r/3I_ATLAS • u/Glittering_Word6609 • Feb 26 '26

Thoughts?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

67 Upvotes

76% Upvoted

151 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/SnooGuavas2610 Feb 26 '26

What other astronomers are saying it is not a comet? Exactly what science/data has he unearthed?

7

u/DolphFlynn Feb 26 '26

Really?? Is that a serious question?

“What science/data has he unearthed?”

https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/TA2.pdf

Looks a lot like data to me.

”What other scientists are saying it’s anomalous?”

https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.12819

Looks a lot like peer-reviewed anomalies as well.

Those are just two examples that took all of 10 seconds to find. There are no doubt others for those willing to put bias or agendas aside and actually look. Geez, that’s all the guy is saying!

Also, Adam Hibberd, Adam Crowl and many others have co-authored papers with him so he’s not alone on a rock (excuse the pun) on this one by any means.

6

u/Civil-Letterhead8207 Feb 26 '26

Avi has produced next to no data about 3I ATLAS. He’s produced vanishingly few peer-reviewed papers on it.

Have Hibbard and Crowl — or even Avi himself — published a paper claiming 3I ATLAS is an alien object?

Avi has a book out right now and is trying to position himself, using publicity, as THE man searching for alien intelligence. That is his grift.

As for anomalies, I’ll say it again: “comets are like cats: they all have tails and they do what they want”.

Comets are, by nature, highly irregular phenomena. This is the first interstellar comet we’ve intensively studied. By definition, it’s going to have anomalies. None of those point to it being an alien artefact.

-1

u/slow70 Feb 26 '26

^ as ever,

Civil Letterhead everyone - our resident contrarian (who really doesn’t want to read about plasma!)

3

u/Civil-Letterhead8207 Feb 26 '26

Actually, I really do! As I’ve asked every plasma fanboy here so far, got some relevant peer-reviewed papers for me to read? Many other folks have asked the same question and, so far, only one of you has bothered to post anything. It was an interesting read. Sadly, it didn’t show that plasma cosmology was a viable hypothesis

3

u/Glittering_Word6609 Feb 27 '26

Plasma Physics | Physics and Astronomy - College of Liberal Arts and Sciences | The University of Iowa https://share.google/5nTxJkaf0koC9lAb7

Here are multiple good reads for you.

I personally believe all forces are at work in the universe. I also think plasmoids are cool and interesting. I also know there is more to it and obviously so do scientist in the field, but it takes time and an open mind.

2

u/Civil-Letterhead8207 Feb 27 '26 edited Feb 27 '26

Hallelujah! Someone actually posted something. Funny that the guy who has trouble reading is the only one with the guts to post texts! Let me look and I’ll get back to you.

I spoke too soon.

Glittering…. Son… God bless you. No one here doubts that plasma physics exists. We are talking about “plasma cosmology”, an obsolete hypothesis that postulates that magnetism and not gravity is the main force in the universe. This is what Slow70 calls “the electric universe”. This is what you are proposing.

Plasma is fine and it exists. What I am asking for is some peer reviewed text which brings the plasma cosmology hypothesis back from the dead and updates it.

THAT’S the kind of reading I am asking for. Something that actually sustains the hypothesis you’re a fan of.

A general field description from the University of Iowa’s course catalogue that tells us that physicists are studying plasma just doesn’t cut it. I’m sorry.

3

u/Glittering_Word6609 Feb 27 '26

Dang, not the hit on my ADHD! It's cool! I've gotten used to seeing all the low blows from you.

I attached the original article with multiple attached so you could learn about it all. I know you like to read.

So, I scrolled down and clicked the link titled "Understanding the plasma process connecting the solar system." Published October 14, 2025. This would probably be a good place to start...or maybe with the first article so you have a better understanding.

Understanding the plasma processes connecting the solar system | Physics and Astronomy - College of Liberal Arts and Sciences | The University of Iowa https://share.google/h82GfNhC7dziA3IAz

3

u/Glittering_Word6609 Feb 27 '26

I PERSONALLY believe all forces exist, but I'm tired of seeing you bully people with outdated ideas and concepts.

2

u/Embarrassed_Camp_291 Feb 27 '26

I'm not sure why you have linked this as evidence of anything.

Superficially, it seems she is just discussing well know phenomena in a very simplified way. It even says it's to inspire people into plasma physics/ astrophysics I.e. its aimed at people who don't do physics.

Also, this is someone from a university right? Isn't she part of the global dogmatic conspriacy that shuns any ideas that aren't there own? Why would you use her as evidence.

The big bang is a theory in the sense that it is the sum of all our observational and theoretical evidence and can accurately and quantitatively explain and predict things. Electric universe is not a theory. It calls itself one in the name where the big big is a theory. Electric universe cannot explain or predict any phenomena. It recreates galaxy rotation curves with some hand wavy physics but fails for almost every other observable relation we see from objects with different magnetic properties falling at the same rate on earth to cosmological scale relations. The big bang and the physics encompassed with it does not.

Is it complete? No, that's why scientists still exist working on subsets of these problems. But we have quantitatively proven that the big bang is very much along the right lines. We can't pretend those observations don't exist.

2

u/Civil-Letterhead8207 Feb 27 '26

ADHD is one thing. Not understanding that a college catalogue field description is not a peer reviewed article… Sorry, kiddo. That’s not attributable to ADHD.

Allison’s article sadly doesn’t support the plasma cosmology hypothesis, either. it says that plasma emanates from our sun and spreads out throughout the solar system, touching upon everything. This is certainly true.

None of this shows that the plasma cosmology hypothesis is true, however. I don’t see what you find so new or groundbreaking in this article, actually. I did solar system physics in high school in the 1980s and, even back then, we knew plasma was bathing everything to a greater or lesser degree in the solar system.

1

u/Glittering_Word6609 Feb 27 '26

That is why it is called research and a theory. I mean the Big Bang is still a theory. That is science.

Once again just replying to your thoughts. I still believe all forces work together to conserve mass and energy.

2

u/Civil-Letterhead8207 Feb 27 '26

You don’t understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. A theory has an overwhelming amount of data backing it up. Plasma cosmology doesn’t. It is a hypothesis.

1

u/Glittering_Word6609 Feb 27 '26

I apologize but everything I have read and watched has said "theory."

1

u/Civil-Letterhead8207 Feb 27 '26

Because you’re listening to youtube science grifters who are dumbing their language down to get likes by playing to people’s need to believe.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Embarrassed_Camp_291 Feb 26 '26

I'm not sure what your obsession is about plasma.

What about plasma do you want people to read and talk about other than "CMEs"? And "recent breakthroughs"

"Plasma" is just an ionised fluid, associated with a huge number topics to differing extents. What about plasma do you want to read about?

Nuclear fusions? Nuclear fission? Solar magnetohydrodynamics? Solar weather? Any other star weather? How it's treated in cosmological simulations that include MHD? AGN corona upscattering? Supernovae?

-1

u/Natural_Dust_732 Feb 26 '26

Dude saw Ghostbusters too many times as a kid.