Avi Loeb makes stuff up about another space rock

3I/ATLAS

Avi Loeb, the ridiculous Harvard astronomer who claimed that the interstellar object ʻOumuamua was a technological artifact, has battened on a different rock that was discovered in July called 3I/ATLAS as the object of his alien fantasies. He’s published his explanation in an in-house journal (which is not peer-reviewed) in a paper titled Is the Interstellar Object 3I/ATLAS Alien Technology?. The answer is “no”, but Avi really wants it to be “yes.” To give him a chance to make his argument, here’s the abstract.

At this early stage of its passage through our Solar System, 3I/ATLAS, the recently discovered interstellar interloper, has displayed various anomalous characteristics, determined from photometric and astrometric observations. As largely a pedagogical exercise, in this paper we present additional analysis into the astrodynamics of 3I/ATLAS, and hypothesize that this object could be technological, and possibly hostile as would be expected from the ’Dark Forest’ resolution to the ’Fermi Paradox’. We show that 3I/ATLAS approaches surprisingly close to Venus, Mars and Jupiter, with a probability of ≲ 0.005%. Furthermore the low retrograde tilt of 3I/ATLAS’s orbital plane to the ecliptic offers various benefits to an Extra-terrestrial Intelligence (ETI), since it allows the object access to our planet with relative impunity. The eclipse by the Sun from Earth of 3I/ATLAS at perihelion, would allow it to conduct a clandestine reverse Solar Oberth Manoeuvre, an optimal high-thrust strategy for interstellar spacecraft to brake and stay bound to the Sun. An optimal intercept of Earth would entail an arrival in late November/early December of 2025, and also, a non-gravitational acceleration of ∼ 5.9 × 10−5 au day−2, normalized at 1 au from the Sun, would indicate an intent to intercept the planet Jupiter, not far off its path, and a strategy to rendezvous with it after perihelion.

The paper is full of the technical details about the orbital mechanics of this object. It’s unpleasantly dry and boring, with occasional insertions of his wild speculations. Fortunately, he also has a blog post titled Is the Interstellar Object 3I/ATLAS Alien Technology? which is enriched for the Loeb lunacy, so I’ll mainly write about that.

Finding a big rock or comet of interstellar origin is not a revolutionary discovery — it’s interesting, but not something that is necessarily indicative that aliens are hitching a ride on it. His justification for suggesting that it’s an alien artifact are tenuous and based entirely on speculations about its trajectory. For instance, it’s approaching on roughly the ecliptic plane.

The retrograde orbital plane (defined by the orbital angular momentum vector) of 3I/ATLAS around the Sun lies within 5 degrees of that of Earth — the so-called ecliptic plane. The likelihood for that coincidence out of all random orientations is 0.2%.

So it’s unlikely that a rock flying through interstellar space would have the particular approach angle that this one has. But wouldn’t any specific trajectory be unlikely? So what?

Another coincidence is that it’s going to pass sorta close to Venus, Mars, and Jupiter.

For its orbital parameters, 3I/ATLAS is synchronized to approach unusually close to Venus (0.65au where 1au is the Earth-Sun separation), Mars (0.19au) and Jupiter (0.36au), with a cumulative probability of 0.005% relative to orbits with the same orbital parameters but a random arrival time.

Therefore it might be a probe that’s sent here to inspect the planets. It’s checking us out!

You might be thinking that zooming by Venus, Mars, and Jupiter is fine, but what about Earth? It’s not coming anywhere near us, which is evidence that it is a probe.

3I/ATLAS achieves perihelion on the opposite side of the Sun relative to Earth. This could be intentional to avoid detailed observations from Earth-based telescopes when the object is brightest or when gadgets are sent to Earth from that hidden vantage point.

So it’s checking us out, but specifically avoiding being detected by us. Convenient.

But the aliens must be fascinated by us! So he postulates that 3I/ATLAS will fire up its engines and change its trajectory out of our sight, on the other side of the sun, so it can intercept the Earth.

The near alignment of the retrograde trajectory of 3I/ATLAS with the ecliptic plane offers various benefits to an extraterrestrial intelligence, since it allows a spacecraft to access Earth with relative impunity. The eclipse of 3I/ATLAS by the Sun at perihelion for observers at Earth, would allow a spacecraft to conduct a clandestine reverse Solar Oberth maneuver, an optimal high-thrust strategy for interstellar spacecraft to brake and stay bound to the Sun. An optimal intercept of Earth would entail an arrival in late November or early December of 2025. Detection of a non-gravitational acceleration could also indicate an intent to intercept Jupiter, not far off the path of 3I/ATLAS, and a strategy to rendezvous with it after perihelion.

Note that this kind of maneuvering would suggest that 3I/ATLAS is an alien artifact, but it has not been observed. He can’t use a hypothetical motion that has not been seen as evidence that the object is capable of maneuvering. All of his evidence that 3I/ATLAS is an artifact is about remarkable changes in trajectory that have not been observed.

He has NOTHING to support his hypothesis that 3I/ATLAS is alien technology! The idea is that if it suddenly changes its path and approaches Earth, then it must be driven by some novel propulsive force. And, yeah, if a bunch of little green men pop out of it and use flying saucers to visit us, then at last Avi Loeb will be vindicated.

But of course, he does not predict that.

Our paper is contingent on a remarkable but testable hypothesis that 3I/ATLAS is a functioning technological artifact, to which I and my two co-authors do not necessarily ascribe.

So he does not predict that, but if it happens, he’s staking his claim on it. Very cheesy. He’s going to have a future as a television psychic, vague and making predictions so broad that they can cover all eventualities.

But there’s more! He wants us to prepare for the alien invasion!

1. The consequences, should the hypothesis turn out to be correct, could potentially be dire for humanity, and would possibly require defensive measures to be undertaken (though these might prove futile).

2. The hypothesis is an interesting exercise in its own right, and is fun to explore, irrespective of its likely validity.

He doesn’t actually believe 3I/ATLAS is an alien artifact, but we’d better start preparing defensive measures (what would those be, I wonder? Like maybe back in the 15th century someone should have suggested to the native Americans to prepare defensive measures.)

And no, it’s not an interesting exercise. He also admits that his speculation are a pedagogical exercise, and that it is probably just a comet.

Our paper is largely a pedagogical exercise, with interesting realizations worthy of a record in the scientific literature. By far, the most likely outcome will be that 3I/ATLAS is a completely natural interstellar object, probably a comet, and we await the astronomical data to support this likely origin.

He went ahead and spread his unfounded hyperbole, though. The story has made it to the NY Post, and you can guess what the headline was: ‘Possibly hostile’ alien threat detected in unknown interstellar object, a shocking new study claims.

I have to give some credit to the NY Post, though — they actually talked to real astronomers and got their opinion of Loeb’s hypothesis.

“All evidence points to this being an ordinary comet that was ejected from another solar system, just as countless billions of comets have been ejected from our own solar system,” added Samantha Lawler, an astronomer at the University of Regina in Canada who studies solar system dynamics, Live Science reported.

“Astronomers all around the world have been thrilled at the arrival of 3I/ATLAS, collaborating to use advanced telescopes to learn about this visitor,” Chris Lintott, an astronomer at the University of Oxford who helped simulate 3I/ATLAS’s galactic origins, told Live Science. “Any suggestion that it’s artificial is nonsense on stilts, and is an insult to the exciting work going on to understand this object.”

That ought to be the take-away on this story, that it’s “nonsense on stilts,” and it ought to diminish Avi Loeb’s already tattered reputation.

A racist, union-busting, back-stabbing thug died the other day

I don’t feel like commenting on his death, so I’ll let Andre the Giant speak for me.

ANDRE THE GIANT “I’don’t like to speak badly of people. I have grown up thinking and being told that if you cannot say something nice about someone, you should not say anything at all. But I must break that rule in this case because I hate Hulk Hogan very much. He is a big ugly goon and | want to squash his face.”

Enough said.

Nightmare scenario

There is an app called Tea which purports to be a tool to protect women’s safety — it allows women to share info about the men they’ve been dating.

Tea launched back in 2023 but this week skyrocketed to the top of the U.S. Apple App Store, Business Insider reported. The app lets women anonymously post photos of men, along with stories of their alleged experience with them, and ask others for input. It has some similarities to the ‘Are We Dating The Same Guy?’ Facebook groups that 404 Media previously covered.

“Are we dating the same guy? Ask our anonymous community of women to make sure your date is safe, not a catfish, and not in a relationship,” the app’s page on the both the Apple App Store and Google Play Store reads.

When creating an account, users are required to upload a selfie, which Tea says it uses to determine whether the user is a woman or not. In our own tests, after uploading a selfie the app may say a user is put into a waitlist for verification that can last 17 hours, suggesting many people are trying to sign up at the moment.

I’m already dubious — they use a photo of the applicant to determine their sex? That’s sloppy, and I can see many opportunities for false positives and false negatives.

But that’s not the big problem. The Tea database got hacked…by 4chan.

Yes, if you sent Tea App your face and drivers license, they doxxed you publicly! No authentication, no nothing. It’s a public bucket, a post on 4chan providing details of the vulnerability reads. DRIVERS LICENSES AND FACE PICS! GET THE FUCK IN HERE BEFORE THEY SHUT IT DOWN!

Congratulations. Your personal info has just been delivered to the worst collection of slimy sleazebags on the internet.

I’m just shocked that this app went live without the most rigorous evaluation of its security. You’re collecting scans of driver’s licenses with selfie photos, with only the most rudimentary precautions? What else? Social security numbers, bank accounts?

Stephen Meyer is the guy in the red sweater

I’m sure we’ve all felt this way before — some smug know-nothing confronts you with a dilemma out of his own imagining, and then expects you to applaud and recognize the brilliance of his insight.

That guy in the red sweater is every creationist on the planet.

It’s amusing to imagine playing along, but even better is when a scientist replies with dumbfounded incredulity. I found an example of that, but I’m not going to address it myself, because it’s on the topic of physics and cosmology, and I have only a superficial knowledge of the subject, so I’d only be able to say “I don’t know” if queried on the details. This video, Roger Penrose confronts creationist critic Stephen Meyer, is wonderfully satisfying.

Stephen Meyer is fond of pontificating on the origins of the universe, and he often claims that physicists like Hawking and Penrose are supporting his ideas about the Big Bang, and singularities, and fine tuning — it’s annoying because he doesn’t actually understand what he’s saying, but loves to quote sciencey-sounding fragments that make you think physics is pro-intelligent design. In that 20 minute video, they show clips of Meyer chattering about physics with Christian apologists like Sean McDowell, intercut with Roger Penrose replying.

He’s usually saying “that makes no sense” or “that’s wrong” before explaining what he actually wrote or discussing the details of his theory. I’m not going to discuss any of the details of Penrose’s CCC theory, because I’m afraid he’ll then turn around and make a video titled “Roger Penrose debunks biologist critic PZ Myers”. It could happen. Watch the whole video and see what you think.

Best outcome: Stephen Meyer shuts the fuck up and stops distorting Penrose’s physics.

P.S. Angela Collier rips into billionaires who think they can use AI to solve deep problems using “vibe physics”. It’s the same problem: poseurs who think they can skip all the hard work and math and go straight to their Nobel prize.

An exciting new opportunity!

I just got invited to join a site for “influencers”, and I’m so enthused. I never imagined that an OnlyFans-like site would send me a personal invitation to participate.

Hi PZ,

I’m reaching out on behalf of Top4Fans, a subscription-based platform that’s a strong alternative to OnlyFans. Our goal is to help you boost your earnings, save time, and benefit from personalized support tailored to your needs.

We’d love to offer you a custom collaboration, with the possibility of a paid partnership, depending on your profile and level of engagement.

I took a look at some examples from their site.

Should I join? Would you pay to subscribe to pictures of my feet or my tushie? I have some doubts.

I’m hoping for the death of the debate bro

I’ve long despised debate — if you’ve been here long you know how opposed I am to debate — and the recent debacles with the Jubilee channel, which invites one person to engage 20 people with an opposing ideology, has demonstrated how terrible this format is. It’s simply an opportunity to give idiots a platform and to promote bad ideas unfettered by constraints. I’m a broken record on this topic, but fortunately, Rebecca Watson can articulate why these people, and this concept, are awful.

One thing that annoyed me is that Rebecca got a copyright strike and had to edit out a segment showing the one apparently honest attempt at communication within the debate. So much for Jubilee just encouraging the free expression of ideas! They’re a machine using controversy to generate clicks.

Transvestigators are nuts

And Candace Owens is their queen. This is an unbelievable claim from a person who has been spiraling into lunacy for a long time.

In March, conservative commentator Candace Owens revived an absurd conspiracy theory with a YouTube video titled “Is France’s First Lady a Man?” according to the complaint.

Promoted widely on X, Owens said the conspiracy theory was, “likely the biggest scandal in political history.”

Wait, wait. I’m not giving her wacky claim an ounce of credibility — I’ll trust what Brigitte Macron and her husband say over a pronouncement from a notorious Internet wackaloon — but even if it were true, so what. There’s nothing criminal, scandalous, or illegal about a trans woman in politics. It is scandalous that Candace Owens is fine with making random accusations.

Since then, Owens has produced numerous videos about Brigitte Macron for her nearly 4.5 million YouTube subscribers, including a multi-part series called “Becoming Brigitte.”

The lawsuit further claims she has also sold merchandise promoting the claim.

She’s pumping out multiple videos on this topic? That’s a “you” problem, Candace, you’re obsessed.

The Macrons have already provided lots of evidence that Brigitte is a woman. Shouldn’t the fact that she gave birth to three children be enough to satisfy even the wackiest transvestigator? Time for a legal solution.

The Macrons are seeking punitive damages against Owens and her business entities for 22 counts of defamation, false light, and defamation by implication, the statement said.

Clare declined to say the amount of money the Macrons would seek but warned that if Owens continues to double-down on the claim, “it’ll be a substantial award.”

I hope this bankrupts Candace.

Snack time!

When I was a kid, I would park myself in my grandmother’s vegetable garden and snarfle my way down the rows, eating the carrots and peas like some gigantic verminous pest. My wife planted peas in our garden just for me, and the first pods were ready for eating.

Mmmmm. Peas. A glorious vegetable.

Conservative pundits have no clue about academia

Could someone explain to me how Marc Andreesen has so much clout? Everything I’ve ever read by him says he’s a flaming goofball and wanna-be fascist. Here he is expounding on academia.

“The combination of DEI and immigration is politically lethal,” Andreessen wrote. “When these two forms of discrimination combine, as they have for the last 60 years and on hyperdrive for the last decade, they systematically cut most of the children of the Trump voter base out of any realistic prospect of access to higher education and corporate America.”

So he is afraid that the white children of Trump voters, a notoriously ignorant group that hates education (especially secular education), is being displaced from educational opportunities by ambitious immigrants and go-getter minorities. This is a non-issue. We’re supposed to prioritize lazy students (or to be fair, students who have been deprived of a good basic education by America’s fucked-up public education policy) over students who are willing to work hard because their parents voted for Trump? What an insane proposal.

As usual, this the dream of freaked out conservatives who think student radicals are dictating the course of higher education. Somehow these kooks get all kinds of mainstream coverage, despite the fact that their beliefs are entirely counter to facts and reason. As Henry Farrell says

…most mainstream American commentary about free speech in the modern American university labors under a misconception. It regularly suggests that out of control students and crazy professors are running the place. There is an entire intellectual industry of centrist and conservative commentary driving this narrative, including people like Bari Weiss, the proprietor of the Free Press, who made her bones by working with The David Project to attack Columbia professors for purported anti-Semitism. Marc Andreessen claims that “politically radical institutions” are driving a leftward shift by teaching students “how to be America-hating communists.”

Anyone who has day-to-day experience with actual American students knows that these claims are complete horseshit. Some students are left, some moderate, some conservative. Most are more interested in getting jobs than burning flags. America-Hating Communism 101 is not, actually, a required course on most campuses. Econ 101 often is. And those who are protesting what Israel is doing in Gaza? They have something to protest.

I know my students, and they’re diverse and you can’t pigeonhole them into the caricatures Weiss and Andreesen have fabricated. These students are here to learn — or to get certified for a better job — and they definitely do not sign up for a buttload of debt and years of work so they can tear down the establishment. What happens is they get into an environment where they are expected to pay attention to the world, and history, and politics, and they are outraged, honestly and righteously. You can’t change this, unless you think the university should be a propaganda mill that refuses to represent reality. It’s also the case that even if the student body was full of bomb-throwing radicals, it wouldn’t matter, because they don’t control our curriculum, and they don’t even control our big money investments, or the appointments of our faculty and administrators.

Ideally, I consider the students to be the voice of the university’s conscience, which is all too often ignored.

If you think students and a radical faculty are in charge, look at this news from Duke University.

Duke University School of Medicine (SOM) plans to implement new faculty productivity guidelines that would tie tenured professors’ salaries to external research funding, according to documents reviewed by The Chronicle.

Set to go in effect in 2026, the proposed policy would apply to the school’s basic science units, which include departments ranging from biochemistry to neurobiology and various centers and institutes such as the Duke Cancer Institute and the Duke Human Vaccine Institute. These units rely heavily on grants from the National Institutes of Health, which have been increasingly difficult to come by due to slowdowns in grant review processes, an uptick in terminations and a lack of new funding opportunities since President Donald Trump assumed office.

Under the guidelines, each department must establish a minimum expectation for external grant funding. Tenured faculty members who do not meet the threshold — measured as a three-year average — would be given the option to either enter a 12-month “Safe Harbor” period, after which further inability to meet productivity standards will result in salary reductions, or consider career transition alternatives.

I guarantee you that the faculty did not approve massive salary cuts, tied to getting grants at a time when the government is destroying the apparatus of grant disbursement. This was a decision made in contradiction to faculty interests.

Farrell also made this lovely table that compares the perceived hierarchy of power within academia to the actual, little known (to the public, or to asshole pundits like Andreesen and Weiss) hierarchy.

I guess I’m at about level 4 in the distribution of power at the university, and even that’s misleading. If we were to plot the influence quantitatively, we’d have to use a power law distribution. Everything is in the hands of the board of trustees. Even where we faculty have some say in decisions, we can be overruled by the Board. Tenure, for instance, is proposed by faculty, but then has to be approved by the president, who then passes on the nomination to the Board, who can kill the idea without anything like a hearing or a discussion from the affected parties.

And students? Hah. Sorry. If students want to affect the administration of the university, they have to SCREAM and take over buildings and do all the things conservative hate, because they have no other options.

Am I a conspiracy theorist now?

I hate it, but this Epstein story is destroying my confidence in government, which was already in tatters by Trump’s election. Now Mike Johnson has shut down the house of representatives early, sending everyone home for an early vacation, in order to prevent a vote to release the Epstein files? That’s a blatant coverup. The secrets are dribbling out…now we learn that Trump is mentioned many times in the files, but we don’t know the context.

It’s also raising questions we should have considered long ago. How did Epstein transition from high school teacher to billionaire with a private plane and his very own island? Personally, I’d like to know how to do that, but if it involves sex trafficking I’ll pass. Is the market for young girls that lucrative? Who is buying that access?

I’m also wondering if giving someone a billion dollars flips a switch in their brain and turns them into predators on children, or if being a predatory pedophile makes it easier to become a billionaire. Either way, it’s another reason to outlaw billionaires.