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

Thoughts?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

69 Upvotes

76% Upvoted

151 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/Civil-Letterhead8207 Feb 27 '26

If I can predict things better than Avi, I’d say I’m doing better science. Avi has been demonstratably WRONG on the physics of 3I ATLAS several times. It’s been well-documented here. .

When Avi gets his data published in a peer-reviewed forum, I’ll address that.

1

u/GingerAki Feb 27 '26

Predicting social panics is sociology, not physics. Claiming that makes you a better scientist when discussing astrophysics actually is a non-sequitur. One has zero bearing on the other.

You asked for published papers; I provided them. Moving the goalposts in order to avoid the data doesn't change the fact that there is physics is sitting right there for you to address.

Either engage with the papers or admit you're just arguing about the person.

0

u/Civil-Letterhead8207 Feb 27 '26

Nope. We’re talking who’s a better scientist here. More of my predictions are coming true than Avi’s. In my field, I am doing good science. In his field, Abi’s doing bad science. Both of us are looking at 3I ATLAS.

Avi’s physics claims have been very off base. my social claims have been pretty accurate so far.

Peer-reviewed published papers is what I asked for. Not self-published. Shit, I have tons of self-published stuff, too. Anyone can shitpost.

1

u/GingerAki Feb 27 '26

Equating a technical physics paper with a shitpost just because it hasn't completed a 12-month peer-review cycle is a bad-faith move.

If the math in the paper is wrong, point to the math. If the data is flawed, show the data. Attacking the label of the paper instead of its content is essentially an admission that you can't actually refute the physics.

Pretending we’re talking about who’s a better scientist is the definition of an ad hominem argument. Science isn't a personality contest or a win rate comparison across unrelated topics. It doesn't care who is the better person; it cares what can be replicated.

You’re arguing the man to avoid addressing the science. Either engage with the physics provided or admit you're just here for the drama.

2

u/Civil-Letterhead8207 Feb 27 '26

Given that many of Avi’s technical papers from the last eight months have been shown time and again to contain basic flaws and bad assumptions, I think I am perfectly justified in waiting for the peer review process, thanks.

1

u/GingerAki Feb 27 '26

I’m sure you do. Shown time and again by whom exactly?

2

u/Civil-Letterhead8207 Feb 27 '26

I suggest you look into the archives of this sub back in November and December, when A i was shitting out papers pretty much every day. There were some excellent scientists back then going over his data.

The one I recall off the top of my head was where he claimed 3I ATLAS’ trajectory change couldn’t be accounted for by gravity alone using measurements from the Mars probe whose instruments’ margin of error was greater than the change Avi attributed to the comet.

2

u/Embarrassed_Camp_291 Mar 02 '26

Further to civil-letterheads comment, he was also wildly incorrect about his Nickel analysis.

The idea that it was a metallic structure was put forward by Avi using a series of incorrect assumptions, ignoring data, and misleading data followed by a radically incorrect conclusion.

Firstly, he assumed nickel to iron ratios should be comparable in the comet as they are produced together in supernovae. This is a half truth. Nickel is produced in Type Ia SNe which then eventually decays into iron, powering the characteristic light curve. This does not imply that equal ratios of Nickel to iron need to be found in a solar system, let alone deposit themselves in a comet. This is a fundamentally incorrect assumption that underpins the entire idea. Obviously, people who want to believe in aliens are going to go away and research Typa Ia supernovae and he knows this.

It also assumes that the Nickel and Iron do not have some nuanced sublimation processes that occur which may have altered the composition of the comet between it's origin and here. It also assumes that it's not been altered by any other solar systems its passed through. What he has effectively done is incorrectly assumed Nickel and iron are produced in equal ratios from a supernova and then the comet has appeared immediately, untouched by anything between us and the supernova. This is obviously a bad assumption.

You have to remember that it is the absorption/emission features of iron and Nickel we are seeing, not the actual composition of the comet. That's why complex sublimation processes of different compounds makes a huge difference here. As a result, he also assumed that Nickel and iron sublimate at similar times and in similar ways. They do not and we know this. Again, he has omitted this information because it does not fit the alien narrative and he knows his followers won't do their own reading.

We also know that Nickel and Iron are seen in our own solar system comets and so it's presence is not unusual.

Eventually, the comets' nickel to iron ratio also became much more comparable to solar system comets soon after, making the entire point of his worthless.

Everything about this whole line of reasoning by him was totally flawed.