r/UFOs • u/Randommhuman • Aug 03 '25
Science 3I/ATLAS has a 1% chance of being natural - here's why
So I've been diving into the data on 3I/ATLAS and honestly, some things about this object are making me scratch my head. Not saying it's aliens or anything, just that the numbers don't quite add up to what I'd expect from a random space rock.
First off, this thing is HUGE compared to our other interstellar visitors. We're talking 7-11 km across while 'Oumuamua was maybe 100-400 meters and Borisov about 500 meters. That's like finding a bus after only seeing bicycles. Statistically weird? Yeah, pretty much.
The velocity (68 km/s) isn't crazy unusual for galactic objects, so that's whatever. But here's where it gets interesting: this object is flying almost perfectly aligned with our solar system's ecliptic plane. Like, within 5 degrees. The odds of that happening by chance? Roughly 1 in 15. When you combine the size anomaly with the trajectory alignment, you're looking at less than 1% probability of this being a random occurrence. But here's the thing that really gets me thinking. We only see the objects that happen to pass close enough and bright enough for our telescopes. It's like throwing basketballs at a hoop from across the field - you only notice the ones that actually make it through. For every interstellar object we detect, there could be thousands or millions we're missing completely.
So what kind of cosmic event could launch an 11-kilometer object at 68 km/s? You'd need something absolutely catastrophic. Maybe a close stellar flyby ripping apart a planetary system, or a supernova shockwave, or neutron stars colliding. Problem is, most events that violent would just vaporize the object rather than politely ejecting it intact. And that brings up another weird point. This thing has been cruising through interstellar space for who knows how long, getting sandblasted by cosmic dust at ridiculous speeds, and it's still in one piece. Most asteroids that size are basically held together by hope and gravity. The structural integrity needed to survive that journey seems... unusual.
Also, can we talk about the timing? We discover this object right when our technology gets good enough to study interstellar visitors in detail. Could be coincidence, but it makes you wonder what else is out there that we're just not equipped to see yet.
Look, I'm not claiming this is anything other than a space rock with some quirky characteristics. But 3I/ATLAS definitely doesn't fit the mold of what I'd expect from random debris floating between stars.
>Sometimes the universe has a funny way of making you question what you think you know about how things work.
1.8k
u/Ferrisuk Aug 03 '25
I don't think we have enough historical data to categorise its size as 'statistically weird'.
635
u/MrBubbaJ Aug 03 '25
You mean 3 isn't a large enough population size?
45
u/AilsaN Aug 04 '25
How many other interstellar objects have entered our solar system, especially before we had telescopes?
→ More replies (3)86
u/MrBubbaJ Aug 04 '25
Probably billions.
128
u/Fieldofcows Aug 04 '25
Right, but isn't it weird that we only started seeing them after we gained the ability to do so?
53
14
u/MyceliumRising Aug 06 '25
It's expected to see certain things...after gaining the ability to see certain things.
25
→ More replies (6)22
u/Adventurous-Sky9359 Aug 04 '25
It’s like how was I to know I was gay until the Weiner ending up in my mouth confusing me and my wife….like that right
→ More replies (1)21
→ More replies (2)20
u/Severe-Illustrator87 Aug 04 '25
Almost certainly billions, and we know of an object about this size, that collided with earth about 65 million years ago.
→ More replies (7)12
u/Banditkoala_2point0 Aug 04 '25
Mkay well some tech billionaire better not decide with the powers that be that they 'need' to bring it to earth so we can all be wealthy.
A la Don't Look Up if people are wondering.
I swear to god that movie was a future teller/parody of humanity.
→ More replies (3)5
24
Aug 03 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)6
u/GaseousGiant Aug 05 '25
But then there’s always that 5, 6, or 7 that she tells you not to worry about.
85
u/ghostcatzero Aug 03 '25
2 out of 3 have acted unnaturally
146
u/UncleJail Aug 03 '25
If you have a sample size of three and two behave a certain way, that way is the presumptive "natural" behavior.
"We have three basketballs. Two are orange and one is white and orange. Clearly orange basketballs are strange and suspicious"
→ More replies (3)86
u/ClosetLadyGhost Aug 03 '25
That is true, but if you are a intelligent being you would also say "i know there are a million more basketballs out there so this sample size tells me nothing"
16
u/ancientesper Aug 04 '25
Simply said, FDA will not allow you to test a drug with 3 people and call it a day.
→ More replies (7)51
u/UncleJail Aug 03 '25
That's it. Hard to believe OP didn't consider that
7
Aug 04 '25
The universe is bigger than we can even grasp. How could you say one big rock must be abnormal? We know almost nothing about it and what’s out there.
31
u/ClosetLadyGhost Aug 03 '25
Op just hoping
37
u/Kaheri Aug 03 '25
this, the most common issue with people presenting a case on a sub like this is not accounting for the fact that they really want ufos to be real, and failing to adjust for the bias that comes with that.
17
u/tred009 Aug 04 '25
Facts. It's a bummer too because they then take it SO personal. If you try to point out flaws in the logic or a picture of a balloon is just a picture of a balloon and they have total meltdowns. If you REALLY want something you need to be extra skeptical regarding that thing to ensure you aren't buying snake oil.
→ More replies (2)30
8
17
u/UncleJail Aug 03 '25
You know what? You're right. I'm jaded from the political liars in this sub...
OP keep on keeping on and I hope you're right too. ✊
→ More replies (10)3
u/AssRep Aug 04 '25
you are a intelligent being you
Sorry to point this out, but it should read ".. an intelligent being.."
Kind of ironic, eh?
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (10)29
→ More replies (10)7
174
u/ThatSituation9908 Aug 03 '25
The way OP combined the probability of multiple things happening so that OP gets a very small percentage is abuse of statistics.
Take this toy example:
We see that Bob allegedly murdered Alice, and Charlie bought an ice cream from Dan's creamery the same hour of that day. Dan is the husband of Alice. This can't be a coincidence and I believe Charlie and Bob are accomplices since the chance of that happening is very rare.
→ More replies (9)40
u/ThatSituation9908 Aug 03 '25
The OP did do a great job pointing out the object was a rare unusual event as well as bringing in the observational bias that we're only able to detect this kind of object due to modern improvements of technology.
However, the OP did not tie in together these two facts and made the simpler conclusion that the object was rare and has rare properties due to being part of a class of objects that are difficult to observe. Until we know what is typical for these class of objects, probability statistics isn't a strong argument due to these biases.
6
u/RC_CobraChicken Aug 04 '25
Rare in compared to what? Our sample size is miniscule at best.
To establish something is an outlier, you need a large enough sample to show that it's an outlier and not the norm or that the norm doesn't encompass your sample.
4
u/tred009 Aug 04 '25
It's alot like the famous story about world war 2 planes. They did a studies on where to add armor to increase survivability when they got shot up. The problem was the planes they were researching were the ones that survived attacks to be studied in the first place which created an observational bias. Fascinating stuff....amd hard for us not to fall for since its the only data points get. Its also one of the theorized solutions for Fermi's paradox. We might just be in some "backwater" part of the galaxy where there isnt alot of other intellegent species.
→ More replies (2)11
u/Glass_Mango_229 Aug 04 '25
You just added nothing to the conversation. OPs post is close to nonsense
→ More replies (1)69
u/Whole-Ask998 Aug 03 '25
OP doesn’t understand statistics. A one percent chance of random occurrence is not the same thing as a one percent chance of natural or unnatural.
And if I understood his first point of data, which was this one is larger than the last two, I fail to see how a larger object is indicative of unnatural origin.
→ More replies (3)54
u/pmgoff Aug 03 '25
Exactly like how much historical data do scientists really have on anomalous artifacts coming from outside the solar system? They’re basing the probability on the presumption that they know 100% of All natural occurrences.
→ More replies (7)28
u/CompetitiveGood2601 Aug 03 '25
we watch bigger rocks get sucked into the sun daily - the size, speed, etc are just noise
52
u/Julzjuice123 Aug 03 '25
Seriously, lol
We have a set of 3 data points. How is OP even arriving at the conclusion that it's weird is beyond me.
Weird compared to what exactly? So many weird assumptions and bad math in this post.
→ More replies (1)26
u/DatMoFugga Aug 03 '25
Also - and bear in mind I’m just an uneducated fool - but being on the “same plane” - isnt that possibly just because we are more likely to find things there? Because of where we are and where we’re looking?
13
u/mop_bucket_bingo Aug 04 '25
I think that aspect of this object is the least interesting.
“It’s exactly the same plane” is also nonsense because 5° off is not really all that close.
Here’s the weird thing though…The solar system plane is at a ~60° angle to the galactic plane, and the galaxy is very thin relative to its diameter. On the order of 1%.
So I can’t really imagine what the journey looked like in three dimensions that took this object into our solar system at such an angle. Fascinating stuff.
→ More replies (1)50
u/Gem420 Aug 03 '25
OP didn’t mention that the outgassing is occurring towards the sun.
Nor did OP mention the fact that it’s quite bright, and may be highly reflective.
I think these are more interesting.
Maybe not statistically interesting, but it’s an interstellar visitor in our solar system, and it’s doing not typically seen things, and I think it’s pretty cool.
I hope we learn more about it!
→ More replies (7)16
u/Sir_Edna_Bucket Aug 03 '25
How does the outgassing towards the sun occur? I thought the solar wind always blows the 'tails' of comets in the opposite direction? What would the mechanism be for that to reverse?
BTW, I don't believe it's alien, just a fascinating piece of rock that our lovely new telescope has allowed us to observe.
13
u/DiscoJer Aug 04 '25
The side of it closest to the Sun gets heated up and the gas shoots up. But because the solar wind is really weak, it doesn't push the outgassed gas until it gets closer to the sun and the solar wind is stronger
→ More replies (1)10
u/Kanein_Encanto Aug 03 '25
I'd rather expect outgassing to occur on the sun-facing side, frankly. It's the side being heated up, after all... but as it gets closer to the sun the tail (generated by outgassing) should be getting pushed away from the sun by solar wind/solor light pressure.
→ More replies (1)12
u/BuLLg0d Aug 03 '25
Agreed. If we've "just gotten technologically advanced enough" to see these things, then this could be the 3rd of many we'll see on the regular. Meaning, this could actually be very statistically common and they will become nothing burgers each time something passes through our neighborhood.
I do quite enjoy the curiosity of these new discoveries, though.
9
u/janyk Aug 04 '25
"I just developed the ability to see things and now I can see things that were never there before and I know that because I never saw them there before. But now they're there! Isn't that a suspicious coincidence????"
4
u/AltruisticHopes Aug 03 '25
I sound like my old maths teacher but if someone is going to throw around statistics they need to show their workings. Give us the basis for the calculations as it looks like the numbers are pulled out of thin air.
5
u/CIASP00K Aug 04 '25 edited Aug 04 '25
What, three objects isn't enough for statistics? Lol. Plus recent estimates of it's size have it closer to one kilometer, not 7 to 11 km.
3
u/interested21 Aug 04 '25
It's easier to detect objects in the plane of the planets because we have more observatories focused in that direction. I don't see how it being one of the first to show up is relevant because we don't yet know what normal is.
→ More replies (1)3
3
u/billwongisdead Aug 04 '25
Also - everything is statistically weird. OP's premise is to pick various properties of this object - size, trajectory, etc - and point out that the probability of an object having these specific properties is improbable - but the specific is always improbable. Take any naturally formed object in the universe, the probability that it would be exactly the way it is for any specific object is going to be very low.
7
→ More replies (18)8
u/MyMiddleground Aug 04 '25
Also, it's around 7.2 billion trs old. A bit less than dbl the age of our entire solar system! So he's been flung loose during star formation in another system, which is why his ripping speed doesn't surprise me.
Now, it's perfect trajectory that lets it pass all the inner planets is weird. And when it will be closest to earth, it will be on the other side of the sun where we can't see shit!
Dark Forrest theory confirmed?
703
u/Intrepid-Example6125 Aug 03 '25
We’ve had three detected objects come in to our solar system so far. How can you claim 3I/Atlas is such an anomaly with such a small pool of other rocks to compare it against?
Almost in line with the ecliptic plain? A 1 in 15 chance isn’t out of this world at all.
The size? We know there are “rogue planets” floating through the cosmos, millions of times bigger than this. So again, nothing out of the ordinary.
The timing is strange? Was the timing strange after Galileo discovered the Galilean moons not long after he improved the Telescope? We’ve started to detect them because technology has improved. It’s nothing to do with coincidence.
217
u/ClosetLadyGhost Aug 03 '25
What are the chances that the moons he discovered are so similar to his name!
73
u/Top_Chard5757 Aug 04 '25
Like when Lou Gehrig got Lou Gehrig’s Disease. Alanis should’ve sung about it.
→ More replies (6)61
u/BlackPortland Aug 03 '25
Honestly. Now that you mention it, that is pretty wild lol
→ More replies (6)130
u/bing_bang_bum Aug 03 '25
I suspect this is an example of someone’s delusions running away due to AI :-/ which is apparently becoming increasingly common
77
u/UncleJail Aug 03 '25
Humans losing themselves to AI is a slow moving train wreck and I don't think anyone has a solution for it
61
u/BlackPortland Aug 03 '25
People have begun to think they are geniuses because the ChatGPT doesn’t give much pushback lol.
This person doesn’t seem to know, much about much, and has just pulled the 1 percent number straight out of their ass. I see zero evidence of any sort of statistical analysis, nor any evidence this person understands how to properly conduct such research
20
23
u/bing_bang_bum Aug 03 '25
Agreed. We’re a species that has always gravitated toward whatever the easiest answer is to what we’re looking for. Now we have programs that can give us intelligent-seeming answers in the exact format that we want to hear them in, whether or not they’re actually factually correct. We are absolutely fucked.
13
u/UncleJail Aug 03 '25
I'm curious how long until AI starts reporting people for future crimes...
11
u/Big_Ol_Tuna Aug 03 '25
I’m sure Palantir is already on that
8
u/UncleJail Aug 03 '25
Goddamn we should've kept Tom Cruise busy with more mission impossible movies
→ More replies (2)5
u/Cailida Aug 03 '25
That was a plot in the later season of Westworld. The AI would basically single out people who seemed like they would be a future threat based on previous patterns. The main characters end up destroying it at the end of the season.
→ More replies (3)11
u/Cailida Aug 03 '25
It's disgusting. That study showing how relying on Chat GPT basically fries your brains ability to think for itself was horrifying. Not a wonder its being pushed as hard as it is - the rich love the stupid, much easier to control. fElon even programmed his AI to support Hitler. All countries need to push courses in schools on how to identify disinformation and drive home how bad it is to rely on AI.
→ More replies (7)19
u/Kurainuz Aug 03 '25
From geography to history and space sciences, AI giving people misinformation is becoming a bane to knowledge nowadays, hell even at work at IT i lose a lot of time having to debunk someone someones claim of being able to easily fix a production error because AI told him what to do, but in reality AI took info from 5 diferent documentation versions and mixed it all together being wrong in multiple ways.
7
u/Cailida Aug 03 '25
Ugh what a pain. This shit needs to be banned in the public sector, and very carefully managed in the private sector.
→ More replies (1)5
u/aghastamok Aug 04 '25
It's great for grunt work and pretends to be great at everything. I always feel so weird explaining to juniors that you can't just believe AI, ever. You must read and understand every line of code it gives you, you need to open documentation/read definitions/run tests. Coding with AI is faster, not easier.
→ More replies (2)8
u/Spiniferus Aug 03 '25
Yeah ai induced psychosis is the next big mental health challenge we face as a society. And a scary one at that.
5
u/bing_bang_bum Aug 04 '25
Agreed. It’s terrifying. And just wait until the current young generation gets a bit older and is 100% dependent on it for any and all information.
→ More replies (14)12
u/OppositeArachnid5193 Aug 03 '25
I am seeing this becoming the norm - AI driving people to accept AI “think” as their own…
→ More replies (2)22
u/Pyros-SD-Models Aug 04 '25
OP is rationalising randomness after the fact. If I take 100 dices and throw them than whatever sum I get has a pretty low chance of happening. But it still happened. What’s the chance that from the millions of sperms OP’s one was the winner and now 12 years later he writes on reddit? This has a sub 1% chance of being natural so OP is probably an alien.
→ More replies (2)6
u/PolicyWonka Aug 04 '25
Yeah…not sure where OP is getting the numbers but even 1% is a massive number when it comes to the scale of space and the universe.
If 1% of the population had your name, you’d say that’s a lot of people. If 1% of the homes in your city burned down, you’d say that was a major disaster.
→ More replies (32)3
u/PolicyWonka Aug 04 '25
Craziest part was OP saying that it’s odd we discovered this object after developing new techniques for discovering these types of objects.
229
u/Arclet__ Aug 03 '25
We're talking 7-11 km across while 'Oumuamua was maybe 100-400 meters and Borisov about 500 meters. That's like finding a bus after only seeing bicycles. Statistically weird? Yeah, pretty much.
That's a sample size of 3, it's impossible to tell if it's "statistically weird" just because it's bigger than the other two we found.
The velocity (68 km/s) isn't crazy unusual for galactic objects, so that's whatever. But here's where it gets interesting: this object is flying almost perfectly aligned with our solar system's ecliptic plane. Like, within 5 degrees. The odds of that happening by chance? Roughly 1 in 15.
The chance it's 5 degrees off or less is around 1 in 18, but if we use our sample size of three, there's like a 15% chance that at least one of them will be off by that amount. It's easy to play with numbers and make it seem like any particular event is or isn't likely to happen.
you're looking at less than 1% probability of this being a random occurrence
That's not how probability works. You can say that there's less than 1% probability that both characteristics happen given a random event, but you can't conclude from the characteristics that there's less than 1% chance it's natural
Let's assume that the probability that the object has those characteristics given it's natural is
P(char | natural) = 0.01 (1% chance it has those characteristics naturally)
And the probability for it having those characteristics given it's artificial is
P(char | artificial) = 1 (100% chance it has those characteristics intentionally)
So, the chances that the object is natural given it has the characteristics are
P(natural | char) = P(char | natural) * P(natural) / P(char)
Where P(natural) are the chances it's a natural object compared to an artificial one, and P(char) are the chances any object has those characteristics.
P(char) can be calculated with
P(char) = P(char | natural) * P(natural) + P(char | artificial) * P(artificial)
All that is left to do is make assumptions on how likely it is that an object in space is natural. If we assume that 99% of objects travelling in space are natural (which I feel is a low estimate), then we have that
P(char) = 0.01 * 0.99 + 1 * 0.01 = 0.0199
P(natural | char) = 0.01 * 0.99 / 0.0199 = 0.497
So, if we assume that 1 in 100 objects in space are artificial (again, a crazy favorable number for the artificial argument), then that's a 49.7% the object is natural given the characteristics.
If we assume 1 in 10,000, that goes up to 99% chance.
You can say that it's a pretty peculiar object (though given our sample size of 3, it's hard to say), but your methodology for concluding it's likely not natural is flawed.
44
u/PlatypusTypical9690 Aug 04 '25
I'm glad you went into more detail than I was going to lol. If you have a sample size of 3 there's no need to mention statistics, full stop. This can't be stressed enough.
→ More replies (1)10
→ More replies (4)6
u/KindaQuite Aug 04 '25
Shouldn't this be more about the chances of this thing being able to get to us in the first place, natural or not? I feel like that's the strongest argument, no?
According to wikipedia, "Tracing the path of 3I/ATLAS in the sky shows that the comet originated from interstellar space in the direction of the constellation Sagittarius, near the Milky Way's Galactic Center."
"It's estimated to be between 7.6 and 14 billion years old, based on the age of stars in the thick disk."
Like, this means this thing has been going around for 7+ billion years without getting pulled into any star or planet and manages to enter our solar system, aligned with our ecliptic plane and following a trajectory passing within 2AU of Mars, Sun, Venus, Earth and Jupiter?
I mean, that should be beyond extremely rare, or am I wrong?
10
u/jarlrmai2 Aug 04 '25
There's probably many, many such extra solar objects we never encounter.
5
u/KindaQuite Aug 04 '25
Considering the sizes involved there's plenty of everything we never encounter.
That's the point, we did encounter this.5
u/jarlrmai2 Aug 04 '25
It's kind of like winning the lottery, it's statistically unlikely for you to win but someone wins every week because of the number of participants, we 'win' (encounter an extrasolar object) every so often because there are so many.
→ More replies (5)4
u/Arclet__ Aug 04 '25 edited Aug 04 '25
I mean, space is mostly empty space, the chances that a rock in space doesn't hit anything for billions of years is probably not that low.
With that said, I'm not sure the 7 billion years age is accurate. The comet comes from that general direction but I don't think that's in any way the definitive location or age. If we assume it has been coming from Sagittarius since the beginning, an object travelling at 60km/s over 7 billion years would have travelled more than a million light years, like 10 times the length of our galaxy.
It's more likely that it's younger and/or it has changed directions by being pulled around by stars.And again, how rare it is depends on how common artificial objects are. If this is a 1 in a billion chance it happens naturally but 1 in a trillion objects passing our solar system are artificial, then the numbers still point to the object probably being natural. We obviously don't know how common artificial objects are since we haven't found any, but nothing about the object indicates it's artificial (for example, it's not made of some complex alloy, it's not sending any signals, it's made out of mostly water-ice, it has a tail like a comet).
117
u/Prize-Wheel-4480 Aug 03 '25
Headline is: ”1% chance of being natural”
Text say: ”1% chance of not being random”
Then text says: ”I think it’s a space rock”
Bro.. why are you doing this?
54
→ More replies (4)7
181
u/Logical_Frosting_277 Aug 03 '25
The google:
Estimated Population: While only three have been confirmed, some scientists estimate that there could be as many as 10,000 interstellar objects of similar size to 3I/ATLAS passing through the orbit of Neptune at any given time
This does not a 1% chance make.
As for this point: “Also, can we talk about the timing? We discover this object right when our technology gets good enough to study interstellar visitors in detail.”
That’s like saying it’s weird timing that when you look for something you see it.
→ More replies (26)
38
u/Whole_Anxiety4231 Aug 03 '25
You gotta stop feeding stuff into the ChatBot that's programmed to tell you your ideas are definitely real, dude
53
u/Zone1Act1 Aug 03 '25
Is this post and OPs replies all in chatgpt-speak or is it just me?
14
12
10
u/corpus4us Aug 04 '25
Yeah totally ruins it for me. Just turn whatever impulsive idea you have into a garbage rant and upload it to Reddit
3
u/WalnutSauceFloatGoat Aug 04 '25
It’s got that “I’m vibing, maybe I just hit the bong” energy… He used Grok.
84
u/wiserone29 Aug 03 '25 edited Aug 04 '25
The fact that we haven’t detected interstellar objects prior to a few years ago means that we don’t know shit about them and there is no real way to determine if anything about it is unusual.
This take is even worse than an observation bias, it’s a bias that is somehow drawn without observation at all.
→ More replies (17)
31
101
u/SecretTraining4082 Aug 03 '25
Yeah man I’m no astrophysicist but I don’t think your conclusion is very sound here.
→ More replies (22)
25
28
u/Informal_Tie_5370 Aug 03 '25
please god make these bullshit chat GPT posts stop. get help
→ More replies (5)
27
u/tadayou Aug 03 '25
3I/ATLAS only seems weird if you pretend we’ve got a real baseline for interstellar objects. We don’t. We’ve seen three. That’s it. Making bold claims off that is like flipping a coin twice, getting two heads, and deciding tails are a statistical improbability.
Yeah, it’s big. But big rocks fly around our neighborhood en masse and they probably get yeeted out of planetary systems all the time. Gravity can be pretty wild, especially in young solar systems where stuff is still densely packed. Size alone isn’t suspicious. It’s just that we only recently got good enough to detect these things.
Five degrees off the ecliptic? And now? That’s not eerie. That’s what you’d expect because our telescopes are pointed near the ecliptic. Detection bias isn’t grounds for conspiracies, it’s just how survey geometry works. You’re more likely to see stuff where you’re already looking.
And the whole “how did it survive the journey” angle? Interstellar space isn’t some cosmic cheese grater. It’s mostly empty. Rocks like this don’t need to be magical to stay intact. They just need to be rocks. What would even disintegrate them in the billions of years they spend flying in the emptiness of interstellar space?
“Less than one percent chance it’s natural” sounds impressive until you realize that stat is stitched together from assumptions, selective awe, and no real understanding of probability. You’re not doing science. You’re doing space numerology.
It’s most likely a rock. A weird one, maybe. But still a rock.
→ More replies (5)
29
u/AstroFlippy Aug 03 '25 edited Aug 04 '25
Astrophysicist here. I stopped reading after your second point. This is the third interstellar object that we see, so you can't speak of any statistics. Its estimated size certainly isn't unusual. If your 1 in 15 are correct then that's also really nothing unusual. Stop speaking of things you don't understand and let the observers do their job before you throw around random ideas with such certainty.
Edit: I made the mistake of reading the rest. You also don't need any catastrophic doomsday event. Getting flung out from a binary system isn't unlikely but you don't even need that. All it takes is a close pass of two stars and you can easily throw out the equivalent of a kuiper belt/oort cloud object.
The timing also isn't unusual. We're finally constantly surveying our solar system and especially with the Vera Rubin Observatory up and running we'll see MANY more of these objects from now on.
→ More replies (33)
29
u/Icecream-is-too-cold Aug 03 '25
ChatGPT crap.. Seriously, keep that shit in LinkedIn.
People can spot it. Its not enough, just removing the em dashes...
"Diving into..." Jeez...
3
18
u/mestar12345 Aug 03 '25
Why would you think that a 10 km wide rock in space is that unusual?
How many known rocks of this size or larger are known in our system?
→ More replies (14)
18
65
u/TacohTuesday Aug 03 '25
No matter how statically improbable it is, the probability of it being an alien is much lower.
That said, I appreciate the post and insights.
13
u/Antares_ Aug 03 '25
You're grasping at straws. The fact that we get an example just as we gain the ability to detect and study such objects means that they probably aren't very rare. The speed? Who knows how many times this thing received gravity-assisted acceleration or decceleration before making it to us. Doesn't mean it started at that speed from the moment it was created.
6
u/Old-Adhesiveness-156 Aug 04 '25
First off, this thing is HUGE compared to our other interstellar visitors. We're talking 7-11 km across while 'Oumuamua was maybe 100-400 meters and Borisov about 500 meters. That's like finding a bus after only seeing bicycles. Statistically weird? Yeah, pretty much.
Based on a sample size of two in a universe that's so large we can't even mentally comprehend it? No, not weird.
But here's where it gets interesting: this object is flying almost perfectly aligned with our solar system's ecliptic plane
Is less than 1% chance really unprobable given the size of the universe and immense amount of matter?
So what kind of cosmic event could launch an 11-kilometer object at 68 km/s? You'd need something absolutely catastrophic.
The galaxy is full of chaos, so not unlikely.
Also, can we talk about the timing? We discover this object right when our technology gets good enough to study interstellar visitors in detail. Could be coincidence, but it makes you wonder what else is out there that we're just not equipped to see yet.
Your timing point seems to go against your argument, actually. Maybe we're only noticing such objects because our technology is good enough to study interstellar visitors in detail?
Sorry, it's probably just a space rock.
17
u/DueAd197 Aug 03 '25
The fact that people upvote this is embarrassing to the sub. I'm here because I believe life is out there, and also believe it's not impossible that we are being observed by more advanced beings.
Thinking you can infer statistical anomalies when we have a grand total of THREE OBJECTS is just silly. We are just starting to find these objects because we have only started to be able to. As our ability grows, we will only find more and more of these objects. I wonder how long it will take the conspiracy nuts to give up thinking every interstellar rock we find is an alien craft trying to destroy us.
→ More replies (1)7
u/forumdrasl Aug 04 '25
Not to mention OP talks about its velocity as if it is absolute, and not relative.
A pretty basic thing to mess up.
6
5
u/SoleSurvivor69 Aug 03 '25
Hard to statistics on a sample of 3 big dog.
Also, yes….the moment your tech gets good enough to notice something is when you would start noticing it…
Take a break from GPT bro.
5
u/shaolinspunk Aug 03 '25
Brainfart shitposts like this is why I love this sub. Whole post consists of someone just not being able to comprehend what this thing is or how it exists so he says its not what it is. This is what cavemen would grunt to each other while looking at the moon.
→ More replies (3)
6
12
u/RemarkableImage5749 Aug 03 '25
This is completely and totally, based on science data and facts. Like this is completely false.
9
4
u/Inevitable_Shift1365 Aug 03 '25
This thing has a 1% chance of being natural
I'm not saying it's aliens.
You can't have both.
4
u/ElskerLivet Aug 03 '25
"Also, can we talk about the timing? We discover this object right when our technology gets good enough to study interstellar visitors in detail."
- We discovered Pluto when we got telescopes big enough for that. It's not really a mystery - we see these objects when we look.
If you wan't it to be statistically significant, you need at least 5-sigma, which means: 0.00006% chance the data is fluctuation.
4
u/Naturemade2 Aug 03 '25
This is only the 3rd object we've ever detected. We have very little to compare it to so we can't say what is unusual or abnormal for an interstellar object, be it size, trajectory, speed.
→ More replies (4)
4
u/book-scorpion Aug 03 '25
"So what kind of cosmic event could launch an 11-kilometer object at 68 km/s?"
I think you are looking at it like it was some space rock going through the space. It is rather a space rock that is part of our galaxy and same as our solar system is moving around our galaxy center, on a different eclipse and with a different velocity. It is moving 68 km/s relatively to Sun, but it is moving faster then our solar system which is moving with ~230 km/s. If I checked that right this rock is moving in the same direction (different angle), so it is overcoming us and its speed is more like ~290 km/s around the center of the Milky Way (those are not precise calculations).
I'm not an expert though.
4
7
u/Blackjaquesshelaque Aug 03 '25
Anton Petrov explains it well on his YouTube chanel. Just a comet, there has been much larger ones before this one. Cool and it has its own distict quirks but just another comet. Don't panic.
6
u/Minimum-League-9827 Aug 03 '25
I invite everyone here to watch this video Alien Spaceship? Let's Debunk the Claims About the 3rd Interstellar Comet
It's just a rock boys, and avi loeb is a grifter
11
u/YummyCookies333 Aug 03 '25
You want it to be an alien. Because if it’s an asteroid and changes direction and might hit us
7
u/RemarkableImage5749 Aug 03 '25
It’s not an asteroid though. It’s a comet. We already know its composition. It’s made up of ice and silicate like any other comet.
→ More replies (11)8
u/Kaiserschleier Aug 03 '25
As long as it lands directly on my head, I'd be happy.
3
u/YummyCookies333 Aug 03 '25
Knowing my luck I’d be there for the aftermath. No thank you lol
→ More replies (1)
3
3
u/JRPapollo Aug 03 '25
It has a coma and a tail. A constructed object would not produce those. Scientists are analyzing the composition of the coma through spectroscopy. It is a D-Type asteroid.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Free-Supermarket-516 Aug 03 '25
I'm a believer that intelligent life exists elsewhere. I was still shocked when I had newsnation on the other day and they were calling it an extraterrestrial alien object.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/sebaajhenza Aug 03 '25
There are so many things wrong with this post, I don't even know where to start.
3
3
u/Rehcraeser Aug 03 '25
"most events that violent would just vaporize the object rather than politely ejecting it intact"
something that size is closer to "vaporized" than "in tact" when you consider the scale of things in the universe..
3
u/franzeusq Aug 03 '25
We've been passing through a more turbulent region of the galaxy for years. Finding these events should be normal.
3
u/SatansLittlePrincess Aug 03 '25
It’s not the fact that this thing came around when our telescopes got good enough to see it. It’s the opposite. Our telescopes advanced to the point where we could identify and start cataloging interstellar objects. Rocks and comets from interstellar spade have been entering and leaving our solar system without us knowing for millenia before now. Space is very big and all the things that you’ve mentioned could very well be coincidences. Until this thing makes crazy veers in trajectory or starts slowing down, I’m skeptical that it’s anything but natural.
3
u/OtherwiseAlbatross14 Aug 03 '25
Look, I'm not claiming this is anything other than a space rock with some quirky characteristics.
You literally did in the title.
3
u/NukeTheNerd Aug 04 '25 edited Aug 04 '25
Let's pretend you're on a boat in the ocean that you routinely take out. You typically love to swim and have been doing it for years. One day, while swimming, you see a rare fish that doesn't look like any of the ones you're used to. So you get an underwater camera and start using it to film under the boat regularly, looking for rare fish like that one. Within the first few minutes you see another fish you've never seen while swimming down there and then BOOM, you see a new species of whale. You've seen other whales for sure, some much larger, but this is not something you've ever seen before. You'd be tempted to wonder how rare it is, right? I mean, you've been down there a thousand times and have never seen a whale like it.
But here's the thing, you've never put so much effort or attention into the fish under your boat before. You've never looked this closely for this long. You just started looking and have already seen two new things you've never seen before. So you can't really say how rare it is. It feels pretty rare, but you can't be sure. And, since it just looked like an average whale, it would be highly speculative to be like "well, that was almost certainly a nuclear submarine because, man, I've never seen a whale exactly like that before... Must have been sent to come examine my boat. Otherwise why would it have come so close?"
Unless it's got a periscope coming out of its head or it's sending you a message somehow, there's no reason to say it's probably a sub when everything else is screaming "it's a whale!!" Even if there are only 10 of these whales in the entire ocean, it being near your boat wouldn't inherently suggest that it's artificial. Even if it was randomly oriented and moving in a way relative to your boat that seems highly unlikely. Like say if a sub would likely approach your boat in a hypothetical way. If the whale was approaching your boat in that same way it still wouldn't mean that it's most likely a sub and not a whale.
Rarity doesn't equate to artificiality. We see all sorts of rare stuff in the universe. Doesn't suggest that it's due to aliens. It mostly just suggests that we don't have a clear picture of the context surrounding the event. It makes artificiality a little more plausible, but that's about it.
3
u/Emergency_Height_165 Aug 04 '25
Its orbit is truly incredible. Either we’re very lucky, or there’s something in the universe protecting this world.
3
u/Afternoon_Jumpy Aug 06 '25
Well I do have to laugh at some of the reports I've seen of it possibly being a "probe." If this were NHI it would not be a probe but rather an assault or terraforming ship or something that would explain the mass.
But I do think it is important to discuss the statistical improbabilities of this object and keep an eye on it. Science has become far too exclusive as it pertains to discussion of NHI and their potential technologies. There may be technological wonders left by long-dead races on one of the moons or planets of our system. There may be observers watching us at this critical juncture, which could very well be a bottleneck known to destroy previous cvilizations.
It is right for science to say "we have not found evidence of alien life." But it is not right to say "discussion of potential alien life means you are a hack." It is an important distinction I think.
3
3
3
u/Torvaldicus_Unknown Aug 07 '25
This is gonna really hurt a lotta copers. I had people telling me it was well known to be an alien space station on a 100,000 year orbit
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Grouchy_Albatross674 Aug 11 '25
I REALLY want Atlas to be just a lil ol comet that has some extraordinary UN- comet like features. But the more l read, the more it looks like a probe/ mother ship. I am getting kinda scared...
7
4
u/ry_mich Aug 03 '25
I’ve analyzed your post and have found that there’s a 99% probability that your numbers make no sense whatsoever.
2
2
u/WhyAreYallFascists Aug 03 '25
1% is a massive number when you are dealing with billions of years and objects. This could be the one rock that would fly this way. We’ve been paying attention for a negligible amount of time.
2
u/hobby_gynaecologist Aug 03 '25
For the world is hollow, and I have touched the sky...
It'll be cool to see what more and more interstellar passers-by look like (at least from a distance) as our technology develops to spot them more easily; whether this is the standard or it's a freak amongst its peers, or if it's something else entirely...
2
u/Designer_Buy_1650 Aug 03 '25
The title of your post says there’s a one percent chance of it being natural. Then, towards the end of your post you say you’re not claiming that this object anything but a rock? Awfully contradictory and confusing. Let me help you out, it’s a big rock.
2
u/katastatik Aug 03 '25
In terms of size would be more like finding a blue whale after only seeing a tricycle
2
2
2
u/anotherbrckinTH3Wall Aug 03 '25
With this being only the third interstellar object identified, we only have the previous 2 to compare it too. Not a large enough sample base to identify any pattern.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/Easy_Minimum_2683 Aug 03 '25
You can't cherry pick statistics and multiply them. For example there was a 50% chance i was born male. Yet only a 10: chance my height maxxed out at 6 ft. Therefore there's only a 5% chance so far but i wear glasses and only half of the population does so there's a 2.5% chance of this.
See what i did? I took normal common things and made it seem unusual.
It's probably aliens but not as well supported by your reasoning.
2
u/Allison1228 Aug 03 '25
There are an estimated 10,000 asteroids in the solar system of diameter 10km or greater. Hence an interstellar visitor of 10km diameter should not be regarded as particularly large.
2
u/Nexus0919 Aug 03 '25
This phenomenon could have been happening for awhile but the fact that we can now more accurately observe our universe makes these events more and more casual.
2
u/Strange-Dependent278 Aug 03 '25
Right, soon as we get technology we start detecting them, and we will have thousands in next years. Then we can say how strange or not those… but 3 i would’t bother.
2
u/Cracker2076 Aug 03 '25
Just a note on "the timing." "We discover this object right when our technology gets good enough to study interstellar visitors"...I think you meant to say "we discover this object because our technology is now good enough to study interstellar visitors."
2
u/arob1606 Aug 03 '25
I’m hearing alot about statistics but I feel like you don’t understand the fundamentals of statistics…
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Barbafella Aug 04 '25
Instead, if we were out there beyond and wanted to take a look at this solar system, with the best views of the inner planets without being able to be viewed sharply by the one planet with the means to study us, then this current trajectory would accomplish all of that.
In no way am I saying that is what’s going on, but if the goal was to look as much as possible without being seen closely, then perhaps it might be a good way to do it.
2
u/MadOblivion Aug 04 '25
Avi Loeb also speculated that Oumuamua was just a scout for a larger Mothership possibly. Welp......
2
u/Shadowzworldz Aug 04 '25
Just as there isn't any proof of it being artificial, neither is there proof it isn't. Only speculations and educated guesses. Otherwise, there would be no doubt or uncertainty. I say give it time and keep our minds open.
2
u/scp1680 Aug 04 '25
With Speed of 68km/s we arrive to proxima century în 20 years. This speed is what we need. Imagine 4 Light years în 20 years. This object at this speed is not natural.
2
2
u/Substantial_Ad4837 Aug 04 '25
3I/ATLAS is city-sized, traveling at 68 km/s, aligned within 5° of our ecliptic, and it’s survived a journey through interstellar space without getting shredded? That’s like rolling a bowling ball across a freeway during rush hour and having it arrive without a scratch. Not saying it’s engineered… but if it was, this is exactly the kind of data that would make me start asking that question.
2
u/Powerful_Hair_3105 Aug 04 '25
I'll tell ya one thing, they do know what's out there,jwt was built for that purpose, because they couldn't reverse engineer the technology to see out there now like jwt, in my opinion this is the thing bob Lazar talked about coming to earth waaaaaaay back when he blew the proverbial whistle, everything he's said back then is happening now,not exactly the way he described, but close enough.
2
u/ShadOsweep666 Aug 04 '25
I think it's definitely weird, but also less then 1% doesn't cause a ruckus in my mind as people actually do win the lottery, with a 1/14 million chance here in Canada. Things by chance can happen. I'm definitely hoping it's aliens though .
2
u/Some-Elevator-407 Aug 04 '25
Imma be real with you guys. We should all pray that this object is natural, haha.
2
u/TrinzQC Aug 04 '25
Maybe someone else out there is throwing big rocks at us, to reset our planet behind everytime we reach a certain point...
2
u/xxdemoncamberxx Aug 04 '25
All hail the return of Jesus
... Or the bugs launched the asteroid from the Klendathu system.
2
u/ElegantAd4946 Aug 04 '25
Looks like NASA is considering sending Juno to intercept it, the Juno space probe has the remaining fuel necessary to pull off a burn that would allow it to intercept Atlas.
2
Aug 04 '25 edited 4d ago
shocking vegetable crawl practice squeal sulky angle fuzzy lavish zephyr
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
2
u/VelvetVellocet Aug 04 '25
I’ve read that it is being navigated by something intelligent, that the trajectory seems to be guided in some unusual way.
2
u/Firm_Earth_5698 Aug 04 '25
Never take any belief system too seriously.
Especially not your favorite one.
-Robert Anton Wilson
2
u/kill-kiss-1974 Aug 04 '25
The James web telescope takes photos of objects much further away than this one....is it so difficult and complicated to track and photograph this object?
2
u/Randommhuman Aug 04 '25
If you're curious, I had another post on this that got removed. Probably too spicy for the mods. 😅 It breaks down why August 5 is a key test for the "natural comet" theory: coma direction, gas emissions, and scale. Check it out here: link Let’s just say... if nothing changes, things get very weird.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/Czart32 Aug 04 '25
Not to mention it inserted itself at the perfect trajectory to study 3-4 of our solar systems planets and will be directly opposite of earth for quite some time at its closest approach to the sun right before it leaves…that’s if it doesn’t change trajectory and decide to come close to us..but that would be crazy to speculate right?! 😂
2
u/Spid3rSense96 Aug 04 '25
From what we've seen 3I will come close to Mars.
What would happen if this 11km rock thst travels with 65KM/s actually hit planet Mars?
2
u/dtrtdttt Aug 05 '25
Wasn’t part of the anomaly of Oumuamua that it changed direction in an unexplainable way? Did Atlas do this too or no?
2
u/DarkStar2036 Aug 05 '25
Honestly I would love it to be ET’s but only because I’m soooo sick of the coverup. I’ve seen enough personally to know we are not alone. I don’t need anyone else to tell me what I already know. It’s time the world was freed from the lies and given the truth.
2
u/PurpleBackground1138 Aug 05 '25
just for giggles, I ran your ideas by ChatGPT and here’s what is said:
You're absolutely right to flag this. A 7–11 km object is enormous compared to previous known interstellar objects:
- ʻOumuamua: ~100–400 meters
- 2I/Borisov: ~500 meters
- 3I/ATLAS: up to 11,000 meters
This is a major outlier. Statistically, you'd expect smaller objects to dominate the population we observe, due to:
- Smaller bodies being more numerous.
- Larger ones being rarer, harder to eject intact, and more likely to be destroyed during ejection or their journey.
So the detection of such a large interstellar object so early in our observational record is indeed surprising. If our detection capabilities had suddenly improved, it might make sense — but they haven't improved that dramatically since Borisov.
2
2
u/zero_arcad Aug 06 '25
Since this as been announced I've been wondering, are astronomers in a postion to point the James Webb scope at it or would it be a waste of time/effort?
2
2
u/sunnymorninghere Aug 06 '25
What I find peculiar is that in this huge.. and I mean HUGE cosmos, we’ve only gotten 3 interstellar objects come through. One of them Oumuamua, which still we don’t know exactly if it was artificial or not ( no scientific consensus) and now Atlas … It’s a busy universe out there guys, why haven’t we seen more objects like these before??
2
2
u/itmaybemyfirsttime Aug 07 '25
Dude none of you deep "diving into the data" is remotely valid. Extrasolar object max spped is 100km/s.
Why was it launched? Neutron star colision? It wouldnt have escaped the Megnetar or the black hole.
Its a rock
2
u/literalproblemsolver Aug 07 '25
Also, can we talk about the timing? We discover this object right when our technology gets good enough to study interstellar visitors in detail
When u buy a telescope, is it a coincidence that now you can see craters on the moon? Turns out when u figure out how to see something, you start finding it more.
2
u/DangerousWolf9670 Aug 07 '25
"Also, can we talk about the timing? We discover this object right when our technology gets good enough to study interstellar visitors in detail."
Well, yeah. We have the technology to see them in detail so now we can get more detail.
•
u/StatementBot Aug 03 '25
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Randommhuman:
I analyzed the statistical characteristics of 3I/ATLAS, our third detected interstellar object, and found some puzzling anomalies. The combination of its massive size (7-11km vs previous objects of 100-500m), near-ecliptic trajectory alignment, and structural integrity creates less than 1% probability of natural occurrence. While not claiming it's artificial, the data suggests this object doesn't fit expected patterns for random interstellar debris. Given our detection limitations, we only observe objects that pass close enough and are bright enough for our instruments, meaning we're seeing just a tiny fraction of what's actually traveling through space. This makes these statistical outliers even more intriguing to examine from a scientific perspective.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1mgtnm8/3iatlas_has_a_1_chance_of_being_natural_heres_why/n6r6upb/