Speaker 1: Welcome to thrilling threads. The universe has just handed us
a complete and undeniable scientific paradox.
Speaker 2: It really has.
Speaker 1: And this isn't some shaky reading from a distant telescope
or a complicated bit of math that'll take decades to verify.
Speaker 2: No, not at all. This is a solid observed fact.
Speaker 1: A fact that seems to fundamentally contradict the very laws
of physics we rely on, specifically material science.
Speaker 2: That's the core of it. We're tracking an object, an asteroid,
and it's spinning so violently, so.
Speaker 1: Fast that it should be dust by every.
Speaker 2: Metric we have. It should have torn itself apart a
very very long time ago, but it hasn't. It's still there,
perfectly intact.
Speaker 1: This is I think a really landmark deep dive for us.
For decades, ash of physics has had these certain theoretical speed.
Speaker 2: Limits, structural limits really, especially for smaller celestial bodies.
Speaker 1: Right, and this new object which NASA is monitoring. Yeah,
and it's not just them, right, it's been cross referenced.
Speaker 2: They have multiple independent observatories. That's key. Isn't a fluke.
It is absolutely shattered what we call the spin barrier.
Speaker 1: So what we're looking at is an observed reality that
is for now completely incompatible with our established science.
Speaker 2: It's a textbook contradiction.
Speaker 1: And so today we are diving deep into the specifics
of this defiance. Our mission for you is to give
you the shortcut to really understanding this profound challenge, and.
Speaker 2: We're using some excellent analysis to guide us, mainly from
the y on YouTube channels coverage.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that video titled not three i at lists NASA
tracks strange spinning asteroid which should not exist gravitas. It's
a great starting point for this whole puzzle.
Speaker 2: Our goal here is to really explore in detail why
its rotation rate breaks these known limits, and then get
into the two truly staggering, mind bending explanations.
Speaker 1: Which are either rewriting material signs from the ground up.
Speaker 2: Or confirming the existence of advanced engineered hardware, and what
either of those things means for well our entire view
of the cosmos.
Speaker 1: Okay, so let's unpack this. We are stepping into a
realm where the impossible has become observable and the implications
just they ripple out to challenge everything we thought we
knew everything. So before we jump into the sheer structural
impossibility of this new asteroid. I think we need to
set the stage.
Speaker 2: A little right. Context is important.
Speaker 1: We need to remember the object that I think, until
now really held the title for the most perplexing celestial mystery.
I'm talking about Comet three Ilis.
Speaker 2: I asked at LS for a few years, that was
the absolute standard bearer for bizarre interstellar objects.
Speaker 1: It just didn't fit exactly. It had characteristics that just
you know, they defied the neat little boxes of commentary science,
you really did. What made Atlus so notorious, what earned
it that apex of celestial mystery label was that combination
of impossible thrust and its strange tale.
Speaker 2: The movement was the big thing.
Speaker 1: Right, A comet gets near the Sun, it out gases ice,
turns to vapor, and that gives it a little push,
a measurable one.
Speaker 2: With tiny, predictable thrust.
Speaker 1: But atls's acceleration, its non gravitational movement, was just it
was way off at charts. It was too fast, too consistent.
You couldn't just say, oh, it's asymmetrical ice sublimation.
Speaker 2: No, that explanation just didn't hold up to the numbers.
And that beta deficit That's what really kicked off the
whole conversation about unconventional origins.
Speaker 1: When you run out of normal explanations, when you exhaust
fluid dynamics, when you can't blame ice jets or the
Joyo RP effect, well, that.
Speaker 2: Vacuum gets filled by more radical theories.
Speaker 1: And that's where the alien tech theory came from, right,
the idea that maybe it wasn't a natural comet at all,
but some kind of interstellar probe.
Speaker 2: The sheer magnitude of its thrust led directly to it.
People started suggesting it was using a propulsion system. We
just don't understand.
Speaker 1: What was so fascinating about that time was seeing the
scientific community having to seriously entertain the idea of an
engineered origin. It wasn't just online forums, No, it was
credible astronomers because the numbers they just did not add
up to a natural phenomenon.
Speaker 2: But here's the critical pivot. This is the key for
our deep dive today. If ATLS was weird because of
its dynamics, how it moved exactly its flight path, it's acceleration,
it's propulsion.
Speaker 1: This new object has am a far more bizarre because
of its structural survival. Ah, okay, so it's not about
how it's traveling through space.
Speaker 2: Not at all. It's about how it is holding itself
together at all. We've shifted the entire problem from one
of propulsion of movement to one of material science and
basic structural integrity.
Speaker 1: So, in other words, ATLS made us question how things move, and.
Speaker 2: This new object makes us question what things are actually
made of.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's introduce this new player. Then this cosmic rubble.
Speaker 2: The core ANOMIALY is on the surface, very simple to state.
This object is rotating on its axis at a speed that,
based on everything we know about its size and its
estimated density.
Speaker 1: It should result in immediate catastrophic disintegration instantaneous failure. You
mentioned it's breaking the spin barrier. Can we just quickly
define what that barrier actually means for someone listening. We're
not talking about how fast it's flying around the sign.
Speaker 2: No. No, this is pure rotation, like a merry go
round spinning out of control.
Speaker 1: Got it.
Speaker 2: The spin barrier is basically the theoretical maximum speed an
object can spin before the centrifugal force, you know, the
outward pull from the spin.
Speaker 1: Overcomes the internal forces holding it together.
Speaker 2: Precisely. For smaller objects like asteroids, that cohesive force is
almost entirely the material's own internal strength, what physicists call
its tensile strength, and what.
Speaker 1: Makes this observation so so solid. The source material really
emphasizes that this rotation right was calculated by multiple independent.
Speaker 2: Observatories, and that confirmation is everything. It's non negotiable. It
means we can confidently rule out things like an error
in one telescope's calibration, or atmospheric distortion, or just some
kind of statistical noise.
Speaker 1: So it's not a fuzzy data point, not at all.
Speaker 2: We have multiple cross reference data sets and they all
point to the exact same hard number for its rotational period,
and that number it puts the object firmly in the
realm of the impossible.
Speaker 1: So when we look at that number, the immediate, just
staggering implication is that this spin is way beyond the
theoretical maximum for an object of its estimated size and composition.
Speaker 2: It's not just a little bit faster than the limit,
it is completely smashed right through it.
Speaker 1: Can you give us a sense of scale on that,
I can.
Speaker 2: Try look typical rubble pile asteroids, which are really common.
Think of them as just orbiting gravel heaps. They max
out at about one revolution every two hours, and after that,
after that, gravity and internal friction just can't hold them
together anymore, and they start shedding mass. They fly apart.
Speaker 1: And what about a solid rock, a single monolithic piece.
Speaker 2: For a solid piece of rock, that limit might be
a bit higher, maybe one revolution every hour, depending on
the rocks composition. But this object, it's spinning so fast
that the internal stress required to keep it for disintegrating
is orders of magnitude greater than what even the strongest
known cosmic.
Speaker 1: Rock can provide orders of magnitude. So if the fastest
rock we know of should survive at say one revolution
per hour, are we talking two three?
Speaker 2: We can characterize it like this. The outward acceleration on
the material at the object's equator is greater than the
gravitational and electromagnetic forces holding its atoms together. Wow, if
you could stand on its surface, which absolutely could not,
the centrifugal force would be so powerful it would launch
you into space with extreme violence.
Speaker 1: So the rock itself is under incredible stress.
Speaker 2: If this object were made of granite, that grantite would
be experiencing stresses that are equivalent to the forces inside
and industrial centrifuge designed to.
Speaker 1: Crush diamonds, and yet it's fine.
Speaker 2: The forces pulling it apart must be monumental, yet it persists,
and that structural impossibility is what forces our hand. We
have to leave the known limits of astronomy and material
science behind to even start looking for an answer.
Speaker 1: Which brings us to the core science of it. Why
this object should be dust, Why its integrity is such
a deep, deep challenge. This is where it gets really interesting.
I think we need to spend a little time on
the spin barrier because it's the very definition of the
physics being defied here.
Speaker 2: Right, As we said, the spin barrier is that critical
point where centrifugal forces win. But let's break down those
internal cohesive forces, because for smaller bodies they're all that matters.
The primary factor is what we call tensile strength. Imagine
you're pulling a rope from both ends until it snaps.
Speaker 1: The breaking point.
Speaker 2: The tensile strength is the maximum pulling stress that rope
can endure before it fails. For natural rock and ice
in space, this strength is a finite, well understood number.
Speaker 1: It's just the bonds between molecules.
Speaker 2: It's the molecular and crystalline bonds holding the material together.
And in the asteroid belt you're mostly looking at silicates, basalts,
or iron nickel alloys. We have tons of data on
the stress curves for these materials, and.
Speaker 1: The rule is simple. Once the centrifugal force pulling a
piece of that rock outwards exceeds its ultimate tensile strength.
Speaker 2: That piece fractures and flies off into space period.
Speaker 1: And that stress is always going to be greatest at
the equator, right where the rotational speed is highest. It's
like spinning a water balloon. It bulges out in the
middle right before it bursts.
Speaker 2: A perfect analogy. But it's not just tension. We also
have to consider sheer stress.
Speaker 1: Okay, what's that?
Speaker 2: As the object spins, different layers and parts of the
rock are moving relative to each other. This creates intense
sheer stress, which is more of a twisting tearing force.
For a complex, non uniform material like rock, sheer failure
can often happen even before tensile failure. So this spinning
asteroid is essentially putting its entire structure through a constant,
extreme multidirectional stress test.
Speaker 1: A stress test that it is somehow passing, even though
it's far exceeding the failure point of any known cosmic silicate.
Speaker 2: That's a crux of it. Now, you contrast that with
the other cohesive force, gravitational.
Speaker 1: Force, which is huge for planets.
Speaker 2: For plants like Earth or Jupiter, gravity is overwhelming. The
internal gravity of the planet compresses everything, effectively locking the
material together with unimaginable pressure. You'd need a truly colossal
spin rate to challenge that kind of gravitational cohesion.
Speaker 1: But for a little asteroid, for.
Speaker 2: A small asteroid, maybe a few kilometers across or less
its own self, gravity is pitifully weak. It's almost negligible
in the equation.
Speaker 1: So the object is relying almost entirely on its material strength,
on its tensile and sheer strength almost.
Speaker 2: One hundred percent. And if the rock is just ordinary rock,
the failure point is low and it's absolute.
Speaker 1: So what we have here is an object where the
weak gravitational force doesn't matter, which forces the entire structural
burden onto the known and limited tensile strength of cosmic rock.
Speaker 2: And our observation proves that this object is rotating at
a rate where the required tensile strength to keep it
in one piece must be hundreds of times greater than
what physics predicts for that size and composition.
Speaker 1: Which means the predicted outcome based on all these established
limits and confirmed observations.
Speaker 2: Is stark, very stark. The object should have torn itself
to Shred's millennia go. It should be a dispersed ring
of debris, a dust cloud, or at best, to widely spaced,
slowly orbiting fragments. That's not the fact that it maintains
a singular, solid body structure while rotating at this speed.
Is this central contradiction that has physicists just scratching their.
Speaker 1: Heads, And that contradiction is so hard to picture, you know,
our everyday lives don't involve materials just defying their own
breaking points. To really get a handle on the sheer
magnitude of this, let's use that earth based analogy from
the source material, the carwheel.
Speaker 2: It's a perfect metaphor really, because it's an engineered material
and it's subject to very defined rotational limits. We know
what happens when you push material beyond its stress tolerance.
Speaker 1: Right, So the analogy for this asteroid is like watching
a car wheel spin so fast it should explode, but
it simply doesn't. And let's unpack that explosive failure. Car
makers spend fortunes calculating the maximum safe rotational speed of
tires and wheels.
Speaker 2: They use high strength polymers, steel belts, specialized aluminum alloys,
all to fight those forces.
Speaker 1: And yet if you took even the highest grade Formula
one carbon fiber wheel, which is designed for incredible speeds,
and you forced it to spin at say, one hundred
thousand rpm, it.
Speaker 2: Would violently fragment. The internal cohesive forces of that carbon
fiber would be instantly overcome by the centrifugal stress. The
failure would be immediate and total.
Speaker 1: And that's the AHA moment here, isn't it realizing that
in space, the material we're talking about is usually just rock,
a material.
Speaker 2: That is far weaker and more brittle than any high
tech engineered alloy.
Speaker 1: So we're talking about a space rock that is surviving
the equivalent of being forced to spin at speeds that
would make carbon fiber disintegrate.
Speaker 2: And that is the qualitative difference between a minor anomaly
and a full blown physics crisis. Most astrophysical mysteries are
about processes don't fully understand, like you know, deep space
chemistry or how black holes form. That this this mystery
is about a fundamental violation of material fracture mechanics, which
is something we thought we had mastered. It's not just
defying physics. It's practically mocking our current textbooks on structural integrity.
It's forcing us to admit that either our understanding of
cosmic rock is fundamentally flawed or something else entirely is
at play.
Speaker 1: And we can't ignore the context of typical astrophysical failures.
We see them all the time. Asteroids that spin too
fast do break up constantly.
Speaker 2: It's a known, observable process.
Speaker 1: So this object's stubborn wholeness, that's the real fingerprint of
the impossibility.
Speaker 2: That's it. So before we lead to the really radical conclusions,
you know, exotic materials or alien engineering, we have to
do our due diligence as scientists. We have to show
that we have systematically dismissed every conventional.
Speaker 1: Explanation, eliminate the usual suspects.
Speaker 2: The scientific method demands it. And in deep space, when
you see movement or rotation that defies gravity, the number
one usual suspect is.
Speaker 1: Always cometary behavior, right exactly.
Speaker 2: The first port of call is outgassing. If an asteroid
has subsurface ice and that ice turns to vapor, the
resulting jets can apply an asymmetric thrust.
Speaker 1: And that can cause it to spin up over time.
Speaker 2: It's a very common mechanism. It's what caused the initial
mystery with Atla's in fact.
Speaker 1: But the source material is very clear on this. It
says this is not a case of outgassing. So how
can astronomers be so certain that this is a solid
object problem and not a cometary one.
Speaker 2: A few key reasons. First, the observation techniques they use
to determine the rotation rate also let them look for
the telltale signs of a coma or a tail the
vapor trail that is characteristic of outgassing.
Speaker 1: And they're just not there.
Speaker 2: If those features are absent, the object gets classified as inert.
But second, and this is the most important part, outgassing
can increase the spin rate, but it cannot under any
circumstances the material strength of the rock itself.
Speaker 1: Ah, that's a critical distinction. So even of out gassing
or maybe some kind of asymmetrical ice distribution somehow drove
the spin rate up to these impossible levels.
Speaker 2: The underlying rock structure still should have failed the very
second it passed its limit. The spin mechanism isn't the
mystery here. The lack of failure is.
Speaker 1: That's a great way to put it. It's like if
you overrevvd a car engine until it blew up. You'd
explain the broken parts by the engine's material limits, not
by the gasoline that made it go so fast.
Speaker 2: Exactly, this asteroid is essentially an engine that has been
vastly impossibly overrevvd, but none of the parts have failed.
The consensus is that this is a structural cohesion problem
of a solid object, not a dynamical problem related to
vaporizing ice.
Speaker 1: So we've eliminated the easy answers. The scientific community is,
as the source puts it, collectively stunned. They're admitting they
have no conventional explanation because we're.
Speaker 2: Left with a single object defying the physics of structural failure.
Speaker 1: Which means the data is leading us past known astrophysics
and into two genuinely revolutionary possibilities.
Speaker 2: It's an intellectual cliffhanger of cosmic proportions. We have exhausted
all the normal ways as space rock can be weird,
leaving us with only the extraordinary.
Speaker 1: So we arrive at the first of these two potential answers,
and this one is huge. If we make the assumption
that this object is entirely natural.
Speaker 2: No external intervention, no force fields.
Speaker 1: Then it forces a really dramatic conclusion we have to
rewrite the foundational chapters of material science.
Speaker 2: The hypothesis is that the object possesses an unknown, incredibly
strong material, But the implications of that are just They're vast,
So I can't matter with tensile and sheer strength that
are orders of magnitude beyond anything we currently have or
can even manufacture.
Speaker 1: More than advanced ceramics or graphene or carbon nanotubes.
Speaker 2: Oh far beyond them. If this is natural, it means
that somewhere in the cosmos, nature has found a way
to forge exotic forms of matter under conditions we haven't
even been able to replicate or accurately model. Yet.
Speaker 1: It would mean our whole understanding of how elements bond
under the extreme conditions of deep space is drastically incomplete.
Speaker 2: Let's try to picture what this super material might look like.
Our current strongest materials like diamond and graphene are all
based on carbon's covalent bonds. But imagine if this object
is made of something like carbine.
Speaker 1: Carbine. That's a theoretical one, isn't it It is.
Speaker 2: It's a theoretical allotrope of carbon, basically a one dimensional
chain of carbon atoms. Calculations suggest carbine could be twice
as strong as graphene and maybe forty times strong than diamond.
It could resist sheer stress almost indefinitely.
Speaker 1: But the big problem with carbine, as I understand it,
is that it's incredibly unstable. It just wants to immediately
revert to more common forms of carbon.
Speaker 2: And that's the challenge. If this asteroid is made of it,
what does that imply. It implies that the conditions in
which this object formed, or the ironment it's in now
must somehow be stabilizing this material, locking it into that
ultra high strength lattice.
Speaker 1: So we might be looking at crystalline structures that were
formed under pressures so extreme, may be near a supernova
remnant or in the core of a massive planet that's now.
Speaker 2: Gone exactly conditions that created stable, super dense, uniquely bonded matter.
We would have to fundamentally reconsider how silicates or carbon
chain molecules behave on intense pressure and radiation cycles.
Speaker 1: This would mean a complete rewrite of our understanding of
material science and extreme cosmic environments. This isn't just chemistry anymore.
This is getting into quantum mechanics, solid state physics.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, and think about the technological fallout if we could
actually study this material, if we could reverse engineer how
nature created this cosmic rebel, it would launch a technological revolution.
Speaker 1: You mean building materials for skyscrapers that could resist forces
we currently think are impossible.
Speaker 2: Or super light, hyper strong aerospace structures. We could build
spacecraft hulls that withstand hypervelocity impacts with cosmic dust, or
deep sea vessels that could explore the deepest parts of
the ocean with no problem.
Speaker 1: It would be the ultimate roadmap for extreme material synthesis.
Speaker 2: The discovery would shift from being just an astronomical puzzle
to being quite possibly the most valuable scientific blueprint in
human history.
Speaker 1: So it forces us to ask what specific boundary conditions
create matter that can defy Newtonian mechanics on this scale.
Was it immense gravity a unique kind of radiation bath and.
Speaker 2: We'd have to immediately start studying its spectroscopic signature and
to figure out its chemical makeup and try to piece together.
Speaker 1: Its history, which is transformative. But as you said, this
is only one side of the coin. The other option
bypasses natural material physics entirely.
Speaker 2: It does.
Speaker 1: So now we arrive at the second alternative, and this
one is arguably more unsettling. This is where we go
back to the idea of advanced technology. But we're focusing
on structural integrity, not just propulsion, and that may makes
the scenario, as the sources say, chillingly literal.
Speaker 2: Right. So, if the rotation rate is verified to exceed
the known limits of any natural substance, and that is
a very big if, that requires us to prove the
non existence of the kind of material we just talked about.
If we can do that, then the object must be
actively reinsourcing itself. It must be using energy to maintain
its structural integrity.
Speaker 1: The hypothesis is that the object is being held together
by an artificial internal force field. Let's just break down
that concept of active support. Okay, So if you have
an ordinary rock spinning too fast and it hasn't failed.
It must mean that something is constantly applying an inward
compressive force to counteract the centrifugal force that's trying to pull.
Speaker 2: It apart, and that requires technology that can generate and
maintain a stable localized force field. We're talking about a
field that manipulates fundamental forces, maybe mimicking localized gravity or
using some kind of intense magnetic compression.
Speaker 1: This is technology that is for us purely theoretical science fiction.
Speaker 2: We are light years away from generating a stable, energized
field that could counteract the massive, constantly shifting sheer forces
inside an asteroid sized object. It's an incredible engineering challenge.
Speaker 1: So if it's artificial, it is a piece of engineered
hardware designed to withstand forces that would destroy natural rock.
What does that tell us about the intelligence that could
build something like this.
Speaker 2: It tells us they've achieved a mastery over the strong
and weak nuclear forces or gravity in ways we can
only dream of. The engineering solution here isn't just advanced,
it's transcendent. It implies a civilization that understands and controls
the fabric of reality.
Speaker 1: Itself, which then leads to the question why why build
a structure that spins so rapidly.
Speaker 2: That's the fascinating speculation, isn't it If it's designed to
survive extreme rotation. Maybe the rotation itself is essential to
its function.
Speaker 1: Like it's a high velocity transport vessel using the rotational
energy for.
Speaker 2: Power or propulsion, or it could be a highly compressed
data storage vessel, or maybe even the self contained habitat
designed to generate artificial gravity through that very rotation.
Speaker 1: Or what if? What if the object is natural rock
but it's been repurposed. How so, what if an advanced
civilization found a fast spinning object right near its theoretical limit,
and instead of just watching it disintegrate, they wrapped it
in an active energy field to stabilize it.
Speaker 2: Turning it into a protected observation post or relay station.
Speaker 1: Exactly, And this moves the whole conversation out of abstract
speculation and into hard observation. Unlike say, receiving a faint
radio signal that needs all this complex filtering and interpretation.
Speaker 2: An actively stabilized object that defines the laws of structural
failure is a physically manifested, hard piece of evidence of
advanced technology. It would mean we have found solid physical
proof of engineering operating within our own solar system, and.
Speaker 1: The philosophical fallout of that is immense. The question are
we alone would be instantly and violently answered. It would
demand immediate global scientific and political mobilization to figure out
the implications.
Speaker 2: The discovery of that kind of technology would forever change
humanity's perspective on its own place in the universe. Our
future technological development would be completely overshadowed by the sheer
scale of capability demonstrated by our cosmic neighbors.
Speaker 1: But I have to challenge that, just for a moment,
given the low probability of advanced technology just appearing in
our system, and given how vast the inniverse is, isn't
it statistically more likely, however improbable, that the material simply
exists naturally and we just haven't found it yet.
Speaker 2: And that's the core conflict. It's a healthy tension in
the scientific community. The sheer improbability of either scenario is
what makes this asteroid so compelling. I see, yes, the
universe holds infinite possibilities for material synthesis, but the engineering
hypothesis is supported by the fact that if natural material
with this strength did exist, we should be able to
identify its spectral signature, and so far the readings are
either inconclusive or they point to a structure we just
can't explain.
Speaker 1: So one theory requires overturning decades of solid state physics.
Speaker 2: And the other requires overturning our fundamental assumptions about life
in the cosmos. Both are monumental shifts.
Speaker 1: It truly is an incredible binary choice. Either the universe
is hiding materials we can't even imagine, or there are
engineers out there who can manipulate forces we can even comprehend.
So let's just try to synthesize this. The core conflict
presented by this cosmic rebel is that it demands we
accept one of two monumental truths.
Speaker 2: There's no middle ground.
Speaker 1: Either the laws governing cosmic materials are profoundly incomplete, forcing
us to rewrite our textbooks on chemistry and structural integrity,
or we have stumbled upon undeniable evidence of advanced engineering
operating actively right here in our solar system.
Speaker 2: This is so much more than just an astronomical curiosity.
This is a moment where direct confirmed observation is in
direct contradiction with established theory and when theory and observation diverged.
This dramatic it signals a crisis in our understanding.
Speaker 1: But also a massive opportunity.
Speaker 2: A massive, once in a generation opportunity for discovery. This
object demands immediate, intense scrutiny because either explanation fundamentally changes
the scientific trajectory for all of humanity.
Speaker 1: If the answer is the material science rewrite, we gain
the blueprint for the strongest known matter in the universe
that would revolutionize technology here on Earth.
Speaker 2: And if the answer is engineered hardware, we gain the
certainty of cosmic neighbors and potentially key insights into their
mastery of fundamental forces.
Speaker 1: The stakes, both scientifically and philosophically, are as high as
they can possibly get. This object refuses to fail, and
in its refusal, it forces us to confront limits we
thought were absolute, perfectly se and so it leaves us
and you the listener, with a crucial final thought to
ponder if you had to bet everything, your reputation, your career,
your understanding of reality on one explanation right now, the
discovery of a fundamentally new natural super material or the
existence of engineered, actively maintained hardware, which one would you
choose and why?
Speaker 2: And think about the societal fallout of confirming each one?
Would the scientific excitement of discovering a new material outweigh
the existential shock of knowing we share this cosmic neighborhood
with a civilization far superior to our own.
Speaker 1: We want to hear your stand your thoughts, and your
theories on this thrilling thread. Jump into the comments and
let us know what you think. This impossibly spinning rock
is truly made of