https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-15269343/interstellar-visitor-mysteriously-SHRINKS-3i-atlas.html#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17625433084093&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fsciencetech%2Farticle-15269343%2Finterstellar-visitor-mysteriously-SHRINKS-3i-atlas.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5794643&forum_id=2Vannesa#49410236)

https://futurism.com/space/interstellar-object-3i-atlas-non-gravitational-acceleration

Last week, the object, which is now generally believed to be a comet, reached its closest point to the Sun, or its perihelion, brightening up at an unexpected rate and turning “distinctly bluer.”

And it may be getting a major boost that’s unaccounted for by the Sun’s gravitational pull as well. As NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory navigation engineer Davide Farnocchia detailed in a recently filed report, 3I/ATLAS is showing signs of “non-gravitational acceleration.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5794643&forum_id=2Vannesa#49410363)

Your brain = closed l00p of contradictions.

You then "lol@" the 13% ma$$ lo$$ figure.

Let me explain this $lowly, $o your primi$ed-addled cortex can proce$$ it:

**1.**

That 13% figure is the *minimum* ma$$ (a$ gas/du$t) 3I/Atlas would need to eject to explain the non-gravitational thru$t **JPL** (not Loeb, **JPL**) ha$ confirmed.

**2.**

A 13% ma$$ lo$$ i$ *cata$trophic\*. It would produce (and I quote the $cienti$ts you haven't read) "a very ma$$ive cloud of ga$ and du$t." It would have a tail $o bright it would be unmistakable.

**3.**

**THERE I$ NO TAIL.**

Thi$ i$ the entire fuckinckg paradox, you $impleton.

The object ha$ the *effect* (thru$t) of a ma$$ive comet, but *none* of the required *evidence* (the ma$$ive tail).

You're $o de$perate to avoid confronting the data that you had to invent a $trawman about an "alien $pacecraft" to mock, becau$e you are fundamentally incapable of under$tanding the $imple equation in front of you.

You conceded the entire argument in your fir$t $entence and were too den$e to even notice.

This i$ why you poa$t anonymou$ly. Ab$olute $tate.

-----

Here's a video further discussing the unusual properties of interstellar objects. [Interstellar Object Oumuamua]L https://www.google.com/search?q=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D5-8_n3aXGok

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5794643&forum_id=2Vannesa#49411237)

tl;dr when you look at new things, you're gonna see things you never saw before. Get used to it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5794643&forum_id=2Vannesa#49411279)

Let's di$$ect thi$ $tupidity, point by point.

**1.**

**Your Claim:** "whatever got blown off the comet... got blown off **before we detected it**"

**THE FACT$:**

The JPL analy$i$ from Davide Farnocchia *this week* confirmed **ONGOING, CURRENT** non-gravitational acceleration.

It'$ not a pu$h that happened in the pa$t, you ab$olute troglodyte. It's an *active thru$t* that i$ being mea$ured *right now* a$ it pa$$e$ the $un. The object i$ *currently* behaving anomalou$ly. Your "theory" i$ invalidated by the very fir$t data point.

**2.**

Your Claim:** "propel the comet outside the sun's orbit"

**THE FACT$:** It wa$ **NEVER IN THE $UN'S ORBIT.**

That i$ what the "I" in `3I/Atlas` $tand$ for. **INTER$TELLAR.** It'$ on a hyperbolic trajectory. It's a vi$itor. You don't even under$tand the ba$ic definition of the object you're trying to explain.

**3.**

Your Claim:**

"nearly everything... is going to be some SHOCKING new discovery... since Galileo"

**THE FACT$:** Thi$ i$ the lazie$t po$$ible cop-out. You are literally making the "Argument from Ignorance."

We have a control $ample. It's called `2I/Borisov`. It wa$ the *second* inter$tellar object, and it behaved **EXACTLY** like a normal comet. It had a tail. It followed the model.

`1I/'Oumuamua` did not. `3I/Atlas` i$ now *also* failing to follow the model, in the *exact $ame way* as Oumuamua (thru$t with no tail).

When Galileo $aw new "SHOCKING" $hit, he reported the data. The idiot$ *around* him—the historical equivalent of **YOU**—were the one$ $aying "it'$ probably ju$t a weird $pot on the len$" to avoid confronting what the data meant.

You are not the $keptic. You are the denier. You're $taring at a ma$$ive anomaly and plugging your ear$. Pathetic.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5794643&forum_id=2Vannesa#49411244)

But there are a trillion combinations of metal alloys that could be formed at any time anywhere in the universe. Imagine being dumb enough to think we've found them all and watched them all burn.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5794643&forum_id=2Vannesa#49411285)