’m criticizing your model. You made no mention that it would not continue to scale. You need to share such details.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

The 2.5 AU is your number. I am criticizing your analysis.

You're welcome – but remember next time to also criticize yourself for not including the perihelion dependence in the calculation; it's also part of my model.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

So? I’m referring to your analysis of Atlas. Using your numbers and scaling.

If you think the scaling is wrong, tell us what will happen further away? Will it account for the factor of 670 that separates your predicted value at 2.5 AU from the observed value at 3 AU?

I don’t know what you mean by 670?- use the data in the table, formatted with the correct perihelion, to avoid similar misunderstandings

1 hour ago, swansont said:

As I said, I’m referring to your analysis of Atlas. You used 1/r^2 scaling. And since outgassing has been observed for Atlas, this objection seems moot.

Same answer as above.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I’m criticizing your model. You made no mention that it would not continue to scale. You need to share such details.

That is not the point; of course it will continue. Naturally, the deceleration will also continue.

I noticed there was a problem and found that it was due to missing perihelion calibration, since Atlas has a different perihelion distance. It is crucial that this is set correctly.

I have mentioned several times that this calibration is necessary — so if you gave me one point up every time I pointed it out, that would only be fair

I've had a look at this poster's previous contributions and note that a couple of years ago he claimed that a number of phenomena, including the "anomalous" (if you discount the various outgassing hypotheses) acceleration detected with Oumuamua, could be explained by something called "Relativistic Resistance" to movement (RR for short), of which he is an exponent. I'm not sure if this was his idea or comes from somewhere else. I couldn't find anything on the subject in a quick web search. I wonder if this thread is a disguised attempt to resurrect that idea, in the context of 3I/ATLAS, as one of its claims is apparently that an object in free fall will spontaneously decelerate, due to this RR. : https://scienceforums.net/topic/132976-alternative-to-relativity-split-from-a-problem-to-the-theory-of-relativity/#comment-1254887

Looks pretty wacky to me, but seems to fit the general tone of the discussion (and the eventual outburst of crankspeak).

Edited October 3Oct 3 by exchemist

3 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

I don’t know what you mean by 670?- use the data in the table, formatted with the correct perihelion, to avoid similar misunderstandings

Your prediction of .67 x 10-6 is 670 times larger than the observed value of 1 x 10-9

The correction that’s needed is for distance from the sun, since your value is for 2.5 AU, and the observed value was for a slightly greater distance. But, as I pointed out, if the 1/r^2 scaling that you used is applied, that only buys you a small correction - at most, around a factor of 4.

i.e. your prediction appears to be wrong.

That is not the point; of course it will continue

And yet you posted a diatribe about whether that scaling was correct

So, if that scaling is correct, your prediction is wrong by more than two orders of magnitude

52 minutes ago, swansont said:

Your prediction of .67 x 10-6 is 670 times larger than the observed value of 1 x 10-9

The correction that’s needed is for distance from the sun, since your value is for 2.5 AU, and the observed value was for a slightly greater distance. But, as I pointed out, if the 1/r^2 scaling that you used is applied, that only buys you a small correction - at most, around a factor of 4.

i.e. your prediction appears to be wrong.

Helloooo ... Haven’t you read my last two posts on page 2? Or is it because you don’t want to, or maybe can’t quite understand the content? I feel like you keep repeating the same points, even though I already answered your question in detail.

58 minutes ago, swansont said:

And yet you posted a diatribe about whether that scaling was correct

So, if that scaling is correct, your prediction is wrong by more than two orders of magnitude

This has already been clearly explained many times, and the correct figures are shown in the table on page 2, yet you keep repeating the same point.

The Micheli et al. (2018) amplitude cannot be regarded as a natural constant. In the context of ʻOumuamua it merely provides a parametrization of the observed anomaly, but it cannot be uncritically transferred to other interstellar objects without conversion for their specific perihelion distance.

“It was often mentioned that one should scale using the perihelion factor. This is where the reasoning went off track. I hope it is very clear now. The second upload is a screenshot from the previous page, including the perihelion scaling. All of this shows that there is still plenty of room for a hidden anomaly, also in the case of 3I/Atlas.”

Edited October 3Oct 3 by Bjarne-7

21 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Helloooo ... Haven’t you read my last two posts on page 2? Or is it because you don’t want to, or maybe can’t quite understand the content? I feel like you keep repeating the same points, even though I already answered your question in detail.

I responded to a post you made; you updated your numbers in a later post, so no, I had not read them yet.

But now I have to ask: what changed?

A day ago you had one prediction:

If we simply take ʻOumuamua’s 1/r² scaling and apply only the difference in outbound angle, a corresponding possible anomaly for 3I/ATLAS would fall in the range of 0.7–1.0 × 10⁻⁶ m/s² between 1.5 and 2.5 AU — lower than ʻOumuamua’s but not vanishing.

And now those numbers are much smaller.

But, they are still larger than the upper bound

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

I've had a look at this poster's previous contributions and note that a couple of years ago he claimed that a number of phenomena, including the "anomalous" (if you discount the various outgassing hypotheses) acceleration detected with Oumuamua, could be explained by something called "Relativistic Resistance" to movement (RR for short), of which he is an exponent. I'm not sure if this was his idea or comes from somewhere else. I couldn't find anything on the subject in a quick web search. I wonder if this thread is a disguised attempt to resurrect that idea, in the context of 3I/ATLAS, as one of its claims is apparently that an object in free fall will spontaneously decelerate, due to this RR. : https://scienceforums.net/topic/132976-alternative-to-relativity-split-from-a-problem-to-the-theory-of-relativity/#comment-1254887

Looks pretty wacky to me, but seems to fit the general tone of the discussion (and the eventual outburst of crankspeak).

Thanks for this; owing to the new hosting, all of the old Bjarne posts were archived and unsearchable, but that thread has a link to an old post, which helps.

On 9/29/2025 at 3:23 AM, Bjarne-7 said:

Do you mean me? I’ve never posted under a similar name

This is a lie. You admitted in that other thread that you had posted under the user name Bjarne.

9 hours ago, swansont said:

I responded to a post you made; you updated your numbers in a later post, so no, I had not read them yet.

But now I have to ask: what changed?

A day ago you had one prediction:

And now those numbers are much smaller.

But, they are still larger than the upper bound

Thanks for this; owing to the new hosting, all of the old Bjarne posts were archived and unsearchable, but that thread has a link to an old post, which helps.

This is a lie. You admitted in that other thread that you had posted under the user name Bjarne.

You reveal yourself by ignoring the serveral posts that already clarify the confusion about the meaning of an object’s incidence and exit angle relative to the Sun—and instead continue to argue—you are clearly demonstrating that your only goal is to maintain that confusion, rather than acknowledge the corrections / clarification that many of the earlier posts are actually about.

In that regard, I must repeat: the error is also your own:

• Because you were informed that you should correct for 3i/Atals perihelion, is not the same as Omujamua. This was not done in the calculation you refer to, and as a scientist it is obvious to see that .

• Both before and after, you were told that the amplitude from Micheli et al. (2018), which forms the basis of the ‘Oumuamua anomaly, must first be converted mathematically into the perihelion of 3I/Atlas.

• Next, you make the mistake of equating AU/d² with m/s².

• Then, you make the mistake of not understanding that <3×10⁻¹⁰ AU/d² is, first of all, not a measured value but an upper limit.

• Then, you make the mistake of not realizing that, if you had converted this value into m/s², you would have obtained an upper limit of <6×10⁻⁸ m/s².

• Then, you make the mistake of not recognizing that this is still an upper limit.

• Then, you make the mistake of failing to understand that the expected value is in fact about ∼1×10⁻⁸ m/s².

• Then you made not mistake not to read and not to understand this, - my post regaring this you find at at side 2, and repeated below

If you had started by converting the 3I/Atlas amplitude yourself—as has already been shown to you multiple times, including the correct mathematical formula—you would have been able to see with your own eyes that there is more than enough room for 3I/Atlas to have been affected by the same causal anomaly that influenced ‘Oumuamua.

This is clearly shown in the figures below, which are based on the proper correction for the Atlas perihelion. - Now repeated below, and something it is clearly you want to avoid understanding

17 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Clarification on the Reported Values for 3I/Atlas

There has been some confusion about whether a non-gravitational acceleration was measured for 3I/Atlas. In fact, no direct detection has been made — only an upper limit has been established from orbital fitting.

1. Upper limit from astrometry
   Cloete, Loeb & Vereš (2025) analyzed the orbital residuals and found no significant evidence for a non-gravitational acceleration. Instead, they placed an upper bound of

   <3×10−10 AU/d²,

   which converts to

   <6×10−8 m/s².

   This is not a direct measurement of acceleration — it is simply the maximum strength such an effect could have without being detectable in the available data.

2. Order-of-magnitude estimates in discussion
   Separately, values around

   ∼1×10−8 m/s²

   have been mentioned as plausible accelerations from comet-like outgassing at ~3 AU. These are heuristic estimates, not observational results, and they remain comfortably below the observational upper limit.

Predicted anomaly for 3I/Atlas (perihelion-scaled from ʻOumuamua)

This table shows the predicted non-gravitational anomaly for 3I/Atlas, scaled from ʻOumuamua’s Micheli et al. (2018) amplitude using perihelion distance correction. Values are given for heliocentric distances from 0.5 AU to 5.0 AU in 0.5 AU steps.

Distance r (AU)	NASA/Micheli Δa (m/s²) [3I/Atlas]	NASA/Micheli Δa (µm/s²)
0.5	6.529e-07	6.529e-01
1.0	1.632e-07	1.632e-01
1.5	7.254e-08	7.254e-02
2.0	4.081e-08	4.081e-02
2.5	2.612e-08	2.612e-02
3.0	1.814e-08	1.814e-02
3.5	1.332e-08	1.332e-02
4.0	1.020e-08	1.020e-02
4.5	8.061e-09	8.061e-03
5.0	6.529e-09	6.529e-03

10 hours ago, swansont said:

And now those numbers are much smaller.

and these should be. I said in advance that I wouldn't go into mathematical details - it's too boring, - so you should know you have to do some work yourself

10 hours ago, swansont said:

I've had a look at this poster's previous contributions and note that a couple of years ago he claimed that a number of phenomena, including the "anomalous" (if you discount the various outgassing hypotheses) acceleration detected with Oumuamua, could be explained by something called "Relativistic Resistance" to movement (RR for short), of which he is an exponent. I'm not sure if this was his idea or comes from somewhere else. I couldn't find anything on the subject in a quick web search. I wonder if this thread is a disguised attempt to resurrect that idea, in the context of 3I/ATLAS, as one of its claims is apparently that an object in free fall will spontaneously decelerate, due to this RR. : https://scienceforums.net/topic/132976-alternative-to-relativity-split-from-a-problem-to-the-theory-of-relativity/#comment-1254887

Looks pretty wacky to me, but seems to fit the general tone of the discussion (and the eventual outburst of crankspeak).

Absolutely true, and later analyses have shown that relativistic effects cannot explain the anomaly either.
It is as if you are signalling that, on this forum, it is somehow forbidden to think for oneself.
And you continue to try to convince readers here that there is a hidden agenda.
There is not — that exists only in your own imagination.

If you ask me whether I have solved the mystery in another way—well, guess what? If I had, I’m not sure I would share it here, because it is painfully obvious that intolerance toward new thinking and prejudice against people who think for themselves reeks unpleasantly on this forum.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

This is a lie. You admitted in that other thread that you had posted under the user name Bjarne.

Where i come from we can agree that Bjarke is similar to Bjarne, but Bjarne is not similar to Bjarne, and also we agree that 7 is not a name. I am from Earth, this planet is not similar to Earth, - but this is Earth. So if I really should have told you that my name is not Bjarne and also not Bjarne , and also not 7, and that I dont come from Earth, yes then I would have lied to you. And I know that on Earth, sometimes systems refuse to send you new passwords. This is why Peter, who is not “similar to Peter” but still Peter, had to create a new Peter profile. So now Peter has a new login profile, and it is still Peter’s profile. I mean, it is not Pope Peter, but still Peter. And I have never heard that this has anything to do with lying.

Edited October 4Oct 4 by Bjarne-7

11 hours ago, swansont said:

This is a lie. You admitted in that other thread that you had posted under the user name Bjarne.

You insinuate that I am trying to post under a false flag. – Honestly, I can’t even remember all the times in my life when I’ve had to request a new password because I forgot the old one. And in cases you dont get a new pw and when the old username is still stuck in the system, you end up having to register agian add a number after it. – If I really wanted to post under a false flag, I’d probably have chosen a name like “King Carrot,” rather than just sticking a number at the end. – It’s like accusing Russia of sending drones under a false flag by labeling them “Made in Russia-7.” – When someone makes such foolish claims (in a figurative sense), it only shows that their own underestimation of other people’s intelligence in reality just reveals how stupid they themselves are.

I think it’s more relevant to ask why the system didn’t let me in, and why I had to request a new password — and why I never received it. Is it because this forum is only for the “chosen ones”?

I think it’s time to summarize:,

• The estimated expected deceleration due to outgassing of 3i/Atlas is 1×10⁻⁸ m/s² at 3 AU.

• When you convert the ‘Oumuamua anomaly to the 3i/Atlas parameters, you get 1.8×10⁻⁸ m/s² at 3 AU.

• Adding these values gives 2.8×10⁻⁸ m/s².

• The maximum possible deceleration is set to 6×10⁻⁸ m/s².

  In other words, there’s plenty of room for the anomaly to hide within the data.

  
  An entirely identical calculation shows that the same is true for Borisov.

Edited October 4Oct 4 by Bjarne-7

10 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

In that regard, I must repeat: the error is also your own:

• Because you were informed that you should correct for 3i/Atals perihelion, is not the same as Omujamua. This was not done in the calculation you refer to, and as a scientist it is obvious to see that .

• Both before and after, you were told that the amplitude from Micheli et al. (2018), which forms the basis of the ‘Oumuamua anomaly, must first be converted mathematically into the perihelion of 3I/Atlas.

You said you made this correction but not why it’s necessary. Atlas hasn’t yet reached perihelion, so how does the perihelion matter on the inbound leg of the trip?

10 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

• Next, you make the mistake of equating AU/d² with m/s².

I did not. I stated the value from the paper and estimated the value in SI units (I didn’t have a calculator handy, so I did a rough conversion in my head). 1 AU is 1.5 x 10^11m and d^ is (86400s)^2 or about 7 x 10^9 s^2

3 x 10^-10 au/d^2 is thus about 45 m/7 x 10^9s or about 10^-8 m/s^2, which is the number I gave.

If you put it in a calculator, it’s 6 x 10^-9 m/s^2

IOW, your value is 10x too big

10 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

• Then, you make the mistake of not understanding that <3×10⁻¹⁰ AU/d² is, first of all, not a measured value but an upper limit.

Do you understand what an upper limit is? That the answer will not be any larger than this, so any model showing a larger number is wrong.

10 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

• Then, you make the mistake of not realizing that, if you had converted this value into m/s², you would have obtained an upper limit of <6×10⁻⁸ m/s².

As I showed above, this is incorrect

I said in advance that I wouldn't go into mathematical details - it's too boring

Too bad. Following the rules is not optional.

11 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Where i come from we can agree that Bjarke is similar to Bjarne, but Bjarne is not similar to Bjarne, and also we agree that 7 is not a name. I am from Earth, this planet is not similar to Earth, - but this is Earth. So if I really should have told you that my name is not Bjarne and also not Bjarne , and also not 7, and that I dont come from Earth, yes then I would have lied to you. And I know that on Earth, sometimes systems refuse to send you new passwords. This is why Peter, who is not “similar to Peter” but still Peter, had to create a new Peter profile. So now Peter has a new login profile, and it is still Peter’s profile. I mean, it is not Pope Peter, but still Peter. And I have never heard that this has anything to do with lying.

I had specified “a similarly-named account”

You insinuate that I am trying to post under a false flag

I have no desire to get into it, but suffice to say there are lots of examples of people opening new accounts after they were banned, that will not win any awards for cleverness, so any suggestion that it would not happen is contradicted by quite a lot of empirical data.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You said you made this correction but not why it’s necessary. Atlas hasn’t yet reached perihelion, so how does the perihelion matter on the inbound leg of the trip?

In Micheli et al. (2018), the 1/r² dependence makes the perihelion distance the key parameter, since it determines how strongly the Sun’s radiation and outgassing effects act on the object —and thus how large the non-gravitational acceleration can be.

Δa(r) is the non-gravitational acceleration (from outgassing or solar radiation pressure) at distance r from the Sun,

where A₁ is the amplitude the acceleration would have at 1 AU, and r is the object’s actual distance from the Sun during observation.

If an object comes close to the Sun (like ʻOumuamua, with rp=0.26AU ) it experiences a much stronger solar influence.
This means that, to match the same observations, the amplitude must be higher A₁ , since the acceleration increases according to:

For 3I/Atlas at rp=1.07AU -> (1/1.07)² ≈ 0.87(1/1.07)²
meaning its acceleration is weaker than at 1 AU.

For ʻOumuamua at rp=0.26 AU - > (1/0.26)² ≈ 14.8(1/0.26)²
so the acceleration at perihelion is nearly 15 times stronger than at 1 AU.

NOTICE

Oumuamua was observed to have a non-gravitational acceleration of about

Δa(r)≈5×10−6 m/s² at r≈1 AU.\Delta a(r) \approx 5e-6m/s² at r≈1 AU.

That is an extremely strong effect for an object estimated to be roughly 100–200 m across.

For solar radiation pressure alone to produce this acceleration, the object would need an exceptionally low mass-to-area ratio:

Oumuamua would have to be ultra-thin, almost like a lightsail — just a few millimetres thick but tens of metres wide.
No known natural process can produce such an object.
Moreover, no outgassing, dust, or comet-like activity was detected.

The equation above shows the formula that describes outgassing.

As you can see, it produces exactly the same result as the equation that describes ʻOumuamua’s acceleration.

This provides the mathematical proof that ʻOumuamua’s anomaly was at least 100% counterproductive relative to the outgassing hypothesis.

In other words, the anomaly has the potential to completely and totally eliminate the need for any outgassing explanation.

This is why even leading figures and many other scientists have been taken aback, and why fragments of alien-related conspiracy theories have emerged—even among some of the world’s finest universities.

And others, with a more down-to-earth perspective, have begun to realize that there is a need for new thinking—one where the outgassing hypothesis is completely eliminated, and where people remain open to what an alternative explanation might be.

Edited October 4Oct 4 by Bjarne-7

13 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

In Micheli et al. (2018), the 1/r² dependence makes the perihelion distance the key parameter, since it determines how strongly the Sun’s radiation and outgassing effects act on the object —and thus how large the non-gravitational acceleration can be.

Δa(r) is the non-gravitational acceleration (from outgassing or solar radiation pressure) at distance rrr from the Sun,

where A₁ is the amplitude the acceleration would have at 1 AU, and rrr is the object’s actual distance from the Sun during observation.

If an object comes close to the Sun (like ʻOumuamua, with rp=0.26r_p = 0.26rp=0.26 AU), it experiences a much stronger solar influence.
This means that, to match the same observations, the amplitude must be higher A₁ , since the acceleration increases according to:

For 3I/Atlas at rp=1.07r_p AU -> (1/1.07)²≈0.87(1/1.07)²
meaning its acceleration is weaker than at 1 AU.

For ʻOumuamua at rp=0.26r_p 0.26 AU - > (1/0.26)²≈14.8(1/0.26)²
so the acceleration at perihelion is nearly 15 times stronger than at 1 AU.

NOTICE

Oumuamua was observed to have a non-gravitational acceleration of about

Δa(r)≈5×10−6 m/s² at r≈1 AU.\Delta a(r) \approx 5e-6m/s² at r≈1 AU.

That is an extremely strong effect for an object estimated to be roughly 100–200 m across.

For solar radiation pressure alone to produce this acceleration, the object would need an exceptionally low mass-to-area ratio:

Oumuamua would have to be ultra-thin, almost like a lightsail — just a few millimetres thick but tens of metres wide.
No known natural process can produce such an object.
Moreover, no outgassing, dust, or comet-like activity was detected.

The equation above shows the formula that describes solar radiation pressure.

As you can see, it produces exactly the same result as the equation that describes ʻOumuamua’s acceleration.

This provides the mathematical proof that ʻOumuamua’s anomaly was at least 100% counterproductive relative to the outgassing hypothesis.

In other words, the anomaly has the potential to completely and totally eliminate the need for any outgassing explanation.

This is why even leading figures and many other scientists have been taken aback, and why fragments of alien-related conspiracy theories have emerged—even among some of the world’s finest universities.

And others, with a more down-to-earth perspective, have begun to realize that there is a need for new thinking—one where the outgassing hypothesis is completely eliminated, and where people remain open to what an alternative explanation might be.

So the inverse square dependence of the non-gravitational component of acceleration is because radiation intensity falls off with the square of distance, hence so will the rate of boil-off of gases likewise. That seems to make sense.

Edited October 4Oct 4 by exchemist

2 hours ago, swansont said:

I did not. I stated the value from the paper and estimated the value in SI units (I didn’t have a calculator handy, so I did a rough conversion in my head). 1 AU is 1.5 x 10^11m and d^ is (86400s)^2 or about 7 x 10^9 s^2

3 x 10^-10 au/d^2 is thus about 45 m/7 x 10^9s or about 10^-8 m/s^2, which is the number I gave.

If you put it in a calculator, it’s 6 x 10^-9 m/s^2

IOW, your value is 10x too big

Try to understand that if you transfer ʻOumuamua’s anomaly and you truly grasp the underlying mathematics, you cannot end up above the outgassing level.
If you do, it means you haven’t correctly converted ʻOumuamua’s perihelion distance to that of 3I/Atlas.
It’s quite clear that you don’t yet have the necessary mathematical skills to handle that conversion properly.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Do you understand what an upper limit is? That the answer will not be any larger than this, so any model showing a larger number is wrong.

I have shown you serveral times how to convert it to m/s²

2 hours ago, swansont said:

I had specified “a similarly-named account”

? what ? - You’re from Earth, right? Not from some similar planet with a cryptic undercover name, right? Can you garentee me you are not from the 3i/Atlas spacecraft ?

2 hours ago, swansont said:

I have no desire to get into it, but suffice to say there are lots of examples of people opening new accounts after they were banned, that will not win any awards for cleverness, so any suggestion that it would not happen is contradicted by quite a lot of empirical data.

So why make a BS point of of it (?)

Edited October 4Oct 4 by Bjarne-7

10 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Try to understand that if you transfer ʻOumuamua’s anomaly and you truly grasp the underlying mathematics, you cannot end up above the outgassing level.
If you do, it means you haven’t correctly converted ʻOumuamua’s perihelion distance to that of 3I/Atlas.
It’s quite clear that you don’t yet have the necessary mathematical skills to handle that conversion properly.

I have and I have shown you serveral times to converted it to m/s²

? what ? - You’re from Earth, right? Not from some similar planet with a cryptic undercover name, right? Can you garentee me you are not from the 3i/Atlas spacecraft ?

So why make a BS point of of it (?)

You’ve got some nerve, telling a PhD physicist he doesn’t have the necessary mathematical skills! Especially as getting any supporting maths out of you has been like getting blood out of a stone. Suggest you pull your head in, as they say in Australia. 😁

11 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Try to understand that if you transfer ʻOumuamua’s anomaly and you truly grasp the underlying mathematics, you cannot end up above the outgassing level.
If you do, it means you haven’t correctly converted ʻOumuamua’s perihelion distance to that of 3I/Atlas.
It’s quite clear that you don’t yet have the necessary mathematical skills to handle that conversion properly.

Try to understand that I am not doing any analysis or conversion involving Oumuamua.

I did a unit conversion from a paper on Atlas, and showed that your math was wrong.

57 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

In Micheli et al. (2018), the 1/r² dependence makes the perihelion distance the key parameter, since it determines how strongly the Sun’s radiation and outgassing effects act on the object —and thus how large the non-gravitational acceleration can be.

That would matter for the number at perihelion, i.e. the maximum effect. Not the number at some other distance.

The number at e.g. 3AU is going to be the number at 3AU, and it will have that number regardless of the perihelion value.

The perihelion value could be used as the benchmark, so if that’s how you’ve done your analysis, that’s perfectly fine, but it doesn’t have any impact whatsoever on the measurements that give us the upper limit on the Atlas acceleration, at its distance when the data were collected.

And the point I’ve been trying to make is that your numbers are bigger than that. Bigger than the upper limit. That means your analysis doesn’t work.

And exchemist is right about the difficulty in getting you to share information. You post numbers and then yell at me for citing them, when it turns out you didn’t provide the entire picture. It took you two freaking pages to provide the numbers that you could have posted at the beginning of the discussion, as if it’s our fault we can’t read your mind.

11 hours ago, exchemist said:

You’ve got some nerve, telling a PhD physicist he doesn’t have the necessary mathematical skills! Especially as getting any supporting maths out of you has been like getting blood out of a stone. Suggest you pull your head in, as they say in Australia. 😁

I simply have the freedom to throw the hand grenades back to where they came from.
I always show my fellow human beings at least 100% of the same respect they show me.
The discussion was turning into a full-blown witch hunt.

No, I don’t have a PhD — I’m a professional artilleryman, so I also know a craft.
A scientific forum should be a place where opinions can clash freely, and where even those who think for themselves are allowed to exist without being constantly suspected or belittled.

Today we can see that even Harvard professors with PhDs and large platforms — and many others with PhDs — support ideas that, according to many, justify warning the world that an alien invasion is on the way. There’s 110% freedom of speech for those with high-ranking titles.
But when an ordinary person has heard enough BS, they’re immediately discredited and ridiculed.

A forum should be a place where everyone can meet — including those who don’t fully understand but want to; and those who believe they can contribute to getting a paradigm back on track, one that is clearly losing touch with reality.

In this context, remember that the idea of outgassing being the true explanation for the deceleration and acceleration we’ve observed for decades is only a hypothesis — not even a theory.
Yet among the self-righteous, it’s treated as absolute truth, something to be defended tooth and claw. In reality, the true believers are often the ones clinging to a worldview that ‘Oumuamua may very well have exposed as a joke.

And to say it plainly: ‘Oumuamua quite clearly shows that the theory of relativity doesn’t hold water.
But if anyone dares to say that out loud, I can promise you the anti-crackpot war machine will go into overdrive — led, of course, by people with PhDs.

But as I said: bring it on. I’m a professional artilleryman —I don’t fear death, or anything else, also not the truth.

4 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

I simply have the freedom to throw the hand grenades back to where they came from.
I always show my fellow human beings at least 100% of the same respect they show me.
The discussion was turning into a full-blown witch hunt.

No, I don’t have a PhD — I’m a professional artilleryman, so I also know a craft.
A scientific forum should be a place where opinions can clash freely, and where even those who think for themselves are allowed to exist without being constantly suspected or belittled.

Today we can see that even Harvard professors with PhDs and large platforms — and many others with PhDs — support ideas that, according to many, justify warning the world that an alien invasion is on the way. There’s 110% freedom of speech for those with high-ranking titles.
But when an ordinary person has heard enough BS, they’re immediately discredited and ridiculed.

A forum should be a place where everyone can meet — including those who don’t fully understand but want to; and those who believe they can contribute to getting a paradigm back on track, one that is clearly losing touch with reality.

In this context, remember that the idea of outgassing being the true explanation for the deceleration and acceleration we’ve observed for decades is only a hypothesis — not even a theory.
Yet among the self-righteous, it’s treated as absolute truth, something to be defended tooth and claw. In reality, the true believers are often the ones clinging to a worldview that ‘Oumuamua may very well have exposed as a joke.

And to say it plainly: ‘Oumuamua quite clearly shows that the theory of relativity doesn’t hold water.
But if anyone dares to say that out loud, I can promise you the anti-crackpot war machine will go into overdrive — led, of course, by people with PhDs.

But as I said: bring it on. I’m a professional artilleryman —I don’t fear death, or anything else, also not the truth.

Aha, so that's the agenda. Fine. I take it then that you are looking at 3I/ATLAS hoping to find the same, seemingly anomalous, behaviour from it as we saw with Oumuamua? Very good. But there is no sign of any anomalous behaviour yet, just as there was no sign of it with Borisov. Nor, unless you can correct me, has there been with other comets.

So your proposal that relativity is wrong currently relies only on the apparently anomalous behaviour of Oumuamua and no other astronomical object, correct? But that behaviour (i.e. unexplained non-gravitational acceleration) is anomalous with respect to Newtonian orbital mechanics, surely, not relativity. So where does relativity come into it? Or are you saying Newtonian mechanics is also wrong?

16 hours ago, swansont said:

Try to understand that I am not doing any analysis or conversion involving Oumuamua.

I did a unit conversion from a paper on Atlas, and showed that your math was wrong.

Your numbers were not correct, and I have provided the corrected values. My initial approach was rather superficial, but during the discussion I gathered more information about the mathematical background.

When ‘Oumuamua was observed in 2017, it was found that its non-gravitational acceleration decreased approximately in proportion to 1/r², where r is the distance from the Sun. This pattern corresponds to the solar-induced force typically observed in cometary outgassing. Based on this, researchers at NASA and ESA developed a model grounded in the same mathematical principles used to describe outgassing.

When this model was applied, it showed that ‘Oumuamua’s motion could be reproduced as if the object experienced a strong outgassing-like force — yet no actual outgassing, dust, or cometary activity was observed.

The mathematical framework describing outgassing has long formed the basis for explaining the acceleration and deceleration of comets. However, ‘Oumuamua’s behavior challenges this classical interpretation, as it demonstrates that a 1/r²-dependent acceleration can occur without any detectable outgassing. This suggests that the traditional causal model may be insufficient and that the fundamental assumptions behind it should be reconsidered.

When comparing the equation describing ‘Oumuamua’s acceleration with the standard outgassing model, it becomes clear that the two can yield similar motion profiles. The difference lies not in the mathematical form of the equations, but in their physical interpretation of what drives the force.

In summary, ‘Oumuamua shows that non-gravitational acceleration in interstellar objects can mimic the effects of outgassing even when none is present. This discovery challenges the long-held assumption that outgassing is necessarily the primary cause of such anomalies in comets or comet-like bodies.

35 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Aha, so that's the agenda. Fine. I take it then that you are looking at 3I/ATLAS hoping to find the same, seemingly anomalous, behaviour from it as we saw with Oumuamua? Very good. But there is no sign of any anomalous behaviour yet, just as there was no sign of it with Borisov. Nor, unless you can correct me, has there been with other comets.

So your proposal that relativity is wrong currently relies only on the apparently anomalous behaviour of Oumuamua and no other astronomical object, correct? But that behaviour (i.e. unexplained non-gravitational acceleration) is anomalous with respect to Newtonian orbital mechanics, surely, not relativity. So where does relativity come into it? Or are you saying Newtonian mechanics is also wrong?

CHECK-LIST

1. The driving force behind ‘Oumuamua’s anomaly remains unknown.
   Observations revealed a clear non-gravitational acceleration, yet no evidence of outgassing, dust emission, or any other form of mass loss typically associated with comets. The specific physical mechanism responsible for this acceleration has therefore not yet been identified.

2. The observed force possesses the full theoretical potential to replace outgassing as an explanatory framework in all cases where it has previously been assumed to be the primary driving mechanism.
   The acceleration’s functional dependence on 1/r² follows the same mathematical form as solar-induced outgassing, suggesting a deeper correspondence within the governing dynamical laws.

3. In analyses of other interstellar or comet-like objects, such as 2I/Borisov, the absence of detected anomalies has often been interpreted as confirmation of the conventional outgassing model.
   However, this conclusion implicitly relies on the assumption that outgassing continues to represent the universal explanation for non-gravitational effects.

4. ‘Oumuamua challenges this theoretical foundation.
   Its observed dynamics are inconsistent with the expected correlation between outgassing and detectable emissions, thereby undermining the classical causal model.

5. The object therefore represents a significant scientific signal — a clear indication that the phenomenon of comet-like acceleration and deceleration remains incompletely understood.
   This implies that the physical mechanisms governing such behavior may be more complex than previously assumed.

6. The force that acted on ‘Oumuamua possesses the full theoretical potential to completely replace the outgassing hypothesis as an explanation for non-gravitational anomalies.
   This suggests that outgassing is not necessarily a required condition for producing such observed accelerations.

7. The key distinction is that the cause of the observed force remains unknown.
   There is currently no consensus on its physical origin — whether electromagnetic, thermal, or mechanical — making ‘Oumuamua one of the most challenging and intriguing objects in modern astrophysics.

8. When an established paradigm is confronted by empirical observations of this nature, it demands heightened scientific attention and methodological reassessment.
   ‘Oumuamua thus stands as a potentially paradigm-shifting object that compels the scientific community to reconsider long-held assumptions about the dynamics of small interstellar bodies.

Edited October 5Oct 5 by Bjarne-7

6 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Your numbers were not correct, and I have provided the corrected values. My initial approach was rather superficial, but during the discussion I gathered more information about the mathematical background.

When ‘Oumuamua was observed in 2017, it was found that its non-gravitational acceleration decreased approximately in proportion to 1/r², where r is the distance from the Sun. This pattern corresponds to the solar-induced force typically observed in cometary outgassing. Based on this, researchers at NASA and ESA developed a model grounded in the same mathematical principles used to describe outgassing.

When this model was applied, it showed that ‘Oumuamua’s motion could be reproduced as if the object experienced a strong outgassing-like force — yet no actual outgassing, dust, or cometary activity was observed.

The mathematical framework describing outgassing has long formed the basis for explaining the acceleration and deceleration of comets. However, ‘Oumuamua’s behavior challenges this classical interpretation, as it demonstrates that a 1/r²-dependent acceleration can occur without any detectable outgassing. This suggests that the traditional causal model may be insufficient and that the fundamental assumptions behind it should be reconsidered.

When comparing the equation describing ‘Oumuamua’s acceleration with the standard outgassing model, it becomes clear that the two can yield similar motion profiles. The difference lies not in the mathematical form of the equations, but in their physical interpretation of what drives the force.

In summary, ‘Oumuamua shows that non-gravitational acceleration in interstellar objects can mimic the effects of outgassing even when none is present. This discovery challenges the long-held assumption that outgassing is necessarily the primary cause of such anomalies in comets or comet-like bodies.

From what I read about Oumuamua we know its shape was far from spherical but it could have been be either be very prolate (cigar-shaped) or very oblate (disc-shaped). Observation was unable to determine which, because the object was only a few hundred metres long in its longest dimension and only about 10% of that along its shortest. Could it not be, then, that Oumuamua was just too small (low volume) for evidence of outgassing to be apparent, or that its mass was low enough, compared to its extension in space, for radiation pressure to be responsible for the observed acceleration?

16 hours ago, swansont said:

Try to understand that I am not doing any analysis or conversion involving Oumuamua.

I did a unit conversion from a paper on Atlas, and showed that your math was wrong.

That would matter for the number at perihelion, i.e. the maximum effect. Not the number at some other distance.

The number at e.g. 3AU is going to be the number at 3AU, and it will have that number regardless of the perihelion value.

The perihelion value could be used as the benchmark, so if that’s how you’ve done your analysis, that’s perfectly fine, but it doesn’t have any impact whatsoever on the measurements that give us the upper limit on the Atlas acceleration, at its distance when the data were collected.

And the point I’ve been trying to make is that your numbers are bigger than that. Bigger than the upper limit. That means your analysis doesn’t work.

And exchemist is right about the difficulty in getting you to share information. You post numbers and then yell at me for citing them, when it turns out you didn’t provide the entire picture. It took you two freaking pages to provide the numbers that you could have posted at the beginning of the discussion, as if it’s our fault we can’t read your mind.

Where we are only talking about how data is collected, I completely agree. - But here too, there are some fallacies.

COPY PASTE FROM PAGE - 2

There has been some confusion about whether a non-gravitational acceleration was measured for 3I/Atlas. In fact, no direct detection has been made — only an upper limit has been established from orbital fitting.

1. Upper limit from astrometry
   Cloete, Loeb & Vereš (2025) analyzed the orbital residuals and found no significant evidence for a non-gravitational acceleration. Instead, they placed an upper bound of

   <3×10−10 AU/d²,

   which converts to

   <6×10−8 m/s².

   This is not a direct measurement of acceleration — it is simply the maximum strength such an effect could have without being detectable in the available data.

2. Order-of-magnitude estimates in discussion
   Separately, values around

   ∼1×10−8 m/s²

   have been mentioned as plausible accelerations from comet-like outgassing at ~3 AU. These are heuristic estimates, not observational results, and they remain comfortably below the observational upper limit.

Predicted anomaly for 3I/Atlas (perihelion-scaled from ʻOumuamua)

This table shows the predicted non-gravitational anomaly for 3I/Atlas, scaled from ʻOumuamua’s Micheli et al. (2018) amplitude using perihelion distance correction. Values are given for heliocentric distances from 0.5 AU to 5.0 AU in 0.5 AU steps.

Distance r (AU)	NASA/Micheli Δa (m/s²) [3I/Atlas]	NASA/Micheli Δa (µm/s²)
0.5	6.529e-07	6.529e-01
1.0	1.632e-07	1.632e-01
1.5	7.254e-08	7.254e-02
2.0	4.081e-08	4.081e-02
2.5	2.612e-08	2.612e-02
3.0	1.814e-08	1.814e-02
3.5	1.332e-08	1.332e-02
4.0	1.020e-08	1.020e-02
4.5	8.061e-09	8.061e-03
5.0	6.529e-09	6.529e-03

24 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Your numbers were not correct, and I have provided the corrected values. My initial approach was rather superficial, but during the discussion I gathered more information about the mathematical background.

When ‘Oumuamua was observed in 2017, it was found that its non-gravitational acceleration decreased approximately in proportion to 1/r², where r is the distance from the Sun. This pattern corresponds to the solar-induced force typically observed in cometary outgassing. Based on this, researchers at NASA and ESA developed a model grounded in the same mathematical principles used to describe outgassing.

When this model was applied, it showed that ‘Oumuamua’s motion could be reproduced as if the object experienced a strong outgassing-like force — yet no actual outgassing, dust, or cometary activity was observed.

The mathematical framework describing outgassing has long formed the basis for explaining the acceleration and deceleration of comets. However, ‘Oumuamua’s behavior challenges this classical interpretation, as it demonstrates that a 1/r²-dependent acceleration can occur without any detectable outgassing. This suggests that the traditional causal model may be insufficient and that the fundamental assumptions behind it should be reconsidered.

When comparing the equation describing ‘Oumuamua’s acceleration with the standard outgassing model, it becomes clear that the two can yield similar motion profiles. The difference lies not in the mathematical form of the equations, but in their physical interpretation of what drives the force.

In summary, ‘Oumuamua shows that non-gravitational acceleration in interstellar objects can mimic the effects of outgassing even when none is present. This discovery challenges the long-held assumption that outgassing is necessarily the primary cause of such anomalies in comets or comet-like bodies.

CHECK-LIST

1. The driving force behind ‘Oumuamua’s anomaly remains unknown.
   Observations revealed a clear non-gravitational acceleration, yet no evidence of outgassing, dust emission, or any other form of mass loss typically associated with comets. The specific physical mechanism responsible for this acceleration has therefore not yet been identified.

2. The observed force possesses the full theoretical potential to replace outgassing as an explanatory framework in all cases where it has previously been assumed to be the primary driving mechanism.
   The acceleration’s functional dependence on 1/r² follows the same mathematical form as solar-induced outgassing, suggesting a deeper correspondence within the governing dynamical laws.

3. In analyses of other interstellar or comet-like objects, such as 2I/Borisov, the absence of detected anomalies has often been interpreted as confirmation of the conventional outgassing model.
   However, this conclusion implicitly relies on the assumption that outgassing continues to represent the universal explanation for non-gravitational effects.

4. ‘Oumuamua challenges this theoretical foundation.
   Its observed dynamics are inconsistent with the expected correlation between outgassing and detectable emissions, thereby undermining the classical causal model.

5. The object therefore represents a significant scientific signal — a clear indication that the phenomenon of comet-like acceleration and deceleration remains incompletely understood.
   This implies that the physical mechanisms governing such behavior may be more complex than previously assumed.

6. The force that acted on ‘Oumuamua possesses the full theoretical potential to completely replace the outgassing hypothesis as an explanation for non-gravitational anomalies.
   This suggests that outgassing is not necessarily a required condition for producing such observed accelerations.

7. The key distinction is that the cause of the observed force remains unknown.
   There is currently no consensus on its physical origin — whether electromagnetic, thermal, or mechanical — making ‘Oumuamua one of the most challenging and intriguing objects in modern astrophysics.

8. When an established paradigm is confronted by empirical observations of this nature, it demands heightened scientific attention and methodological reassessment.
   ‘Oumuamua thus stands as a potentially paradigm-shifting object that compels the scientific community to reconsider long-held assumptions about the dynamics of small interstellar bodies.

It seems to me your 5 is not justified. There is no "clear" indication that the mechanisms are not completely understood. We have just the one small, poorly characterised object, out of hundreds of comets, for which we have not been able to detect outgassing. It is jumping to conclusions to say there was no outgassing, or that radiation pressure could not have been responsible.

Edited October 5Oct 5 by exchemist

5 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

relativity doesn’t hold water.

Huh. A poster from 2023 claimed Einstein was wrong on a thread with a very similar name to yours.

What are the chances?

Edit, the same name.

6 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

A scientific forum should be a place where opinions can clash freely, and where even those who think for themselves are allowed to exist without being constantly suspected or belittled.

You seem to think that this is a platform for you to lecture about your ideas. That’s not how it works.

What you believe, i.e. your opinion, doesn’t matter. It’s what you can show. And being questioned is part of the process, especially when you aren’t forthcoming with pertinent details. And being told you’ve made errors isn’t being belittled.

You have a fairly long history of getting pushback on your ideas, so none of this should be a surprise.

Today we can see that even Harvard professors with PhDs and large platforms — and many others with PhDs — support ideas that, according to many, justify warning the world that an alien invasion is on the way. There’s 110% freedom of speech for those with high-ranking titles.
But when an ordinary person has heard enough BS, they’re immediately discredited and ridiculed

Freedom of speech, as it’s typically invoked, is a right that says the government can’t punish you for what you say or censor you. That doesn’t apply here.

1 hour ago, Bjarne-7 said:

COPY PASTE FROM PAGE - 2

If you have no new argument to make, then we’re done here. Don’t bring this subject up again.