Speaker 1: Okay, let's just jump right in. We're doing a deep
dive today on something that it almost sounds like science fiction.
It's this incredible rivalry, a sort of David versus Goliath's
story playing out in real time across our solar system.
Speaker 2: It really is.
Speaker 3: On one side you have billions upon billions of dollars
of the most advanced space technology humanity has ever built.
Speaker 1: And on the other you have what amounts to well
backyard ingenuity. But it's this ingenuity that's winning. We're talking
about a battle where the stakes are and this isn't
an exaggeration our fundamental understanding of what's flying through our
solar systems.
Speaker 2: It's a story of focus.
Speaker 3: I think, Yeah, you have NASA and they've thrown literally
everything they have at this thing. We're talking about the
James Webbs based telescope Hubble, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, maven
PN and c H Lucy, the.
Speaker 1: Crown Jewels, the absolute best.
Speaker 3: We have the best, yes, and on the other side
a network of incredibly skilled amateur astronomers all around the world.
Their equipment is amazing, for sure, but we're tens of
thousand dollars, not the tens of billions. It's a tiny,
tiny fraction.
Speaker 2: Of the cost.
Speaker 1: And the object at the center of all this intense
focus is three I atlas. The eye stands for interstellar.
So this thing, it's a visitor. It doesn't come from
our solar system.
Speaker 3: It was discovered back on July first. It just made
its closest swaying by the Sun the pair helium on
October twenty ninth, and now it's already heading back out
into deep space and fast.
Speaker 1: Which means that this short window, this brief visit, was
our only chance to get a good look. And the
data we got, well, it tells two completely different stories.
It really depends on who you ask, doesn't.
Speaker 3: It It absolutely does. So that's our mission today. We're
going to dive deep into the official imagery that NASA
just released from all those different.
Speaker 1: Instruments after months of waiting for it.
Speaker 3: Right after long wait, and we're going to put it
side by side with the data that the amateur community
has been consistently collecting. And their data is well, it's
just superior.
Speaker 1: It's more detailed, and we want to pick apart what
these massive differences is in data quality. Tell us not
just about three LS itself. It's weird physical traits, but
also about the mystery of what's really going on with it.
Why did billions of dollars fail where a few thousands succeeded.
Speaker 3: And we should be clear, our entire analysis here is
based on a really fantastic breakdown by the geophysicist Stefan Burns.
He's the one who did the meticulous work of comparing
NASA's official releases with the the day by day granular
observations from people with telescopes on.
Speaker 1: The ground, and it's a comparison that really goes beyond
just you know, which picture is sharper. It gets into
the core scientific assumptions that are being made when we
find something new and strange like this exactly.
Speaker 2: So let's start with what was supposed to be the
main event.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, let's talk about NASA's best image, the one
they really hiked up, the one we all had to
wait for. This was the shot from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.
Speaker 3: The MRO, specifically from its most powerful camera, the High
Resolution Imaging Science Experiment or high Rise. The image itself
was taken back on October.
Speaker 1: Second, and this was billed as the shot right the
high def, ultra clear image that was going to solve
all the mysteries about this object.
Speaker 2: That was the idea.
Speaker 3: When MRO snapped that picture, three I Atlas was just
passing Mars. It was about thirty million kilometers away or
twenty million miles, which sounds like a lot, but for
an instrument like high Rise.
Speaker 1: It shouldn't be. I mean, high Rise can see a
dinner table on the surface of Mars from orbit precisely.
Speaker 3: It's designed for incredible geological detail. So this was supposed
to be the moment of truth. We were finally going
to see the nucleus, the core.
Speaker 2: Of this thing.
Speaker 1: But what we got back was not that. The critique
that immediately stuck, and it was pretty brutal, was that
it looked like a street lamp on a foggy day
in England.
Speaker 3: That's a perfect description. It's just a fuzzy, blurry blob.
And when you remember the billions it costs to build
that orbitter and get it to Mars, the lack of
actual detail is it's kind of shocking, it really is.
Speaker 1: It just makes you question the entire cost benefit of
the whole operation for the specific target.
Speaker 3: Well, to be fair, and we have to look at
this critically. It's a very difficult observation to make. High
Rise is fundamentally designed for mapping a stationary target Mars.
It takes these long, steady exposures to see rock formations.
Speaker 1: It's not built for speed, not at all.
Speaker 3: Trying to track a tiny, fast moving object thirty million
kilometers away is it's repurposing the instrument for something it
was never designed to do.
Speaker 1: Okay, behold on, I get the technical argument, but doesn't
that point to a bigger problem. If your entire multi
billion dollar fleet of advanced telescopes is in space and
you decide that the Mars mapper is your best bet
for the best shot, doesn't that feel like an institutional failure,
a failure of planning.
Speaker 3: That's the heart of the critique from our source. Yes,
the issue isn't that high Rise fail at its job.
The failure was in the institutional priority and frankly, in
managing expectations. Tracking three I lists was treated as a
secondary objective, something to be.
Speaker 1: Squeezed in, while for the amate on the ground.
Speaker 3: It was their only objective. A dedicated amateur can point
their telescope program, their system and dedicate one hundred percent
of their time and effort to tracking that one fast
moving object. They optimize everything, every single second for that
one goal. NASA couldn't or didn't.
Speaker 1: So even with this foggy street lamp of an image,
what did we actually learn from it? Did they get
any usable data?
Speaker 2: Some?
Speaker 3: Yes, they confirmed its trajectory that on October second, it
was still heading in towards the Sun, toward its perihelium.
And even through the blur, the image did seem to
confirm a sunword facing tail.
Speaker 1: Wait, sunword facing the Sun.
Speaker 3: Yes, or at least a significant part of the coma.
The gas cloud was expanding in that direction. And that
right there is a huge anomaly.
Speaker 1: Because a normal comet tail always points away from the Sun.
The solar wind pushes.
Speaker 3: It back always, so scene material apparently being pushed toward
the Sun immediately tells you something very strange is happening.
Speaker 2: It's not simple physics anymore.
Speaker 1: And what about the mangle sizing up the nucleus the
rock at the center right.
Speaker 3: That was the primary scientific objective of the higher ese image.
They took the single brightest pixel in that glory image
where the nucleus should be, and try to analyze it.
And this is where the whole thing just falls apart
from a technical standpoint. At that distance with that instrument,
a single pixel in that image covers an area roughly
twenty kilometers across.
Speaker 1: Twenty kilometers, that's what over twelve miles of the one
dot of light exactly.
Speaker 3: So if the nucleus is say five kilometers wide or eight,
you're not seeing it.
Speaker 2: You can't.
Speaker 3: You're just seeing the brightest part of this massive glowing
cloud of gas and dust that's surrounding it.
Speaker 1: So you can't actually measure the solid object at all, not.
Speaker 3: With any real accuracy. The view is almost totally obscured
by the coma. The light is from the haze, not
reflected off a solid surface. So they had to conclude
that resolving the nukeus was impossible.
Speaker 1: But they still put out an official size estimate, didn't they.
Speaker 3: They did, And this is where it gets really interesting.
NASA is a official estimate is that the nucleus is small,
somewhere between fourteen hundred feet and maybe three point five
miles across at the maximum. And they also added that
it wasn't super long or cigar shaped.
Speaker 1: That seems incredibly specific for an object they admit they
couldn't even see, and three point five miles feels tiny
considering the sheer amount of gas and dust it's throwing
off to create a cloud that big.
Speaker 3: It's an incredibly active object. If it's that small, they're
basically assuming it must be made of something extremely volatile,
something that turns to gas very very easily. But you
have to remember other scientific groups, based on its brightness
and activity, were estimating it could be much much larger,
maybe up to fifty kilometers across.
Speaker 1: So there's a huge discrepancy, and NASA went with the
smallest possible number, even though their own best image had
a twenty kilometer wide pixel of just light.
Speaker 3: It does raise the question of whether they were fitting
the observation to a pre existing model, the small icy
comet model, instead of just admitting that the data was
well too blurry to say for sure. Certainty of their
estimate feels at odds with the uncertainty of their image.
Speaker 1: And MRO wasn't the only big budget instrument to come
up short. What about the James Web the JWST that
took a look back in August.
Speaker 3: Right, the JWST is the most powerful telescope ever built.
But it's designed for seeing the faintest, most distant galaxies
deep deep space.
Speaker 1: It's made for things that are barely moving from our
perspective exactly.
Speaker 3: It achieves that by taking incredibly long exposures, sometimes for hours,
just to gather enough light. If you pointed at a
relatively close, fast moving object like three eyeaut.
Speaker 1: Lists, you just get a streak motion blur.
Speaker 3: You either get motion blur, or you have to use
such a short exposure that you don't gather enough for
red light to see any detail. The result for three
outlets was famously described by one scientist as just a
bunch of pixels, nothing special. Its greatest strength became its
biggest weakness for this.
Speaker 1: Target, and Hubble that saw it even earlier back in July.
Speaker 2: Same story.
Speaker 3: Really Hubble got an image not long after it was discovered,
but it was critiques for being lurry and grainy. So
you see this pattern emerging across all of NASA's top
tier instruments, high hopes followed by blurry, low detail results.
It suggests they had a systemic problem tracking this specific object.
Speaker 1: So the visual images were, to put it mildly, a letdown.
But that's not the whole story. We have to look
at other wavelengths of light, and that brings us to Mavin.
Speaker 3: Yes, Maven is another Mars orbiter, but it's special. It
observes in ultraviolet light, and the data it collected on
October ninth tells a very very different part of.
Speaker 1: The story, a part that NASA doesn't seem to talk
about very much.
Speaker 3: Right, Mayvin gives us a unique view because UV light
is great at seeing gases and more importantly, highly energized particles. Now,
the scale of its image is just immense. It was
looking at three I at lists from about thirty five
million miles away, and the little scale bar they put
on the image, that bar represents one hundred thousand miles.
Speaker 1: One hundred thousand miles, that's the size of the gas cloud.
The coma is just monumental. It dwarfs the actual rock
at the center of whatever size it is, it's absolutely enormous.
Speaker 3: And when they analyze the brightest pixel in their UV image,
that single point of light was calculated to be about
thirty three thousand miles across.
Speaker 1: So we're not even close to seeing a nucleus here.
We're seeing the densest part of this massive glowing gas cloud.
Speaker 3: Exactly. The inner coma is shining incredibly brightly and ultraviolet.
And what the USY light reveals is that this cloud
is full of things like hydrogen water CO two. But
they're not just neutral gas, they're energized. The hydrogen emissions
are intensely bright, which means the atoms are being ionized.
And this is the moment, the critical piece of evidence
that confirms this object has a massive plasma environment.
Speaker 1: Okay, plasma, this is the key that our source, Seff
and Burns says is just completely ignored in the mainstream discussion.
So let's break that down. What does that mean that
it has a plasma environment.
Speaker 3: The plasma is the fourth state of matter. You have solid,
liquid gas, and then plasma. It's what happens when a
gas gets so energize that the electrons are literally stripped
away from the end atoms. You're left with a soup
of positively charged ions and negatively charged electrons.
Speaker 1: And what's stripping them. What's providing that energy so far
out in space.
Speaker 3: It's the Sun. There are a few ways it happens.
The first is called photoinization. The Sun is constantly blasting
out high energy UV and X ray light, and when
that light hits a neutral gas atom in the coma,
it can knock an electron right off.
Speaker 1: Okay, that makes sense. What else?
Speaker 3: There's also charge transfer. The solar wind itself is a
stream of plasma flowing out from the Sun. When those
high energy particles from the solar wind slam into the
neutral gas of the coma, they can trade charges. It's
a very efficient way to ionize a huge amount of
gas very quickly.
Speaker 1: And you mentioned a third way.
Speaker 3: Yes, electron ionization. Once you have some free electrons knock
loose by the first two processes, those energetic electrons can
then collide with other neutral atoms, knocking off even more electrons.
It creates a chain reaction. And crucially, it's not just
the gas. The tiny dust grains in the coma also
pick up a strong electrical charge.
Speaker 1: So the comma isn't just a cloud of gas and
dust anymore. It's a huge electrically charged sphere.
Speaker 3: That is the absolute key takeaway. And here's the implication
that changes everything. Where you have plasma, you have magnetic
and electric fields, and the electromagnetic force acting on those
charge particles can be It could be exponentially stronger than gravity.
Speaker 1: So you're saying the main force controlling the behavior of
this object and its tail might not be gravity or
the gentle push of sunlight. It's electromagnetism.
Speaker 3: It could easily be the dominant force. It's like trying
to predict how a steel boat will move in a hurricane,
but you're only looking at the wind in the ways
and completely ignoring the giant electromagnet under the water that's
actually pulling it.
Speaker 1: And the critique is, why is nobody talking about this,
whether you think it's a comet or a spaceship. The
UV data proves there's a rich plasma environment. How can
you ignore the fundamental physics that must be governing its behavior.
Speaker 3: It's a huge oversight, and you see the evidence for
it in the contradictions from NASA's on instruments the tail
for instance.
Speaker 1: Right, let's get into those contradictory tales. They saw it
pointing in different directions at the same time, well.
Speaker 3: From different spacecraft. So first you have the PNCCH satellites.
They took images from September to October and they saw
a very short, stubby tail pointing away from the sun.
Speaker 1: The classic comet tail pushed by solar radiation, exactly.
Speaker 2: The standard type two dust tail. That's what you'd expect
to see.
Speaker 3: But then you have the Lucy spacecraft on September sixteenth.
It took a look from much farther away, about two
hundred and forty.
Speaker 1: Million miles, and what did Lucy see.
Speaker 3: Lucy saw a prominent sunward facing tail, a smudge of
material going towards the Sun.
Speaker 1: That's a direct contradiction. How can it have a tail
being pushed away from the Sun and another component being
pushed or pulled towards it.
Speaker 3: You can't, not with simple cometary physics. The only way
to really make sense of that is if electromagnetism is
in control. The anti sunward tail is the dust, but
the sunward facing material. That suggests charged particles plasma being
channeled along the Sun's magnetic field lines.
Speaker 1: So it's not being pushed, it's being guided pulled along
a magnetic highway, even if that highway leads closer to
the Sun.
Speaker 3: That's the most compelling theory. It explained these abnormalities that
just defy the simple comet model.
Speaker 1: And there is another weird thing in that pH video,
something with the planet Mars.
Speaker 2: Ah.
Speaker 3: Yes, it's a subtle but very telling detail about how
they process their images. In the PNAH composite video, you
see Mars swing through the frame. Now, Mars at that
point is huge and incredibly bright.
Speaker 1: Much much brighter than three i at lists.
Speaker 3: Orders of magnitude brighter. Yet in the final video, Mars
looks grainy and pixelated, but three iyeautlasts, the much fainter object,
looks sharper and more defined.
Speaker 1: How is that possible?
Speaker 3: It's a processing artifact. To make a faint object like
three iatlats visible, they take hundreds of short exposure images
and then computationally stack them. They align all the images
based on the precise movement of their target, in this
case three ialysts.
Speaker 1: Okay, so everything is aligned to the comment right, but.
Speaker 3: Mars is moving on a different path at a different
relative speed. So when you stack all the images based
on the comets movement, Mars get smeared and blurred across
the frames. It's effectively treated as background noise.
Speaker 1: So it's not that Mars looked worse, it's that they
deliberately process the data in a way that made Mars
look worse to make their primary target look better exactly.
Speaker 3: It just reinforces this idea that the goal of the
data release was to present a specific resolved image of
three iat lists, even if it meant distorting the rest
of the picture. It feels less like pure observation and
more like narrative construction.
Speaker 1: And to top it all off, there was this major
solar event that was predicted to happen right around that time,
a coronal mass ejection, Yes.
Speaker 3: A huge blast of plasma from the Sun.
Speaker 2: A CME was launched.
Speaker 3: Ye, and it was calculated to hit three iat lists
right around noon on October twenty second.
Speaker 1: And given what we know about its rich plasma environment,
that collision and should have been spectacular.
Speaker 3: It was predicted to be a major event, possibly a
tail disconnection where the CME's magnetic field would literally rip
the plasma tail away from the nucleus. That would have
been the smoking gun, undeniable proof of electromagnetic forces at play.
And the people best positioned to see the aftermath were
not NASA, it was the amateurs.
Speaker 1: Which is the perfect transition. This is where the story
completely flips. We go from institutional failure to backyard brilliance.
Speaker 3: It's an incredible shift. We've established that NASA's multi billion
dollar fleet gave us inconsistent, blurry, and frankly confusing images.
Now we turn to the amateur community. A serious setup
might cost what thirty thousand dollars, and.
Speaker 1: Their images, according to the source, are quite a bit
better than what high Rise produced. But it's not just
about a single better picture. It's about something else.
Speaker 3: Consistency. That is the crucial factor. Consistency across time, and
consistency across dozens of different observers.
Speaker 1: Right if you have one blurry picture from one and satellite,
that's one beata point. If you have twelve astronomers in
North America and Europe, all using different telescopes, all capturing
the exact same details on the same night, that's reliable,
repeatable science.
Speaker 3: That is their superpower, a globally distributed, dedicated network. And
this became absolutely critical in the days right after the
perihelion on October twenty ninth.
Speaker 1: So after it swung by the Sun, it moved out
of the glare pretty quickly because it was going so fast,
and that's when the ground based telescopes could really lock on.
Speaker 3: Yes, and the first really good detailed images started to
appear around November eighth, and those images, just from that
one night they provided more physical detail than the entire
NASA campaign put together.
Speaker 1: So what did they see on November eight.
Speaker 3: They clearly saw the anti sunword tail. They saw multiple
jets of material firing off the nucleus, and critically, they
confirmed the existence of that weird sunword facing jet.
Speaker 1: So one night of amateur observation confirmed the anomaly that
the professional data had only hinted at.
Speaker 3: And they went farther. They created a punched in, highly
magnified view from that night's data, and they were able
to identify five distinct jets firing from different points on
the nucleus.
Speaker 1: Five of them. That's incredible. We're talking about resolving five
specific points of origin on an object millions of miles away,
while NASA's best shot was a twenty kilometers wide blob.
Speaker 3: It's a staggering technical achievement, and it tells us so
much about the mechanics of these object. These aren't random outgassings.
They are localized directed ejections.
Speaker 1: How are they even doing this? What's the technology?
Speaker 2: They're using?
Speaker 3: Powerful telescopes, of course, but the real magic is in
the modern sensors, scientific grades cmos cameras that are incredibly sensitive,
and the software They use sophisticated tracking mounts to lock
onto the object perfectly, and then they stack hundreds of
images and use advanced deconvolution algorithms to computationally sharpen the
final result. All their processing power is focused on maximizing
that signal.
Speaker 1: Okay, so what happened on the next night, ninth The.
Speaker 3: View just got better as it moved into a darker
part of the sky. The amateurs continue to track it
and they observed clear changes in the jets and the tail,
and they were able to correlate those changes with the
object's rotation.
Speaker 1: They figured out how fast I was spinning.
Speaker 3: They estimated it was in a sixteen hour tumble. And
that is scientific gold, because once you know the rotation rate,
you can start to model the shape of the nucleus
and you can predict why certain jets appear and then
disappear as different active sites rotate into view. This is
hard kinematic science from a backyard.
Speaker 1: Incredible. And the day after that, November tenth.
Speaker 3: The consistency continued. The images from the tenth still showed
the faint tail. The wide coma and that sunward facing
jet was still there plain as day. The fact that
they saw it night after night after night proves it
wasn't some fluke or processing air.
Speaker 2: It's a real persistent feature of this object.
Speaker 1: And the source for following mention one image in particular
as being the best image.
Speaker 2: I was from November sixteenth.
Speaker 3: Yeah, ye showed everything, the coma, the tail, the multiple
jets with stunning clarity. It was perfectly consistent with all
the previous amateur observations. And to prove its accuracy, the
image was so sharp you could see a known cluster
of distant galaxies right next to it, exactly where it
was supposed to be. No artifacts, just pure observation.
Speaker 1: So to sum up the amateur effort, multiple clear views
from multiple observers over multiple nights, identifying multiple jets, a
dual component tail, and a rotating nucleus, all with a
fraction of the budget.
Speaker 3: The source was very blunt about it. The amateur images
are simply quite a bit better, he said. The official
high Rise release was kind of embarrassing to put out
after everyone had waited so long.
Speaker 1: It's a huge win for focused, passionate individuals. It proves
that sometimes a dedicated specialist can outperform a massive multipurpose
machine that's being used for something it wasn't built for.
Speaker 3: It absolutely does, and this incredible data from the public
forces us to ask the really big question.
Speaker 1: What is this thing? We've moved beyond what it looks like.
The question now is one of classification, and NASA's response
was immediate and well aggressive. They just labeled it a comment.
Speaker 3: Yes, the source knows how quickly they moved to normalize it,
to slap on a familiar label. It felt like an
attempt to shut down any conspiracy angle before it could
even start.
Speaker 1: But calling it a comet feels like it feels like
forcing a square peg into a round hole. That data
doesn't fit. It's from interstellar space, it has jets firing
in multiple directions, including towards the Sun. Why does it
have to be a comet?
Speaker 3: That is the core of the scientific argument. It's about
the rigidity of our definitions. Right. You brought up the
Pluto analogy earlier, and it's perfect right.
Speaker 1: Pluto is a planet for decades, then we discovered more
objects like it, and science has decided the definition of
planet needed to be updated. So they created a new category,
dwarf planet.
Speaker 3: They expanded the scientific dictionary to fit the new reality.
So the question is, if we can change definitions when
an object is too small, why can't we create a
new category when an object's behavior is too strange. If
it's interstellar and it's dominated by electromagnetic forces, maybe it
deserves its own unique classification.
Speaker 1: Calling it a comet just feels like an attempt to
stop asking questions, to say, nothing new to see here,
when the amateur data is screaming that there's something incredibly
new to see here.
Speaker 3: It inhibits scientific inquiry. By normalizing it, you're essentially dismissing
all the abnormal data points, the five jets, the sunword
tail as just weird commentary behavior, instead of treating them
as clues to something fundamentally different.
Speaker 1: So where does this leave us? What is the final
conclusion from the geophysicist Stefan Burns whose analysis we've been following.
He says it's not a comet, but he's also not
saying it's aliens.
Speaker 3: His conclusion is very careful and very scientific. He says, quote,
I don't think it's a comet. I also don't think
it's aliens or technology. Based on all the available data,
the strongest theory is that we are looking at a
very unusual thing flying through the Solar System of interstellar
origin that definitely has a very rich plasma environment.
Speaker 1: To it, and that rich plasma environment is what opens
the door to the most fascinating and most speculative idea
of all, the concept of a plasma beyond.
Speaker 3: And we need to be clear this is stepping into
the realm of speculative physics, but it's speculation that is
driven by the observations. The idea refers to a hypothetical
entity that isn't biological in the way we understand it,
and it isn't technological. It's a complex, self organizing structure
made of plasma.
Speaker 1: So if three iatlas's behavior is being controlled by electromagnetic
forces and those forces are being directed in a way
to create five specific localized jets, that implies a level
of internal organization that a simple chunk of ice and
rock just doesn't have.
Speaker 3: It implies some form of localized energy management. For a
structure like that to survive a trip across interstellar space,
it would need to be incredibly stable. An electrically organized
plasma structure could theoretically be far more resilient to radiation
and temperature extremes than a chemically bound object.
Speaker 1: That's onward facing jet. It suggests the interaction with our
Sun isn't just passive, as not just being heated up.
Speaker 3: It could be actively interacting with the Sun's magnetic field,
perhaps even drawing energy from it, channeling it to maintain
its own structure or to power those ejections.
Speaker 1: If an object can manage its own energy and direct
its own outgassing with that much precision, then calling it
a dead rock just completely misses the point. The data,
especially the amateur data, forces us to at least consider
that there might be forms of complex, non biological organization
out there that exist entirely in the realm of plasma
and magnetism, and that.
Speaker 3: Is the ultimate takeaway. The difference in data quality between
NASA and the amateurs wasn't just about pretty pictures. It
was a failure of institutional methodology, But the scientific result
is profound. The amateur data proved that three iatlysts is
dynamically complex, heavily ionized, and does not fit our existing models.
Speaker 1: The public release from NASA was, as the source said,
embarrassing because it tried to simplify and minimize a reality
that is complex and challenging to our definitions of what
matter can do in space.
Speaker 3: In the end, the story of three Atlas is a
huge victory for focused, dedicated open increy over a massive
but ultimately unfocused budget.
Speaker 1: Okay, so let's try to wrap this all up. Let's
summarize the key takeaways from this really extensive deep dive. First,
and most obviously, we have this just staggering contrast in
image quality versus the money spent.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, it proves that sometimes passion, focus and a global
network can outperform even the most expensive.
Speaker 2: Repurposed tools.
Speaker 3: It's a big lesson in how we prioritize scientific observation.
Speaker 1: Second, the object itself is a profound physical mystery. You
have what is supposedly a small nucleus, but it's completely obscured.
You have tails pointing in opposite directions, and now the
conformation of five separate directed jets.
Speaker 3: It's just not standard comet behavior.
Speaker 2: It's screaming out.
Speaker 3: For a new physical explanation, one that goes beyond simple models.
Speaker 1: And Third, and this feels like the most import point,
the critical role of plasma. The UV data confirmed it's there,
and all the bizarre movements, especially that persistent sunward push,
demand that we start including electromagnetic forces in our models
for these interstellar objects. Y.
Speaker 3: We simply can't keep treating them like giant innert snowballs.
They are massive electrically charged bodies interacting with the Sun's
own electrical environment in complex.
Speaker 1: Ways, and really the detailed work from Stefan Burns and
the incredible pictures from the amateur community should be an inspiration.
It backs up his final recommendation, which is for people
to look at the data themselves, do your.
Speaker 3: Own research, don't just take the official press release, look
at the images side by side, and make up your
own mind based on the evidence. The difference in quality
is right there for everyone to see.
Speaker 1: Which brings us to our final provocative thought to leave
you with. Given all this powerful evidence for a rich
plasma environment and the highly organized, almost managed behavior of
three ialis, how do our definitions of objects in space
need to change?
Speaker 3: If these plasma structures can hold themselves together across the
vast emptiness between stars and then interact with the star
in a way that shows localized energy control, maybe we
do need a whole new scientific category, something that accounts
for complex, self organizing plasma phenomena that are neither simple
geology nor manufactured technology. What else might the universe hold
that exists completely outside are rigid, carbon based definitions of
life and matter. That's the question this strange visitor has
left us with