Speaker 1: Okay, let's unpack this. A cosmic object is flying through
the plane of our planets, and one of the world's
leading astrophysicists says, the establishment isn't asking the right questions.
Speaker 2: And this isn't just you know, any piece of space rock, No,
not at all.
Speaker 1: We are talking about an object so vast that if
you decided to trace its circumference walking around it, you'd
be traveling a path of approximately eleven miles.
Speaker 2: That is, it's a staggering figure.
Speaker 1: It is. It's based on that initial estimation of this
mild diameter size, it puts it firmly in the category
of I don't know, cosmic leviathans.
Speaker 2: It immediately commands attention, you know, just because of its
sheer physical scale. And when we look back at the
history of these interstellar visitors, this is easily the biggest
mystery since Umam wolla ah.
Speaker 1: Yes, so Wummo, the previous celebrity of the interstellar medium.
Speaker 2: Right, But this new object three it tilis is just Yeah,
it's exponentially larger than Numa was. Yeah, And crucially, it's
behaving in ways that simply do not align with the
stand scatter pattern we expect from say, comments or asteroids
that get ejected from distant star systems.
Speaker 1: That's right, and that really forces us into a very
specific and I think timely deep dive. Today we're focusing
on the rigorous, yeah, let's be honest, controversial perspective of
Harvard professor Avulobe. We're drawing specifically on his recent insights
that he shared in a News Nation interview. And Lobe
is a figure who has spent years, frankly, pushing the
scientific community to adopt a more open minded, a more
data driven approach to searching for extraterrestrial technology.
Speaker 2: Exactly, and the tension here is just palpable. For months,
the scientific world and the public too waited for definitive
data on three IT lists we all did, and that
data has recently started to surface. The general consensus seems
to be that, well, the case is closed to comment,
nothing to see.
Speaker 1: Here, move along, right, But our mission today is to
analyze precisely why Professor Lobe argues that the establishment has
no actually closed the door on the possibility of this
being a technological artifact despite its current very comfortable classification.
Speaker 2: It seems like we're looking at a classic case study
in scientific methodology, isn't it.
Speaker 1: It really is. On one side, you have the data
they did release, which okay, it supports the conventional explanation.
But on the other you have these glaring fundamental puzzles
that they seem to have entirely ignored.
Speaker 2: Yeah, just swept under the rug.
Speaker 1: It forces us to ask, are we doing science to
confirm our existing comfortable models, or are we truly committed
to pursuing the anomalies, the outliers, the data points that
fundamentally break our.
Speaker 2: Assumptions, Because, as you said, three ietils is defined by
its anomalies. If we can't hold ourselves accountable to scrutinizing
the data that really challenges our worldview, then science just
ceases to be a learning experience. It just becomes a
form of sophisticated categorization, a filing system exactly. So we
have to start by understanding what was presented as the
closure of this case and why lobeb just completely dismisses
it as superficial.
Speaker 1: Let's start right there with the narrative, the initial conversation
surrounding the public data releases. You know, the details that
finally came out after months of anticipation, was framed by
interviewers as a disappointment, a letdown, a huge letdown, and
the reason for the disappointment, well, it didn't confirm the
existence of a huge, flashing, unambiguously alien spaceship. The findings
seemed to push three ISLT securely into a box labeled comment.
Speaker 2: And this is precisely where Lobe delivers his crucial immediate
counter argument. He just pushes back on that whole idea
of disappointment because he says that in reality, there wasn't
much information release that was actually new, or at least
nothing substantial enough to warrant any kind of scientific closure.
A lot of the data that was celebrated had actually
already been available through general scientific data sharing. The revelation was,
in essence a non revelation.
Speaker 1: Which is a brilliant critique of the media side, isn't it.
We were all expecting some dramatic high resolution image or
some deep spectral analysis, maybe leveraging the incredible power of
the web space telescope. But what did the data actually show.
Speaker 2: It confirmed that the object was dirty.
Speaker 1: That's it. It's dirty.
Speaker 2: That's pretty much it. The material they reported on was
what Lobe termed the dead skin off the object. They
specifically detailed finding some ices and perhaps some dust accumulated on.
Speaker 1: Its surface, so cosmic grime.
Speaker 2: Precisely, and in the eyes of the mainstream press, this
meant it has dust and ice. Therefore it must be
a dirty snowball. And if it's a dirty snowball, therefore
it must be a comet case closed and filed away.
Speaker 1: But the key lies in the fact that it is
an interstellar traveler. I mean, we have to consider the
immense time scales involved here. If you are talking about
a spacecraft or any complex technological construct that has been
traveling through the core of the interstellar medium for maybe
millions or even billions of years, what should we rationally
expect it to look like.
Speaker 2: You certainly wouldn't expect metallic surface polished to a mirror
shine right ready for its close up now. And that
is the fundamental disconnect between our expectations, which are so
often based on science fiction, and just you know, astrophysical reality.
Lob's rebuttal is perfectly encapsulated in his book by its
cover analogy. The argument is so simple yet so profound.
A technological craft traveling for those kinds of durations must
naturally accumulate these materials, ices, cosmic dust, stray molecules on
its surface. It's just it's unavoidable physics.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Let's really drill down into that the concept of
the interstellar medium. We tend to think of space as
a perfect vacuum, but it's not. It's not perfectly.
Speaker 2: Empty, not at all. It's filled with diffuse gas, dust, granes, plasma,
frozen volatiles, all existing at these incredibly low densities. But
and this is the key, when you multiply that load
density by the vast distances and the immense time scales
a truly interstellar object has traversed, the accumulation becomes significant.
Speaker 1: It all adds up.
Speaker 2: Think about the scale. You have an object flying at
hundreds of thousands of miles per hour through the galaxy
for geological epochs. It's constantly undergoing these minor collisions. It's
essentially being sand blasted and coded by all the elements
it encounters.
Speaker 1: So you don't need a lot of material at any
one moment to explain the contamination.
Speaker 2: Not at all. You just need consistency over time. If
we mandate that any alien technology we find has to
look pristine and clean. We are setting up a scientific
test that is just designed to fail. The universe itself
acts as this massive, abrasive and contaminating environment.
Speaker 1: It's the ultimate form of natural camouflage. The essential phrase
Low abuses here is so critical to understanding his philosophy.
You're not supposed to judge a book by its cover.
Speaker 2: And the cover in this case is that contaminated icy
surface exactly. This isn't just an observation he's making. It's
really a philosophical mandate for scientific humility. I mean, we
design our technology, our voyagers, our new horizons to last
for what a few decades. An interstellar artifact, if one exists,
is an enduring relic. It's an archaeological find, not a
new car off the lot.
Speaker 1: Let's expand on that archaeological metaphor imagine marine archaeology. If
divers pull an artifact out of a shipwreck that sank
centuries ago, say a bronze cannon.
Speaker 2: It's not going to look like bronzeah, of course not.
Speaker 1: It's going to be completely covered in barnacles, thick layers
of calcium carbonate, sediment, all kinds of marine growth. No
one would just dismiss it. As just a rock because
it's contaminated.
Speaker 2: The first and most crucial step of that investigation is
to scrape away the sediment. You have to analyze the
underlying structure and material. The composition of the dead skin
tells you about the environment it passed through, the ogin
floor or in this case, the interstellar.
Speaker 1: Medium, but it tells you nothing definitive about its origin
or its intended function.
Speaker 2: Absolutely nothing. And what the scientific community seemed to do
here was find the barnacles, declare it was just a
rock based solely on the composition of the barnacles, and
then close the case without ever looking at the underlying structure.
Speaker 1: It's premature closure totally.
Speaker 2: The finding of ice and dust is a necessary condition
for any long lived object that has traveled interstellarly, whether
there's a comet or a craft. Therefore, it cannot be
a sufficient condition to confirm the comet label and rule
out technology.
Speaker 1: So the finding is interesting but not conclusive.
Speaker 2: It's scientifically interesting for confirming the basic environment of interstellar space,
but it is entirely inconclusive regarding the object's core nature.
For Lobe, this is a clear indication that institutional science
preferred the comfortable answer over the complicated ones.
Speaker 1: So if the superficial analysis doesn't satisfy the curiosity, we
have to turn to the issues that LOB and sists
were completely ignored by these recent scientific releases. Yes, these
are the core scientific puzzles, the details that make three
i at lists genuinely anomaloists.
Speaker 2: And this is I think the most troubling aspect of
the alleged scientific closure lobe stress is that these basic puzzles,
these fundamental contradictions, were not even mentioned by the mainstream
scientific release that was intended to soothe the public's curiosity.
Speaker 1: It really suggests a deliberate filtering of inconvenient data points.
Speaker 2: It does.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's tackle the first one, which is arguably the
most shocking, the anomaly of mass. We've mentioned the mile diameter,
the eleven mile circumference. When you compare this object to
its interstellar predecessors, the magnitude difference is just it's difficult
to comprehend.
Speaker 2: The numbers are frankly mind boggling, and they immediately raise
these huge statistical red flags. Three iolass is estimated to
be one thousand times more massive than Umwamua, the first
widely observed interceellar visitor a thousand times a thousand times,
and it's also many times more massive than the first one,
referring to the initial smaller detections we've had. But that
thousand fold difference is the crucial figure here.
Speaker 1: Let's really dedicate some serious time to that. In astrophysics
and just in general degree fields, there's typically something called
a power law distribution, which means that for every really
large object, you expect to find exponentially more smaller objects.
So if umumua represents the average or near average size
of interstellar debris, then finding something one thousand times larger
should be incredibly rare.
Speaker 2: It should be, statistically speaking, an event that happens maybe
once every few millennia, or maybe even longer, given the
limited volume of space we've actually observed in the short
duration we've been looking.
Speaker 1: So we're talking about finding a cosmic needle in a
galactic haystack and then immediately finding one that is the
size of a haybale.
Speaker 2: That's a great way to put it. It really pushes
the boundaries of statistical improbability, and Lobe crystallizes this issue
into a very simple question, why are we lucky to
receive such a huge package. If these objects are truly
scattered randomly throughout the galaxy and we only started searching systematically,
very very recently, finding such a massive one so quickly
is a sign that either our understanding of the mass
distribution of interstellar objects is catastrophically wrong, or this object's
arrival isn't random.
Speaker 1: Let's go back to an analogy. Say you're on a
beach that's I don't know, ten miles long, and you
start collecting shells. For years, every single shell you find
is about the size of a dime. Then in the
span of one week you find nine hundred and ninety
nine dime sized shells and one shell the size of
a small car. You wouldn't just catalog it as CShell large.
Speaker 2: Variety, No, of course not. You'd immediately suspect it was
placed there deliberately, or that there's some highly unusual localized
geological phenomenon at play that defies the natural statistical scattering
of debris.
Speaker 1: And the scientific establishment's response by ignoring this data point
is essentially the equivalent of saying, well, it's still a shell.
Let's just focus on the fact that it's made of
calcium carbonate.
Speaker 2: It shifts the focus entirely away from the statistically baffling
size and arrival time. The increase mass of three i
atlas is so crucial because it makes its arrival statistically
unlikely in a random scenario. This forces us to question
its origin.
Speaker 1: Right, maybe it was ejected from a system in some unique,
non random way, or perhaps it was directed. If we
just dismissed the size, we dismissed the entire mystery, and that.
Speaker 2: Leads us seamlessly to the second major puzzle, the anomaly
of trajectory. When an object derives from interstellar space, it
is typically unbound by the Sun's gravity. Its path is
what we call a hyperbolic orbit, and crucially, it comes
from a completely random direction relative to our Solar System's plane.
Speaker 1: That's the expectation, right, Interstellar objects should have these high inclinations.
They should be coming at us from any angle, sooping
in from above or below the Solar System's plane, because
they were ejected randomly from some distant system and haven't
had time to be gravitationally aligned with our son.
Speaker 2: But three eyed ellis just it breaks that fundamental expectation.
It is flying in the plane of the planets. It
is hugging the ecliptic, which is that flat disc where
Earth mars Jupiter in all the major planetary bodies orbit
the Sun.
Speaker 1: This is a devastating point for the just a random
commet hypothesis. A random piece of stellar shrapnel should show
absolutely no preference for the ecliptic none.
Speaker 2: It's alignment with the planetary plane suggests something extraordinary. It
could imply a highly unusual gravitational interaction or some kind
of capture mechanism early in its journey through the outer
reaches of our Solar system, or and this is where
the technological speculation comes in, it suggests a targeted path.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you were aiming for a planetary system,
or if you were using that system's gravity for a
sling shot maneuver, you would naturally aim for the plane
of the planets, because that's where all the action is.
Speaker 2: It's the most efficient route. A purely natural, random chunk
of debris should have no such optimization.
Speaker 1: And the combination of the two, the mass and the
trajectory is just explosive.
Speaker 2: It is we have a statistically impossible giant object and
it's arrived on a path that suggests deliberate alignment with
our primary orbital architecture. These are the two smoking guns
that should keep the investigation.
Speaker 1: Wide open, and yet they were ignored. This seems to
be lobes central frustration, the complete absence of dialogue surrounding
these anomalies.
Speaker 2: He argues that it highlights a profound institutional failing, a
powerful desire among what he calls the bureaucratic products or
perhaps a few scientists, to believe in the expected.
Speaker 1: The challenge of scientific conservatism writ large.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, it's safer career wise and just institutionally simpler to
confirm a known class of object, the big dirty comet,
than to admit that two of its most fundamental characteristics
defy known physics and statistics.
Speaker 1: It's the path of least resistance. I mean, to investigate
the anomalies requires more funding, more time, and most importantly,
more intellectual risk. If you find a comment, you get
a quick publication. If you find something that upends physics.
Speaker 2: You phase decades of skepticism and ridicule. And this behavior
leads directly to the powerful quote low Ab used to
describe the misleading nature of the establishment's report. He says,
there is nothing more deceptive than half the true facts.
Speaker 1: Ah, half the true facts. That's a much clearer way
of putting it.
Speaker 2: It makes a huge difference, right. It means that presenting
only the familiar facts, we found ice, we found dust,
So it's a comet while deliberately omitting the inconvenient truths.
It's a thousand times too large, and its trajectory is
suspiciously aligned with the ecliptic. Is a form of scientific deception.
Speaker 1: It's confirmation bias, masking itself as scientific closure.
Speaker 2: It is for genuine progress, we have to analyze the
data points that challenge our worldview first, not just sweep
them under the rug of institutional comfort.
Speaker 1: Okay, so now let's pivot away from that institutional inertia
and focus on where the most exciting, scientifically rigorous data
actually originated, because this completely changes the nature of the inquiry.
Speaker 2: It really does.
Speaker 1: And surprisingly, the most valuable insights didn't come from a
billion dollars space telescope.
Speaker 2: This is a truly inspiring moment in the story. I
think it demonstrates the democratization of discovery. The truly exciting
recent data came from amateur astronomers. I love that it's amazing.
These are individuals who use the telescopes you can buy,
the telescopes that you can buy in thousands of dollars,
not massive government facilities, and they provided the dynamic insight
that keeps this case alive. Data about the jets coming
from three i atlists.
Speaker 1: That is remarkable. It shifts the entire discussion from passive
observation of a dirty surface to active analysis of the
object's behavior and its potential internal mechanics. The jets are
the visible exhaust the evidence of material actively being ejected, and.
Speaker 2: This gives us a concrete, scientifically testable hypothesis, which is
exactly what Lob wants.
Speaker 1: Right. It moves the goalposts from composition to mechanics. The
opportunity now in the coming days and weeks leading up
to its closest approach, is to study these jets rigorously.
Speaker 2: This is the core of the scientific methodology play, figuring
out the exact origin of the jets and crucially measuring
the speed of the ejected material.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's define the critical test. Now. We need to
break down the two possible outcomes, the accepted natural explanation
versus the potential technological signature.
Speaker 2: Let's start with the natural explanation the comet model. If
three iless is just a standard comet, the jets are
caused by sublimation. As the object approaches the sun, the
ice on its surface, often water or carbon dioxide, is
heated by sunlight. This causes the volatile material to vaporize.
Speaker 1: Rapidly, and we understand this physics extremely well. If the
jets are purely the result of ice sublimation, we can
calculate the characteristic speed of the volatles that come out
of that.
Speaker 2: Right, And just to be clear for everyone, that's volatile gases,
not volunteers, as it might have sounded in a rough transcript.
Speaker 1: Right, important clarification, The.
Speaker 2: Kinetic energy imparted by solar heating is constrained. We know
the expected maximum speed, the mass loss rate, the composition
of typical cometary outgassing. If the amateur observations combined with
forthcoming professional data showed that the jets perfectly match these
known physical constraints, if they explain all of these components,
then Load himself agrees the case is closed.
Speaker 1: So even he concedes that he does.
Speaker 2: It would be an enormous, strangely aligned comment, but it
would still be operating by natural laws, we understand.
Speaker 1: But the key lies in the pivot, the search for
the technological signature. What would that signature look like in
the context of these jets.
Speaker 2: The indicator that would necessitate discarding the comet label would
be finding a much larger speed than expected from a
natural object. We are looking for non gravitational acceleration that
it's simply too powerful to be explained by simple solar
heating and ice sublimation.
Speaker 1: So we are essentially looking for an acceleration that implies
intent and engineering rather than just passive melting. Exactly, to
put it in physics terms for you listening, we are
looking for excess delta v change in velocity that the
Sun's radiation, pressure and chemical outgassing simply cannot account for.
Speaker 2: Imagine the difference. A sublimating ice jet is kind of
like steam gently escaping from a kettle. It imparts a
small continuous thrust, but it's weak. It's constrained by the
temperature of the ice and the Sun's distance. Oka A
technological signature, however, would be analogous to a pulse of
propellant from a rocket engine. It's concentrated, it's fast, and
it generates a measurable amount of thrust far exceeding that
natural physical limit.
Speaker 1: So if three I at lists is exhibiting speeds far
higher than physics allows for solar heated jetsa, if the
ejection velocity is orders of magnitude greater than that of
typical water or carbon dioxide plumes, then that non natural velocity,
that unexpected thrust constitutes the possible technological signature.
Speaker 2: And this isn't some distant theoretical test. Lobe has pinpointed
the climax of this whole investigation to a very specific,
very near term date.
Speaker 1: Yes, he confirms that three I will fly closest to
Earth on December nineteenth.
Speaker 2: This close approach is the logistical key. It minimizes the distance,
which maximizes the angular resolution available to astronomers worldwide. This
close proximity means observers amateur and professional like will be
able to gather a massive amount of high resolution.
Speaker 1: Dynamic data data on its composition, its overall shape, and
most importantly, the.
Speaker 2: Exact dynamics and location of those jets. Low Of anticipates
a flood of data around this December nineteenth date, which
should provide the necessary material for a definitive analysis, the
weight is nearly over for a rigorous, data driven answer
that either closes the case with high confidence or just
blows it wide open.
Speaker 1: And let's just pause again to celebrate the role of
the amateur astronomers here I have to their initial meticulous
observation of the dynamic changes the jets is what redirected
the attention of the entire scientific community. They look for
the functional anomaly, while the institutional data was just focused
on the static cover.
Speaker 2: It proves that discovery isn't limited by the size of
your budget, the rigor of your observation, and the openness
of your mind.
Speaker 1: It reinforces the idea that if you are curious and
willing to meticulously collect data, you can provide the critical
input that challenges established thought. The critical test for potentially
life altering science is now focused on data that anyone
with a good telescope can potentially contribute to gathering.
Speaker 2: It's a powerful lesson. The scientific inquiry has to be
focused on measuring the change the dynamics the non gravitational behavior.
If we ignore those high speed jet dynamics, we ignore
the most promising avenue for revealing a truly novel object,
be it exotic natural physics we haven't seen before, or technology.
Speaker 1: This debate really extends far beyond the composition of three
I out lists, doesn't it. It shines a spotlight on
the institutional and I guess philosophical underpinnings of how science
is conducted today.
Speaker 2: Oh, absolutely, especially when faced with these paradigm shifting possibilities.
Speaker 1: The debate showcases this deep tension between scientific curiosity and
well organizational risk aversion. The interviewer rightly asked Loweb, is
NASA and the broader institutional science community truly open minded
or have they simply made up their minds? You know,
it's a comet and we're going with that.
Speaker 2: And Lowe's response, which was very carefully worded but also
very pointed, it targets the heart of the issue. He
believes that the organizational structures, what he called the bureaucratic
products and a few scientists want us to believe in the.
Speaker 1: Expected, the inertia of the system.
Speaker 2: Exactly in these large organizations that are so reliant on
stable funding, on peer review acceptance and public narratives, classifying
new data into familiar models is the default, low risk strategy.
Speaker 1: It demands less intellectual and organizational energy to label three
IAT lists as a large, dirty commet than to state, truthfully,
we have no idea what this massive, strangely aligned object is,
and it might be evidence of something genuinely unprecedented.
Speaker 2: And the danger here isn't necessarily malicious intents, but just
career safety. It is safer to confirm a known class
of object than to publish a hypothesis that demands the
creation of an entirely new field of study, which is
something Lobe is effectively advocating for with his push for
astro archaeology.
Speaker 1: It's a self fulfilling prophecy, isn't it. If you only
look for comments, you will find comments, even if you
have to stretch the definition of a comment to the
breaking point to accommodate something a thousand times larger than
the last one.
Speaker 2: And this philosophical position leads directly to Loba's impassioned closing
argument about the immense value of the unexpected. He believes
that by maintaining this open minded curiosity, the rest of
us know that the best is yet to come.
Speaker 1: That is an inspiring call to intellectual courage. True scientific
exploration has to seek the knowledge that overturns our existing understanding.
The data that forces us to rewrite the textbooks right.
Speaker 2: Not merely the data that confirms the footnotes of existing chapters.
If we only look for that which fits our current framework,
we guarantee that we will never be surprised by genuine novelty,
and the universe, by its very nature, is just far
stranger and more inventive than our current models suggest.
Speaker 1: He connects this so beautifully to the human experience itself.
Life is worth living if we allow for the unexpected
to surprise us.
Speaker 2: In this philosophy, it transcends astrophysics for you, the learner.
The key takeaway here is the importance of maintaining that
radical curiosity and constantly questioning assumptions, even or maybe especially,
when faced with preliminary data that's intended to close a case.
Speaker 1: The initial classification is never the conclusion.
Speaker 2: It is only the starting point for rigorous inquiry. Yea
and Love's ultimate definition of science reinforces this science is
fundamentally a learning experience.
Speaker 1: It's not about owning all the answers or defending the status.
Speaker 2: Quo, not at all. It's about the continuous, evolving journey
toward finding new knowledge, even if that knowledge is deeply
uncomfortable or radically different from what we previously held to
be true. The entire three il As saga is really
a microcosm of scientific progress itself. How So, and anomaly is detected,
conservative forces rush to normalize it, and a dissenting voice
insists on a critical objective test to definitively separate the
expected natural forces from the truly novel technological signature.
Speaker 1: And again, the fact that the most promising avenue for
that critical test comes from accessible amateur observation further democratizes
this entire debate. The flood of data we're expecting on
December nineteenth will be a truly collaborative human effort.
Speaker 2: The implications of this event, regardless of the outcome, are
going to shape our scientific philosophy for decades to come.
If it's confirmed as a comet, it's a giant comet
that fundamentally challenges our statistical model of mass distribution in
the galaxy.
Speaker 1: Right it forces us to ask where these cosmic behemoths
are being manufactured and ejected.
Speaker 2: If it shows the technological signature, well that changes everything.
Speaker 1: So as we conclude this deep dive into the fascinating, frustrating,
and ultimately thrilling mystery of three ils. Let's quickly recap
the three essential points that Professor Loebin sists keep this
scientific mystery wide open.
Speaker 2: Okay, First, the superficial findings of dust and ice are inconclusive.
A technological artifact that has been traversing the galaxy for
eons would naturally accumulate that cosmic residue. The scientific focus
on composition is a distraction from the mechanical reality.
Speaker 1: You cannot judge this book by its cosmic cover exactly.
Speaker 2: Second, the anomalies of size and trajectory remain completely unaddressed.
The object is a thousand times more massive than its
most famous predecessor, Umuomo, and it is flying suspiciously along
the plane of our planets.
Speaker 1: These statistical puzzles are the elephant in the orbital room
that the official narrative has chosen to ignore.
Speaker 2: And third, the scientific crucible is the jet speed test
centered around December nineteenth. We have to meticulously measure the
velocity and acceleration of the ejected material. If that speed
is demonstrably and significantly higher than what solar heating and
ice sublimation can physically produce than we have by Lova's
rigorous definition a verifiable technological signature.
Speaker 1: The relevance here is so powerful the pursuit of profound
knowledge is not reserved for those with the largest budgets.
The most critical insights in this entire debate came from
challenging comfortable assumptions and from accessible amateur data collection.
Speaker 2: Let's leave you with the provocative thought the ultimate implication
of confirming that technological signature. If the December nineteenth data
confirms an unexpectedly high jet speed, meaning a movement that
deiates from the expected laws of natural physics for an
icy object, what does that mean for our future?
Speaker 1: It would fundamentally shift the paradigm of the search for
extraterrestrial intelligence. Instead of solely relying on looking for distant
radio signals the classics search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence or SETI,
we would have to immediately expand our efforts to actively
analyze the mechanics of every anomalous visitor to our solar system.
Speaker 2: Exactly is a deviation from those natural constrained laws a
non gravitationally acceleration that defies the Sun's passive heating. Is
that the most reliable, detectable signature we have for non
natural movement in the cosmos.
Speaker 1: If it's confirmed, it forces us to become proactive. Interstellar
archaeologists scrutinizing every piece of debris that passes through our
gravitational sphere, which raises.
Speaker 2: An important question, what happens when the unexpected shows up
right on our doorstep, possessing evidence of intent, and our
existing textbooks don't have the answers.
Speaker 1: We encourage you to follow the subsequent flood of data
expected around December nineteenth. The scientific excitement is only just beginning.