Into the Impossible With Brian Keating - Avi Loeb Fights Back: Response to Brian Cox & the 3I/ATLAS Critics

Episode Date: November 15, 2025

Become a channel member to ask questions! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmXH_moPhfkqCk6S3b9RWuw/join Harvard astrophysicist Avi Loeb returns to break down the newest data on 3I/ATLAS, the interstellar object captivating the world — and triggering fierce debate among scientists. In this extended conversation, Loeb responds directly to recent public criticism from Brian Cox, Jason Wright, and others, clarifies what the data actually show, and explains why humility and open inquiry remain essential to the scientific method. The latest images of the interstellar object show a single intact body, a sunward jet, and energy requirements that challenge familiar comet models. These anomalies have ignited one of the most heated scientific debates of the decade. We explore the latest observations since 3I/ATLAS’ October 29 perihelion: • Why its jets, brightness, and spectral changes are so unusualt • What would distinguish natural sublimation from technological propulsiont • How its orbit, size, and mass budget challenge standard modelst • Why the public response matters for the future of sciencet • How criticism of scientific inquiry mirrors the historical treatment of Galileot Follow Avi's latest findings and discoveries here https://avi-loeb.medium.com/3i-atlas-is-still-a-single-body-with-a-sunward-anti-tail-after-perihelion-667fe41c0071 In this livestream, Avi will address: • Why the post-perihelion images complicate the natural-comet interpretationt • Whether a technological origin is still on the tablet • Why critics insist the anomalies are trivial — and why Avi argues they’re nott • How scientific consensus forms, breaks, and evolves under stresst • What the new mass-flux and energy calculations imply for 3I/ATLASt We’ll explore the science, the skepticism, and the stakes — and we’ll take live audience questions from channel members. Join our esteemed set of members here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmXH_moPhfkqCk6S3b9RWuw/join Whether you’re convinced, skeptical, or undecided, this is the conversation the public deserves: open, rigorous, and unfiltered. 📚 Get a copy of my books: Think Like a Nobel Prize Winner, with life changing interviews with 9 Nobel Prizewinners: https://a.co/d/03ezQFu My tell-all cosmic memoir Losing the Nobel Prize: http://amzn.to/2sa5UpA The first-ever audiobook from Galileo: Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems: Ptolemaic and Copernican https://a.co/d/iZPi9Un Follow me to ask questions of my guests: 🏄‍♂️ Twitter: https://twitter.com/DrBrianKeating 🔔 Subscribe https://www.youtube.com/DrBrianKeating?sub_confirmation=1 📝 Join my mailing list; just click here http://briankeating.com/list ✍️ Detailed Blog posts here: https://briankeating.com/blog 🎙️ Listen on audio-only platforms: https://briankeating.com/podcast #universe #podcast #briankeating #intotheimpossible #science #astronomy #cosmology #cosmicmicrowavebackground #intotheimpossible #briankeating Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

USAA knows dynamic duos can save the day, like superheroes and sidekicks or auto and home insurance. With USAA, you can bundle your auto and home and save up to 10%. Tap the banner to learn more and get a quote at usaa.com slash bundle. Restrictions apply. Your summer starts now with Memorial Day deals at the Home Depot. It's time to fire up summer cookouts with the next grill for burner gas grill on special buy for only $199. and entertain all season with the Hampton Bay West Grove seven-piece outdoor dining set for only $49.9. This Memorial Day get low prices guaranteed at the Home Depot.

While supplies last, price invalid May 14th or May 27th, U.S. only exclusions apply. See Home Depot.com slash price match for details. All right, all right, all right. Let's see what we're doing here today. We've got a very good friend of the show, Professor Avi Loeb. of Harvard University. Avi, how are you doing today in the beautiful Cambridge suburbs? Oh, it's quite amazing. I wake up at 3 a.m. every day just to go over the 300 emails that piled up in my inbox overnight. And there are lots of interesting surprises I should tell you.

Let me just mention a few anecdotes if you don't mind. So our dishwasher broke down. And I call to order a new one and I speak with someone random and that person says, is this Avila? And I say, yes it is. And he says, oh, I'm following you on all the podcasts. Can you please give me a brief overview of three eye atlas? And I was just trying to get a dishwasher. And also I got a haircut this morning.

morning. I go to the woman who cuts my hair and she says, you know, the boss of my daughter came to her and says, you need to listen to this podcast with Avilov. And she said, well, that's the person that my mother cuts the hair of. And he said, are you sure that your mother cuts the hair of Avilov? So now I cannot really escape, you know, because everywhere I go, we go to a restaurant that people know. But I guess I have to get adjusted to this. Well, you can be, you can tell them that, you know, they're the cosmetologist to the famous cosmologist, Avi Loeb. You know, cosmology and cosmetology share the same prefix.

It means beautiful, and it's beautiful to be with you. A lot of people watching today. And we're going to be doing a really fun kind of, you know, I don't want to call it post-mortem. This object is still so fascinating and it's still doing interesting things. and it has taught us more, perhaps, about not only the scientific features of interstellar interlopers, but it's really illuminated to the scientists how the public views these objects. And why it's so interesting, why it's so important, what it may portend for the future. We're also going to get into some of the controversy, some of the criticism,

because you've never, you know, said at all that this is guaranteed to be technology, and you can't be in control of what people say about you in your name. However, there is some criticism, some of it legitimate, some of it not, and I want to get into that as an important critical distinction as a teachable lesson to the audience and to the wider scientific and non-scientific world that pays our salaries as scientists. We have the best job in the world. And then lastly, we'll take a lot of questions from the audience.

The only catches I want to give, but I have a huge audience members that just pay to be members of the channel and I love them and I want to give back to them so if you want to ask questions of Avi you got to be a member of the channel it's 99 cents not a big deal but it shows me that you care and gives me and Avi and the other great guests that we have on the show coming up I have Terence Tao coming up on Monday so these are ways to give back but Avi this is incredible before we get to the really interesting you know details what we've learned about three on Atlas in a couple of weeks since it's been since we spoke, I want to get into some of the personal side of this object as a scientist,

as a human being, as a father, as a human, as a very, very popular, popularizer of science, but also a hardcore scientist. Tell us about the latest, you know, kind of a gifts that you were bestowed upon featuring none other than, you know, my other favorite astrophysicist, Galileo, you know that I've got my fingerpets. Yeah. Before I get to that, I just need to say that, 3-Ey Atlas was an amazing gift in the sense that, you know, it's a big object, bright, coming in the plane of the planets around the sun, and therefore it allows us to monitor everything that happens to it.

And that attracts a huge amount of attention from the public. And I see that there's an unprecedented opportunity to actually bring young kids to realize that they might want to become scientists because they see the scientific process of collecting data and being able to infer what the object is. And I get lots of emails from mothers and fathers saying my daughter, my son now want to become a scientist. And, you know, that doesn't happen very often, even if the large Hadron Collider were to discover a new particle. I don't think those kids would come forward with the excitement that they do. And, you know, they ask for telescopes as a gift for the holidays, you know, it's really genuine, and I get it from many people.

I got maybe a dozen emails over the past week from parents who say, you know, that's remarkable, and we are really happy about that. And the second thing is the public appreciates science. It's not the work of the elite when you have amateur astronomers, where you have lots of data coming in from all directions, hundreds of telescopes around the world, and they get to see how science is done. We don't need to say in advance what we think. We can just follow the data. That is really what science is about. And so if I had to summarize everything, and I did that yesterday, I'll explain why I did that yesterday. There were a hundred people gathered at the Harvard College

Observator for a special celebration that I'll mention. What I said at the end of it is that the foundation of science and art, creative science and creative art, is the humility to to learn. It's not the arrogance of expertise. Now this sounds trivial, but what you find in academia and also among popularizers of science is the arrogance of expertise. So not only I'm an expert, I will tell you what this thing is, but also how dare you speak about a subject that you are not an expert on? You know, both of these arguments, which are completely irrelevant because a kid should be able to figure out something that an adult doesn't. And Albert Einstein was not at all within the expertise of the, you know,

the people who dominated physics when he was just 25 and came up with his ideas. It's not about authority. It's not about arrogance of expertise. It's about the humility to learn something new. And as much as this sounds simple, it's really not understood in academia and beyond. And that is the underlying thing. Now, where did I mention this? There was a special celebration of 51 watercolors and two sculptures of Galileo Galilei. The watercolors are of distinguished scientists and what they said.

All of this work of art was produced by Greg Wyatt, a very famous. He's called America's Rodin. So he's that accomplished. There is the famous sculpture of the Scholar's Lion at Columbia University's campus, if anyone visited and they could see it. He is extremely accomplished. He decided to donate those works of art to my office. And now I basically removed all the file cabinets that I used to have. I said, I'm not defined by the past.

I had piles of paper that accumulated during the nine years that I served as department chair of the astronomy department. at Harvard. And I just got rid of all of it, including the file cabinets themselves and emptied my office in order to accept this amazing gift. And I still don't fully understand why he was so generous because it's basically, you know, things that he created just once, all these watercolors, and he gave it to me. So it's like he doesn't have it anymore. It's in my office. And it offers me an opportunity to fundraise by charging admissions to this mini museum that I have, but I will not do that. And we just had a gathering for about an hour and a half during which he explained what is the creative process for him. And moreover, we had some music, original music, composed by David E. Bet, who was inspired by the latest images of Three-Ey Atlas.

he created a symphony related to three-eye atlas, also related to Omuamua. So it was a celebration of arts and sciences, the interface between them. And my point is that creativity, both in the arts and sciences, you know, it has similarities. Basically, you have to have an appreciation for things you don't know for the unknown and then have the humility to learn about it through your mind. a creative mind, rather than be completely wedded to past knowledge, to things we already know. You know, when you try to pioneer something new, you have to be creative and you have to be humble in a fundamental way. And so that was the unifying theme and I really enjoyed that.

And there were a hundred people gathered and all of them said that it was wonderful. We don't have those events very often. And so that happened yesterday. And it's a testimony that science could be inspiring to artists. There is actually a manager of a singer, Oli Swan in the UK, that is releasing a new single called Alien Saril. And his manager approached me and asked me for a blurb that will accompany the release of this song. So it should come out this month.

The other thing I wanted to say is that Greg gave me, me another gift, which I did not expect at all, and maybe the biggest one. He gave me the foundation and the sculpting tools, plus plastelina, to create a new bronze sculpture. So I now have the ability to design a new sculpture that later would be made of bronze. So it starts with plasticina, and you create the structure, and then it turns into bronze. And so I decided, to call this piece of art. I haven't created it yet

the alien. So I would try to create what I conceive in my mind as an alien being not necessarily based on science fiction movies, either based on my imagination or if we ever meet them in the

near future, I will obviously try to depict that. Just the way that Galileo Galilei paint drew the moon, which was a piece of art, his drawings of the moon, which were actually watercolors, is a piece of art.

And at the same time, it was at the frontier of science. So if we ever find an alien, I will try to make a 3D model of it in my hands, but otherwise it will be my imagination, and then it will turn into bronze. So I will work on that as soon as I finish teaching after the first week of December.

And that's an amazing new hobby, for me, at least. That's great. Yeah, I looked at that. Of course, the famous sketches of the moons of Jupiter, which are not very artistic by Galileo. It's just like basically circles and little dots. But those, you know, five little icons change the course of science and humanity forever. Right. That's the moons of Jupiter, but he also did of the moon, our moon. No, sure. Yeah. Six sketches of our moon, which were the first, you know, resolved. There were a telescope. That's right. And Edward Tuft-Tofty, I think he pronounced his name. He's a well-known kind of expositor, like metascientific things. And he called Galileo the father of data science,

because those images don't only convey the scientific description, but they're also interlaced with the humanity of Galileo, that he was a man. And when he drew the crater, I think it's Copernicus on the southern hemisphere of Jupiter. He drew it. It's like five times bigger than it in reality. But that was intentional. Galileo was a great artist. His father was a musician, as you know, too. And Galileo sketched it, but he sketched it because that's the way it made him feel. In other words, he had the impression that this crater is so magnificent. He wanted to convey that to the viewer that couldn't see it through his telescope. He guarded his telescopes very carefully, jealously almost. So he was really the first person to marry, not only to view

things telescopically in the heavens, but also to explain what it felt like to be a scientist And that's part of our discussion today. How does it feel as a human being to go through what you've been going through almost single-handedly, although not entirely single-handedly, but driving and setting the pace for not only other scientists, but the public and even members of Congress. So let's take a little look through what we've learned since in the last two or three weeks since Atlas made its perihelian approach. Where's Atlas now? What have we learned about it? And has it gotten more anomalous, Avey, or less anomalous?

You said this place was steps from the water. We just haven't found the steps yet. How much did we save? Enough. Enough to get lost. Or you could book a stay with Hilton. Welcome to your oceanfront room. Just steps from the water.

The Hilton sale is on now. Book on Hilton.com or the Hilton app and save up to 20% to get the stay you expected. When you want savings, not so. It matters where you stay. Hilton for the stay. Well, that's excellent an excellent introduction to the subject. So on October 29, 3-A-A-Llas

passed closest to the Sun. A week earlier, it was in conjunction, solar conjunction relative to Earth, meaning exactly in the opposite side of the Sun, almost in the same plane, orbital plane as the Earth. It crossed the ecliptic plane, which is the orbital plane of the earth around the sun it crossed it when it came close to Mars on October 3rd. That's when it got exactly into the ecliptic, which is again, I mean, all of these are

amazing coincidences. So when it came closest to the sun about the 26 days later on October 29th, it was almost behind the sun, okay, within a few degrees. And so of course telescopes from Earth could not look at it because they need at least 30 degrees separation in order to not to be blinded by the sun and it was too close to the sun so we couldn't see what happens to it there were a few observatories that are away from earth looking towards the sun and one of them is soho another one stereo and goes 19 these three took images and realized that i mean from these images the scientists realized that it became bluer than the sun and actually much brighter by about an order of magnitude relative to what it was, you know, before October this year. And so it wasn't

yet clear whether it broke up into pieces or not because it was warmed up by 700 watts per square meter. That's enough to definitely disrupt an icy object made of, especially carbon dioxide, which was the main constituent found by the Webb Telescope on August 8, 2025. So at any event, we didn't know what happened to it. And then as soon as it started being separated from the sun, there were observatories on Earth that started revealing the status of Tri-A Atlas. us. And the one thing that was revealed is that it has more than seven jets coming out of it, tightly collimated jets, which is amazing. You see those jets coming out in all directions, including the direction of the sun and away from the sun. And these jets go out to a distance

of a million kilometers in the direction of the sun and three million kilometers away from the sun. And then I did a simple calculation. Given the fact that the jets going towards the sun have to penetrate through the solar wind, they have to be denser than the solar wind. Because we know that the solar wind moves at 400 kilometers per second or so. And we know that sublimated icees on the surface of a rock, you know, like if we imagine it being a natural comet, they would acquire at most the speed of sound or the thermal speed of the particles that get evaporated from the surface. And that's only 400 meters per second. Under best circumstances, it could be much slower than that. So if you take 400 meters per second compared to 400 kilometers per second,

you realize the factor of a thousand that more for the speed of the solar wind relative to the Jets according for a natural comet. That means that the jet in the direction of the sun needs to be a million times denser because what matters for the ram pressure is the mass density times the velocity squared. Okay. So the velocity ratio is a thousand velocity squared is a million. So the density of the mass density of the jets needs to be a million times more in order to go out that far. And then I can calculate how much mass is, you know, being ejected by these jets. And I find that, you know, over an area of other a million kilometers squared, you need about five billion tons of material. And that's huge. And then I ask, okay, if it's five billion tons,

you know, in order to evaporate these ices, you need some energy, the sublimation energy. so there needs to be a large enough area collecting sunlight such that you would get that much mass evaporates. So I calculated how much energy is needed. Turns out that during the passage of 3i Atlas, which took about a month, near Perry Center, that's where most of the heating took place, during that time of a month, the area has to be bigger than 20 kilometers on a side, meaning that's for CO2 ice, carbon dioxide. If you consider water, the size of the region that absorbs sunlight needs to be 50 kilometers on a side. That's huge. It's much bigger than the estimated size of three-eye Atlas. It's untenable.

Because from the Hubble Space Telescope image, the conclusion was that it's much smaller than that. So what could be the resolution? Well, maybe it's not a single body anymore. It broke up into a lot of fragments. And that's why the surface area, when you sum up all these fragments, the surface area is bigger. than the original object. That's one way to resolve it. So I said, did it break up? And then a day later, there was a new image that was obtained from the Nordic optical telescope by Dave Jewett and Jane Lou, a very good work that both of them did. And the conclusion of that that image that they obtained is from a 2.6 meter aperture telescope. is that it's single.

Three-eye Atlas is still single. It's a single object. They see only light coming from a single object. There is no evidence for breakup. Of course, maybe the pieces are still relatively close and they would get separated by the gravitational tide of the sun. That's possible in the coming weeks. But as of now, it looks as if it's a single body.

I just want to interrupt Avi for one second because that was one of the criteria that you stated would cause to reevaluate a hypothesis. This was a comment. But I don't point this out. This is what people do that are good scientists. People that are bad scientists that are cherry-picking, that are prone to confirmation bias, will come to a conclusion before the object has collected it.

We've collected any data on it and pre-establish a condition based on the scientist that's reporting it. In other words, ad hominem and personalize the scientific, where it should be scientific only. And this is a classic example of that. you didn't say, well, because Brian Cox is not an astronomer and knows nothing about planetary science, when he called it a comet three weeks before Perihelian confidently saying it's nothing more than a comet, before we had the evidence, he didn't make a false viability claim. He didn't say, well, if it actually doesn't break up, that would mean it maybe it's not a comet.

Maybe it's an asteroid or, but he didn't say any of that. He just said it's a comet. Then the data came in and now he's taking a victory. We're going to get to him and Jason Wright and other people. I should say that among the emails I received were many Brits, maybe many people from the UK who apologized to me on behalf of the UK people for the behavior of Brian Cox. That's amazing.

I'd be happy to share the emails with you. And those are distinguished people, by the way, thinking people that are saying his standpoint is not scientific and he claims to represent science. And this is really unfortunate, you know, he's embarrassing us. That's what they say about Brian Cox. Anyway, coming back to this issue, I definitely say that if the object breaks up or if a large fraction of the mass of the object gets sublimated, then there is no doubt that it's a natural object because we will be able not only to infer that,

you know, it broke up and it was not strong and so forth, but also the composition of the object. You will see carbon dioxide. You know, obviously it's not a spacecraft. So that was my point. Now, with respect to the jets, there are two possibilities. Either these are pockets of ice that were evaporated by sunlight, or maybe these are thrusters.

And I'm now saying it's very easy to tell the difference because when you have sublimation of ice, you get a speed that is at most the thermal speed or the sound speed of the molecules in that gas that comes out of the ice. and that is 400 meters per second. So if we now measure with spectroscopy using telescopes on the ground or the web telescope or the Hubble telescope, we measure the speed of the jets.

If it turns out to be just 400 meters per second or less, then it's definitely a signature that we're dealing with a natural comet. If on the other hand, we get much larger speeds, then that's what you can get from a thruster because a rocket has a characteristic exhaust speed of a few kilometers per second. That's what we use. Or an ion thruster of a spacecraft has several tens of kilometers per second. And this is our technology. And of course, if you imagine alien technology being much more advanced,

you might find even higher speeds. And when you make the speed higher, you need much less mass to mass density to be in the jets because they can penetrate the solar wind as a result of the high speed, not as a result of the high mass flux. And so my point is, if it's artificial, you don't need as much mass as in the case of a natural comet. And then everything, you know, the fuel will make up a very small fraction of the total mass. However, in the case of a comet, I get numbers that are not compatible unless it broke up.

And that's the reason we see so much mass in those jets. And we should see. I mean, so my point is, in the coming weeks, we'll get even better data. Because so far, most of the data that I described was obtained by amateurs. But I'm sure that there are telescopes looking at it right now. And eventually in early December, we'll have the Webb Telescope, the Hubble Telescope, looking at it. In a few days, my hope is next week.

We will get the high-rise images obtained on October 3rd by the high-rise camera on board the Mars reconnaissance orbiter. These images were held hostage for 45 days by bureaucracy within NASA. Since there was the government shutdown, the claim is they were not allowed to release those images. They were allowed to release any images that this camera took off Mars because they didn't need processing. However, the images of Theria Atlas required some work and as a result couldn't be released as a result of the shutdown. If that's the case, we should get them out within a few days. that's what I hear should happen. And we'll see if they reveal anything,

they should have pixel resolution of about 30 kilometers. So that would be very nice. The other thing I should say is the Nordic optical telescope images show an antitail all over again. So we see a single object with an extension that is much more prominent towards the sun, towards the sun, not like comets where you see the cometary tail extending away from the sun because of radiation pressure from the sun or the solar wind sweeping up small dust particles or the gas. And in this case, you see mostly an elongation towards the sun.

There is a slight elongation in the opposite direction. Keep in mind, the object passed close to the sun just two weeks ago. That was the point where the solar radiation and the solar wind. peaked in terms of the impact they have on any dust particles or gas particles. So you should have seen the cometary tale in its full glory the way if this was a comet of the type that we're familiar with. No, it still shows this antitail after passing close to the sun. What is going on? And the point is whenever, you know, people say it must be a comet, okay, well, explain to me what is the physics behind those jets? How can they carry so much mass flux?

How do you get this just pointed towards the sun rather than away from the sun? If there is, the standard, if they are typical commentary. But even if it is a comet, this is the thing that irritates me about the criticisms from people like Jason Wright and Brian Cox and Michi Okaku and others. You have not said that this is it definitively not an object from our, you know, an ordinary object, a comet or asteroid or some interstellar object. But you've said the opposite. You said, if it turns out that you are wrong, that it is completely natural origin, not made by some intelligence. And that was the null hypothesis. That should be the null hypothesis, that you'd be delighted because of how much information we learn about this.

Exactly. I don't think you could have anticipated back in March when you and I first started in talking about this object or a little bit after that maybe. July, yeah. That the public would be so enthralled by this object. And I think there's this. there's this effect that people want to shoot the messenger. I mean, now is the famous tie into Galileo as well.

They want to shoot the messenger. Then they want to say, oh, everything that you said is wrong from the beginning without data. Then they want to say that if it turns out that you're right, it's despite your efforts, you know, to be right.

And if they turn out to be right, quote unquote, that they're null hypothesis, which is that it's a comet, which is fine, that'll be ecstatic. It's very bizarre, right? Because first I should say,

just today, a paper that I wrote about the Antitale, trying to explain the physics of it. And this is the first one out of two papers. It was peer-reviewed and was accepted for publication in monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. I'm publishing papers trying to explain these anomalies in a natural way.

You know, I'm doing my best to try and figure these out. But the people who are attacking the way you describe it, they are not publishing any scientific papers about it. Now, one paper that they wrote actually and Jason Wright was on it was to basically say, we must contemplate the possibility of technological objects for among the interstellar objects that entered the sources. So in other words, they basically reiterate my point while attacking me at the same time for considering that possibility, which you might ask, why is that? And well, they don't want me to get the public attention.

that's one thing out of jealousy probably. And at the same time, they want to claim that the argument is theirs by writing a paper about it. And so you see the hypocrisy here. If you are really enthusiastic about looking for technological artifacts, then you should ask the question whether each and every interstellar object might have some anomalies that would be significant. And if you think it's not, then write a paper explaining it.

Don't attack the person who talked. It's not about me, by the way, just to explain. It's about three-eye Atlas. That's the focus of the discussion. And indeed, it's an amazing opportunity to learn about objects that we don't see in the solar system that are different. And, you know, the fundamental question of why is it in the plane of the planets? You know, there is no way to explain it because the plane of the Milky Way is at 60 degrees away from that.

There is no natural reason for the third object to, be one out of 500 in probability of being aligned with the planets. And so that was one of the main reasons. I said, look, this is peculiar. Therefore, we should consider the interpretation of a technological designer. The second one is, of course, the size of the object. If it's as big as I'm just mentioning, you know, 10 kilometers or even bigger, it's just, you know, it's a million times more than Omuamua in terms of mass. And how can you claim both of them are rocks? Like, why would we have the third object be a million times more massive than the first object. You would expect a million small objects before you see one big one.

That's just the statistics of having many more small objects, given the limited mass reservoir of rocky material or whatever ices you want to put on top of it. So there might be factories that make carbon dioxide icebergs that are different than what people think. fine. They make big packages like three out of us. Then you have to explain why is it coming in the plane of the planets, maybe by chance, but it's a small probability. And then why is it packaged in such a big thing? And I calculate there isn't enough rocky material in interstellar space per unit volume to deliver such a package within one decade. You would expect it once per 10,000 years. Nobody among those critics addressed this important issue of how do you explain the mass budget

of delivering such a giant object to our backyard within a decade out of the materials that you might expect in interstellar space. And I'm saying we're missing something. Okay, so you can argue with me about what we are missing. Maybe we're missing a factory, a natural factory that will do that. Maybe we're missing something to do with how the object arrived. And it might be a natural process. I don't know, but I'm just saying, you know, it's paradox.

It's enigmatic. And just claiming that it's all understood is really inappropriate. It's just like those adults in the room who told the kid that the emperor has clothes. You just can't see them. Ambition comes in all shapes and sizes. At First Citizens Bank, we roll with your goals because we're built for what you're building. Fit for your ambition for Citizens Bank. We cannot hear you, Brian.

Just lost. Oh, yeah. Can you hear me now? Yes. Yeah. So I want to go through the very strange piece that Jason Wright put on his website. Because it's got a lot of attention. And there was a lot of... Not from me, by the way. What's that?

Not for me. No, I know. You kind of just go on and do your work. But people like Mick West, the famous Mick West, who I've had on my show. And he does a good job at certain things. He's not a scientist. He's not a scientist. a video game designer. He does a lot of things with, you know, kind of the, the perspectives and

optics and flares. And so he has done good work, as it turns out. But here, I point out that he was merely one of the many people who kind of joined in this gleeful, you know, dance upon the icy grave of Atlas, which I think is quite bizarre. But the most prominent of the critics who also isn't an astronomer, a scientist, not exactly sure. I'm not exactly sure. sure what he does. I know he's a professor of Manchester, but that's... And by the way, one of the people who apologized for his comments, we are talking about Brian Cox, is, you know, a journalist from Manchester who's helping Manchester United, apparently, and he apologized on behalf of Manchester City for Brian Cox.

Yeah, well, I don't want to get into the politics of Manchester, you know, city or anything to Because presumably I mentioned that there are two types of people when you deal with soccer. And of course, Manchester United is famous for its soccer team. There are the players on the field and there are the commentators. And the commentators have an easy job. They can just express their opinion. The problem is that only the players can score a goal. Okay.

And I'm a player in the field. I'm writing scientific paper every week. In fact, just now there was a paper accepted after a period. to Nature magazine where with a visiting student and my former postdoc, we were able to show that the passing star might have triggered a meteor shower on Earth 2.5 million years ago. And you can check my essay from today on Medium About It. So at any event, I'm, you know, just today, I had one paper accepted for monthly notices, another one for nature. So I'm really in the trenches doing the science.

And then you have someone like Brian Cox that haven't written any paper on Triadlas, not to speak about other subjects, I think, in recent years. And he makes statements as if he's protecting science. Now, how can he protect science when I'm the one practicing it? All right. So here's a statement that he has made on that you sent to me or I found out from the times of London. Loeb's detractors include Professor Brian Cox, the stargazing physicist. I don't know if that's actually true. He might be a star, but

and BBC presenter. That's definitely true. Cox says that although the comment is remarkable, not least for having survived seven and a half billion years, therefore being a relic of a time before Earth's existence, Loeb's theory is a little more than drivel. By the way, what is Loeb's theory? Let's get into that in a second. Loeb, meanwhile, says Cox is a commentator who no longer practices science that has made a profession talking about what other people are doing. So he posted Jason Wright's thing, but before that, as I mentioned, he did say that this wasn't a comet. He said this about it. He kept saying it was a comet. And as if, you know, that kind of wish cast. We lost your sound some reason. So he posted a, you know, kind of a claim, oh, I'm looking for a teapot around Mars,

basically just kind of putting this in the same category as that. But the foundation layer for Brian, Let's not talk about Brian anymore, because there's only one Brian that matters around here. And that's Brian, Brian Green, my kid's favorite physicist named Brian. But the claims rest upon Jason Wright, who is a professor at Penn State University? He's a setty advocate. And I should tell you, he is the one that initiated a ban. He chaired a committee that banned any discussion on. on unidentified anomalous phenomena, UAPs, or any possibly technological objects not manufactured

by humans, you know, that the US government is talking about, he banned any discussion about that in SETI conferences. So he is a SETI advocate, but a UAP zealot, basically trying to ban discussion. And he feels the privilege of bullying other scientists who who might follow the scientific method in figuring out what UAPs are. Now, why do I say it's completely inappropriate? Because there are two possibilities. Either UAPs are human-made objects, okay, in which case it's a serious national security

issue because the intelligence agencies, serious people, you know, that they have a huge budget. They find objects they cannot explain, meaning they're not doing their job, even though we put a trillion dollars towards the defense budget of 2026. There are objects in the sky that we don't fully understand. And so they are saying they call it UAPs, unidentified anomalous phenomena. And I say that's a major concern that they're not doing their job, okay? So as a scientist who cares about the United States, you should feel an obligation to figure out what these objects are

and help the Pentagon in its mission to protect the nation. That's a civil obligation. That's one possibility of interpreting these objects. A second possibility is they are extraterrestrial in origin. Okay. So in that case, obviously a scientist should do it. So I'm saying it's a win-win situation. There is no reason to ridicule the discussion of UAPs and the ban, in particular, ban any discussion about them in conferences.

But that's what Jason Wright is doing. He's banning a discussion on a subject that could be either national, security important or crucial or a major way of discovering some evidence for extraterrestrials in our neighborhood. So I'm saying either way, either way, he just doesn't have his mindset right. And as much as he calls himself Astro right, I would call him Astro Bulley. Why? Because he's using his role as a seti advocate to bully anyone that discusses the possible artifacts of extraterrestrial civilizations near earth. And there is no room for bullying. I don't want to mad wrestle with him or people like him because mad wrestling gets you dirty.

And all these people, Avi, all these people, I'm reading one from this guy, Hector Sokaz, Navarro, who I guess is an astronomer in Europe, and he calls it how the fallacies behind the cult of Avi Loeb. Have you seen this article? There is no cult. There's a cult, I guess. A group of people characterized by great devotion to a person idea. Do you think that's what's caused at Avi?

You're so powerful and charismatic. People find you cult-like figures? No. In fact, I have no footprint on social media. I don't use my essays for any financial benefit. You know, I just, I jog every morning at sunrise. I come up, you know, I read all the data, for example, in the context of three-A Atlas,

and I make my interpretation of it. There is nothing wrong about it. You can argue with my interpretation and say why you think it should be different. I lead the Galileo project, which is building observatories, to look at UAPs instead of ridiculing the study of UAPs and banning discussions on them in conference. Instead of that, I'm saying, let's put some scientific, you know, scrutiny or scientific rigor into the study of UAPs.

What's wrong with that? Why is that considered a cult and why are the bullies not actually a cult where they come together and attack? You know, it's very similar to the impression you get when you go to a kindergarten where a child that looks different than the rest of the children in the kindergarten is very often bullied, pushed to a corner. by a group of kids who are who just feel empowered that this kid is different. So I'm different than they are. Is that a good enough reason to bully? I don't think so. And by the way, I don't like to think of myself as a victim because, you know, I just do what I think is right. What is the common sense to do? And I get a lot of support from Congress. By the way, I have people in Congress that I'm in regular contact with serious people. Also, you know, we,

within other branches of government. You know, these people are reasonable and serious and they care about what matters and they are discussing with me the kind of work I'm doing, the research I'm doing, while then you see all these other commentators or bloggers having a problem about it. Many of them are not practicing science. Many of them are jealous of the attention that I get. You know, why should I be blamed for the fact that I'm trying to express what sounds to me like common sense and then it track, it gets some traction in the public. It's not as if I'm doing any sin. I'm just expressing myself and the public likes it. And by the way, it would be good for science for two reasons. One, if the public

appreciates science and evidence-based science rather than paradigm-based science, rather than the arrogance of expertise, if they understand sciences, the detective story where you can figure out the truth by collecting evidence, it's all for the benefit of science because it's not, it's not, will not be regarded as the occupation of the elite. What those people want is for us to continue to discuss the possible investment of $10 billion towards the search for microbes, because that's what they think should be done. $10 billion to put highest priority to search for microbes, zero federal funding for the search for intelligence.

And I say that, you know, that is not common sense. Common sense says, let's hedge our bets, and because the signatures of technological civilizations might be easier to detect, let's invest in both of them. That's what I'm arguing for. To me, it sounds like common sense. For people who want their way without thinking about it, it's a threat. And so I don't fully understand it. And the other thing to keep in mind, these people are obviously they would argue that we should have diversity of opinion, diversity in academia, they have a problem with someone who thinks differently.

Well, yeah, I mean, I think, again, here's here are his motivations. Jason Wright spells this out. And Brian Cox says that his motivation is that he was really upset when people thought that the LHC turning on would create a black hole, you know, and so he, that caused people to panic and, you know, and do all sorts of things he claims. And, you know, I believe that he's saying something accurate. I don't think that he extends to you the same credit and... By the way, the chance of the LHC producing a black hole is, you know, diminishingly small because you can just do the quantum gravity calculation. And you would realize that the energies of the LHC, even if you go to 10 TV, there is no way that you would excite modes of,

that are excitable at the Plank scale and create black holes. You know, if you just do a simple calculation, the chance for that is practically zero. And in fact, there are cosmic rays with center of mass energies far beyond the LHC. And when they collide with particles in the atmosphere, we have never seen any catastrophe. So if a 10 TV center of mass energy, you would get a black hole, many black holes would have been generated by cosmic rays impinging on our atmosphere. And we haven't witnessed any catastrophe from that. So there are many arguments why this, this suggestion that there might be a danger from the LHC makes no sense whatsoever. But it's not at all related to dealing with an interstellar object that has anomalies.

This is very different. Well, he's claiming that he was deeply hurt by this effect back in a couple of instances. So he should be consult his therapist about that. I mean, this is not that you shouldn't apply your bruises from past experiences to something completely different. Right. Exactly. So I think of as this, you know, kind of, you know, hurt, hurt syndrome where the victim, you know, is blaming and trying to shame you specifically. Okay, so let's go through his claims, Avi. Jason writes, not Brian Cox. But let's go through his claims and then let us reveal from, you know, your perspective, what are the actual explanations for this. Now, first of all, I feel like this is in bad faith from the get-go. Let me put on screen if I can here. So we can both be, I don't know why I cannot show the size of the screen here.

I'm going to put you on screen. Okay, I'm going to read just the first one. Let me go back to my camera view. There we go. So the very first thing that he says, and he starts off, which I think is dishonest, he says, Loeb's three-eye Atlas quote anomaly in scare quotes, explain. So he's going to explain Avi. He knows, and he's going to explain for all the rubs out there, why we shouldn't trust Avi Loeb.

And then he begins by saying that these are not, you know, he puts anomalies in quotes, which is very unusual for a scientist to do that because it implies that it's not an anomaly. And then he goes through the different anomalies that actually make this thing. By the way, on many of them, he agrees that there are anomalies. That's the other. Exactly. We're going to get to that. I have that up on the screen.

Yep. Yep. In several cases, he says, yep. So how can he put quotes on something that is yep? Exactly. So the first thing he says is that Avi Lobb, he impure. He tunes her character. He does an ad hominem attack. He says, Avi Loeb continues containing that has many anomalous features. It might be alien spacecraft. He carefully hedges the probability that it's a

spacecraft around 40%, which I don't remember you ever saying to me, but maybe you said it elsewhere, which gives him plausible deniability of the bad faith, just asking questions variety, while still making the comment sound weird enough that lots of people are thinking of where it is an alien spacecraft. It certainly gets Avi a lot of TV time and fan mail. Okay, so that's an hominem attack that you're doing this specifically and uniquely for benefit either attention or grifting and something. Then he says it's obviously a comet. Now, by the way, this is written last week, right, or earlier this week. And what's so unusual about it, he said the exact same thing in July. All these things were said in July. Now, maybe he's right. But here we go. Alobus repeatedly

speculated, but look, it has a tail and a coma, and a coma, just like a comet. They have been, they have the gases that we expect to see from a comet. It's brightening and evolving as it warms up like comets do. If Avi had not claimed it could be an alien spacecraft, no one would be talking about it as anything but a comet. Do you think that's true? It's peak pollination season, and my business is scaling fast. To keep the nectar flowing, I need a phone plan with top priority data speeds. That's why I chose GoogleFi wireless. My connections stay strong even when the hive is buzzing. Plus, unlimited plans started $35 a month. Now, that's a deal that doesn't stay.

Explore GoogleFi wireless plans today. Plus taxes and government fees. GoogleFi Wireless is not subject to data traffic deprioritization during times of high network usage. I don't know. I mean, I'm just addressing the anomalies. And I don't, you know, you could have imagined that I didn't exist and asked if anyone would pay it. But the fact that I raise attention to the anomalies is not a crime, you know? Why is that a negative?

So he says lots of comments are anomalous, quote unquote, anomaly. So he's writing it as if anomalies are common, which is the exact opposite of what an anomaly means. It's an oxymoron of the same type as the oxymoron that Omoa Muamua was a dark comet. By the way, dark comet is a comet that doesn't solve the signature of a comet. It has non-gravitation acceleration, but without a cometary evaporation. So a visible cometary. So, you know, they use oxymorons. They say something is a dark comet.

And a spacecraft would be a dark comet, by the way. So, you know, it's really not intellectually honest when you use an oxymoron. Yeah. So, but it kind of undermines his credibility. He's saying that anomalous things are anomalous, but this is not anomalous because it is anomalous. It's a very circular reason, okay? So he goes and he says that many, now he then his third thing about the comet now, he's supposed to be talking about the comet, Avi.

And he says, lots of comets are anomalous. And then he says, consider the messenger. Consider the track record of the messenger. The second thing you need to understand about Loeb is he has no training in planetary science. What does that mean? He didn't go to Penn State. You didn't go to Penn State, right? So I guess you're not.

I've written more than a thousand scientific paper, nine books, okay? And I have a career that spans, you know, I've been at Harvard 32 years. And all together, I've a career that spans about 40 years in physics. half of modern the modern history of physics, I witnessed. You know, and for him to say, you need a training in a very specific discipline to say anything about this subject. It's ridiculous. Look at Richard Feynman. You know, he went to the committee that examined the challenger when he was no engineer.

Okay. He was no, not, he didn't have any of the, he was just a physicist that knew the basic laws of physics. And he figured it out with the O-ring. So what's the point here that you need to be an engineer to figure out the ORE? There were lots of engineers within NASA at the time, and only Richard Feynman figured out what really happened. And just like he says he uses anomalies and admits that it's anomalous, he says, I am not. He, Jason, Wright, is also not a planetary scientist. So, okay.

By the way, that comes back. Let me repeat this sentence, that the foundation of science is the humility to learn, not the arrogance of expertise. And what I mean by arrogance of expertise is exactly what Jason is highlighting, the arrogance of expertise. Only the experts. I'm not aware of Avi ever admitting he got something wrong with respect to three-eye Atlas and retracting a claim. That's very bizarre, Jason, because this is not, we only have gotten data and some of the data has not yet come in from high rise, et cetera. So what is there to retract exactly? You did it, you did describe how you can have an anti-tail. You described how it can be an optical illusion, which I'm sure he must know. And then

you described that this is not an optical illusion. So that's, that is strange. And then he says, we expect three-eye Atlas to be anomalous. This is only the third interstellar object we've seen. And by the way, two of those, you, so let's say Avi was a UFO grifter, okay? I'm not, I'm not, I'm not saying, God forbid, Hasfa Shalom. I'm not saying this is true. Let's say you were, Avi, you know what would have been great? You know what would have been great in a low information environment? If you said Borisov is also a interstellar piece of technological kit. Did you say that, Avi?

I don't remember saying that. Ever. That would have been the best time for you to say that. In fact, I pressed you. And also with respect to three-i-atlas, I'm saying there are tests that we will do in the coming weeks that will definitely show us the nature. And he wants you to retract now, but Avi, you must retract right now. You must admit that you're wrong right now before the data has come in fully from

high-rise from other things, and we should just move on and never listen to you again, I assume. Well, move on and ban any discussion on UAPs in conferences, right? Right. And that is the intellectual integrity of modern science, right? Well, he says that you have no integrity in some sense. He's saying that you're doing this all by yourself. Avi, have you written a single paper on three-in-allis by yourself as a lone sole author?

One. One. But I wrote altogether 12 papers and all other. 11 of them were with collaborate co-authors. And many of them were just accepted for publication after peer review. And gladly, Jason Wright was not one of the reviewers. Exactly, right. Okay, so consider the track record.

So it's an ad hominem attack. Science is very forgiving. So he's consulted with experts like Stephen Dash. By the way, Avi, hold on a second. What does a planetary scientist that someone who studies Jupiter, someone like Constantine Batigin or Mike Brown, both very good friends of mine, In fact, my episode with Mike Brown won the best science episode of the year at the Signal Awards last year. Thank you, everybody. And a reminder, you can get a meteorite. If you're like me or Avi, go to minekeen.com slash YEDU. You'll win a meteorite for a U.S. educationally based institution.

But Avi, when we talk about people, let's say like Constantine Batesgen or Mike Brown, they're planetary scientists. They're at arguably the top institution in the world. I can tell you, Concentine Batigin was a postdoc next door to my office. Yeah. You know, and before he went to Caltech as an assistant professor. And we had a lot of discussions. And a year and a half ago, we had a conference celebrating 20 years to the Institute for Theory and Computation, for which I serve as director still since the time that he was there.

And so he was completely full. focused on a talk that I gave about Omuamu and came to me afterwards and said how impressed he was with my integrity in discussing the subject in an innovative way. Okay, that's Constantine Battingen. He knows the bruises that he's suffering for talking about Planet 9. And that is a simple variation on things we know already. But my question is a little bit more nuanced than that, you know, to give myself credit. It's that Stephen Dash, for example, or any plan or Constantine Batijian, my friend, or Mike Brown, my friend. If they were asked about Three-Eye Atlas, they check Jason Wright's box of being planetary scientists, but they have no subject matter expertise

with this because who does have expert? Who studied these things in graduate school, Avi? I mean, you teach them in graduate school. Nobody did because the first one was discovered as a mu-and-moo in 2017. So who could be like an expert in extrasolar interstellar. Now, people have made, you've written more about this. You predicted stuff like this before, three- Atlas long before it was born. By the way, the critics were born. Go ahead.

I wrote the first paper that forecasted interstellar objects, how many of them we should find. There was a paper that I wrote with Ed Turner at 2008. And that was the first suggestion that interstellar objects may be found. And then, you know, so I pioneered this. the idea that interstellar objects may be found, then the first one was found by, you know,

the Pan-Stars telescope in Hawaii in 2017. So I wrote papers about that. I wrote papers about 3i Atlas and I'm just trying to figure these out, you know, that I have no agenda whatsoever. You just have to understand my mindset because I worked in cosmology for three decades. And in cosmology, there are many things that are not understood. You know, we don't know what the nature of dark matter. We don't know what the initial conditions of the universe were, you know, at very early times. Trying to figure that out with the Simon's objective. There is a lot that we don't know. And what you learn from that is, you know,

that we should appreciate innovative ideas that can be tested experimentally. So cosmic inflation is one such idea. There are many others to do with the nature of dark matter. And I'm coming from that culture where it's celebrated to think in an outside the box. It's completely celebrated. Nobody bans a talk. about a specific type of dark matter within a conference in cosmology. Then I get to this subject where everyone is convinced that whatever comes to the solar system from outside must be rocks. And they will ban talks about something else. They would prevent publication and they would ridicule in public, whoever discusses something different than a rock.

And I find that to be completely unacceptable in the context of an open discourse in science. It's really unfortunate because it suppresses innovation, it suppresses the ability for us to gain new knowledge in this context. And by the way, I think of these experts as AI systems that are trained on a limited data sets. So when you have an AI system and you train it just on comets, it will say that any object you see in the sky must be comets. That's the way they operate.

And I'm saying something really simple to Jason Wright and all the others. I'm saying, add another class of objects to your training data sets. These are the objects that humanity launched to space. There are objects are spacecraft. Now imagine humanity in a million years. They might launch bigger spacecraft that go longer distances. Within a billion years, they will cross the Milky Way galaxy.

Add that possibility to your training dataset. If you take an AI system that is trained both on comets and on spacecraft, it will not have the difficulties that Jason. on Wright has in accepting the discussion on this second category. He is basically objecting to the discussion. Okay, so I am, I'm looking up. So he says, oh, so he appeals to authority, which is to say that you should not trust somebody who doesn't have planetary science consultations, if not a degree in it. So I looked up his first call, the first person he mentions, who is a frequent critic of you, again, for reasons that possibly may involve. Well, for the same reasons that on whales, you find this small fish

that feed off them, you know. So you always have, you know, if I get a lot of attention, my daughter told me you will have haters around you because they are getting to the limelight as a result. Right. But Stephen, Stephen Dash is, you know, an eminent professor in the School of Earth and Space Sciences at Arizona State University. I think it's a great institution. But let's look them up.

Let's see what his expertise are. Maybe he has expertise in objects in interstellar. object. Okay, well, no, actually. He's a professor of the school. His especially studies the origin of condorals and meteorites. He works on the field of exoplanets and astrobiology. Do any of those have anything to do geochemical cycles on exoplanets to aid searches for signs of life and other planets? He is modeled icy bodies. Yeah, there is a common denominator between him and Jason, and that is the attempt to gain visibility out of attacking me. That's basically it.

Yeah. So I'm just pointing out the fallacy of appealing to expertise. And, of course, you can appeal to authority. That's not wrong just because it's a fallacy. It just doesn't mean that they're right because they're experts. Okay, so here are some other things. We expect things to be anomalous. Okay, so Avi's list of 10 anomalies going back to Jason Wright.

It's retrograde trajectory is aligned to within five degrees of the ecliptic. To paraphrase Einstein, your math, Avi, is fine, but your statistics are atrocious. The best takedowns are by Hector Sokhas Novara, who I mentioned before, calls you a cult leader. Basically, if someone had predicted ahead of time what the properties of a spacecraft would be like and match them then, they'd be onto something. But Loeb chose specific aspects of the comet's orbit to compute probabilities of life

for after he knew what they were. Is that the classic fallacy and misuse of probability theory that Jason claims it is? Well, no one goes to Hank's first spreadsheets. They go for a darn good pizza. Lately, though, the shop's been quiet. So Hank decides to bring back the $1 slice. He asks Copilot in Microsoft Excel to look at his sales and costs. Help him see if he can afford it.

Co-pilot shows Hank where the money's going and which little extras make the dollar slice work. Now, Hank says, line out the door. Hank makes the pizza. Co-Pilot handles the spreadsheets. Learn more at M365Copilot.com slash work. Okay, so here is the way my argument is based on statistics. So together with my student, we simulated a whole population of trajectory, like Monte Carlo simulation.

You imagine that objects are ejected from planetary systems around stars in the Milky Galaxy, and you follow all their trajectories. And you find at what angle are those objects coming into the solar system? And you find that one in 500 would come, close to the ecliptic plane. And so I say, okay, if we had hundreds of objects, one of them would be so close to the ecliptic lane. But we had only three. Okay. So there is a factor of a hundred difference between the statistics that you expect. There is nothing wrong with this statistics basically says the chance of seeing what we are seeing is less than a percent.

Okay, just the orbit, just the trajectory. On top of that, the mass of these objects, is a million times bigger than the other objects that we have seen. Again, I argue the probability for that is less than one in a thousand. So just these two anomalies combined, say it's a chance of one in a hundred thousand or something, of finding such an object. So isn't that strange? I mean, not getting into the other anomalies at all. That's, you know, by itself.

So here's the next one. This is the next one, he says, during July and August, it to play a sunward anti-tail that is not an optical illusion from geometric perspective. And then, then Jason says, it's true that not many comets do this, but it's hardly unique. He also falsely, so it's an anomaly that's not an anomaly, but it's an anomalous, not anomaly. He also thought, it was hard to say, but you falsely claim that he's the first to explain why this may happen when this was understood for 50 years. Did you explain, you're the first that it would happen in general or specifically for 3i Atlas?

No, we built a model for 3i Atlas and that's the paper that was accepted for publication after peer review today. And I, just to explain, I wrote a scientific paper trying to explain the physics of a phenomena observed by the Hubble Space Telescope. Okay, Jason didn't write a single paper on this subject. So he criticizes me for trying to explain this. I mean, this is, once again, I mean, I cannot follow exactly. the logic. The nucleus is a million times more massive than Amuamu and Borisov while moving faster than both, altogether the likelihood less than 0.1%. He says this is completely incorrect. You made a math mistake, which I've known you for 20 years. Well, the paper was published, a reference, you know,

it was reviewed by the editor, was published with these numbers. There was a follow-up paper by Daryl Seligman making exactly the same point. So I can give you the second thing. Agreeing with you. Agreeing with me. Yeah, the same point. that there is a problem with the mass budget. Unless the object is very small. If the object is less than a kilometer in size, everything is fine. I'm talking about an object of all the 10 kilometers,

okay, in diameter. That's where the discrepancy arises. If the object, and I said in my paper that I published on this subject, if the object is less than a kilometer, then of course everything is okay. But the difference between one kilometer and 10 kilometers is a thousand in mass.

You know, we're talking about a thousand times bigger. in mass. And by the way, Dave Jewett saw my paper and referenced it in his papers, and nobody pointed out any arithmetic mistake in what I did. Good. Okay. Then his next claim is that it's arrival time you claim is fine-tuned. You didn't say it was fine-tuned that the arrival time was fine-tuned. You said that there was a probability of approaching perihelian being observable of five thousand.

of 1%. So he claims that this is hardly anything surprising about a comet in the ecliptic passing by some of the plan. Now, I'm a stupid experimental cosmologist, Avi, so please forgive me. Let me explain. Hold on. Hold on. Let me just say one thing, Avi, because even, you know, I'm a humble cosmologist that builds telescopes. You've been to, you know, you've heard about a lot of them, right, that I've built and will continue to build. But he's saying that there's hardly a dash is saying that there's hardly something surprising about a. comet in the eclip passing by some of the planet.

Avi, wait a second. That's true of comets in our solar system. Is that to be expected from something of a completely random object from a completely different solar system? Again, I'm just asking questions. So here is, well, that's

apparently a sin to ask questions. But here is the calculation. We say, let's adapt the trajectory that it takes. Okay? And only vary the time of arrival to perihelion. So in other words, we are

randomly playing with arrival time to perihelion, then only one in 20,000 cases gets so close to three planets like Mars, Venus, and Jupiter. We try that. And the reason is simple, because those planets, you know, like Jupiter, you know, and Mars, they are moving around the sun over a periods of years. And you, and their orbital period is, you know, somewhere between one and a half to five times the Earth's sun separation. So you want the object to pass within a fraction of an astronomical unit to a planet that moves around, you know, across a region that is a few times the Earth's separation.

And you just do the math and you find that the probability of it coming so close to those is very small. Now, it may be a coincidence. Fine. But I was talking before about two other anomalies that by the themselves are already giving you a probability of one in a hundred thousand. So are we arguing that it's a probability of just one in a hundred thousand and not one in a billion? Is that really the argument that it's not as unlikely as a billion? My question is a little bit more simplistic,

Avi. He's making quotes about, he's basically saying, oh, duh, Avi, a comet in the ecliptic passes by planets. That is 100% true for objects in our solar system. But to my knowledge, again, simple, just reasoning, an object from a completely different solar system, which everyone, Jason Wright, Stephen Dash, Brian Cox, you know, Mitchie O'Coccu, Kim Kardashian, they all agree that this object came from another solar system. What are the odds of that one entering into our solar system in our ecliptic? I think that's a fallacy that Desh is making. As esteemed as Dash is, I think that he made a mistake. Now, I didn't look at the links and I only have so much time and I've got a thriving career myself. But I didn't make a thing.

Am I wrong? Am I wrong? No, you're not. And that's exactly my argument. And, you know, he should publish a paper if he has a simple quantitative argument, why this should have happened. So, okay, the next one he's going through is, let's see if I can get this one up. Okay, five. Its gas plume contains much more nickel than iron as nickel is, so including Borosov with likelihood below 1%.

Then he says, so we're only up to, we're only up to, we're only, up to, you know, item five, three of them have been true anomalies that even Professor Wright would admit as being an anomaly. He says, this is a genuine anomaly in the sense that it's an extreme value. But it's also something that's very consistent with what we know about comets. Because there's no, and he says there's no standard iron to nickel ratio or nickel to cyanide ratio in comets. They vary a lot. We're seeing at a much larger distance from the sun than we normally look for it. And pretty standard chemistry can explain why it will have a large. anomaly out there. So, okay, so, but he already said you should admit that you're wrong,

but now he's saying we need more data. So which is it, Jason? I mean, you said like, Avi should retract all of his claims and hang his head in shame and be thankful he doesn't meet Bruno's fate. But, but now you're saying that we don't, we expect it to come into line as it heats up, but it has come into, it's not heating up anymore, right, Avi? So where's, why is this not an anomaly? Let's, let's see if we can make sense of what it is. It's an anomaly. We find the mostly in the industry in industrially produced alloys and you know we just don't know if a process like the carbonyl pathway that we use in the industries exists in nature and if you look at those papers they basically say we know about the nickel without iron and through the carbonyl process and maybe

the same process that we use in our industries also operates in nature that's what they are suggesting and i'm just saying it's it's an anomaly okay so let's just admit that and maybe we'll will figure out why, but usually what happens is nickel and iron come together because they're produced by exploding stars. And you can't just separate them unless, you know, you have a process similar to the one we use in industries. And these are the nickel aloys used for aerospace applications. So what's wrong about discussing that as a possible technological signature? Okay, here we go. Now we're up to, I think we've counted four that are truly anomalies, even that he says is true.

But these are quote anomalies, Jason, right? You're trying to scare me, but Avi's made some blunders. And what he calls anomalies are not on all. Here's this fourth one. Its gas plume only contains 4% by water. And then he says, yep, that's weird, but not unheard of for comets, though. Three-I Atlas is outgassing all the normal things. And the fact that it's outgassing, all those things says it's a comet.

Some comets are weird, and we expect this one to be weird. Weird is a synonym for anomalous, correct, Avi? Right. My question is really simple. If you want to follow this logic that he's using, just imagine a real spacecraft that is coated with some ISIS that were collected along its journey and it's shedding them off as a result of sunlight illuminating the object.

And it has also some means of propulsion or some means of generating energy in order to activate whatever it has inside of it. And so just imagine an object like that and say, when would Jason actually notice that this is not an icy rock. He will argue whatever we see must be the result of a natural process,

irrespective whether we've never seen it before, irrespective whether the chance of this spacecraft to fly straight on a reconnaissance mission is very small. We shouldn't even be thinking about it, Avi. For shame, Tiss, we should not even be looking at this, Avi. This is beyond the pale, even for you. Okay. Just think about the fact that he wants to ban discussions in conferences

and on three eye atlas wants to ban discussions. Now, what does it remind you if you go back centuries ago? What does it? It reminds you of the clergy. Now, he is pretending to protect science by doing the work of the clergy. Right. The index. He's putting you on the index of banned topics, obviously.

Now, again, he's an eminent scientist. People have respect for him. He runs these to the center. You know, he probably is good to his mom and his dog. But this is not scientific in nature. feel like it's, and I'm not going to impugn his, I'm going to give him more credit than he seems to give you. I'm not going to impugent.

Why is he doing this? What reasons would he do this? I'm not even going to ask you to speculate. Okay. Next one, Abi, because this is near and dear to my heart, has negative extreme polarization, unprecedented from all known comments, including to Ibarsov, like a little bit. And then he says, guess what he says, Avi? Yep, that's weird.

Weird being a synonym for anomalous. It's normal. Why quotes? Let's go back to the initial sentence. That was my, exactly. If he agrees to several of these anomalies, how can he put quotes around them? So Jason, and I'd love to host him. I'd love for him to come on. I don't think he would care to, he doesn't want to associate with me, perhaps, because I, you know, have done these things with you. But I push you too, Avi.

I mean, you know from our first talk on the podcast four or five years ago when your first book came out, I make some, you know, provocative claims to you that, like, one of them in particular. If you, and I remember telling you this, Avi, if you're so convinced that Oumuamua is extraterrestrial, it seems to me you wouldn't be spending your time with breakthrough starshot. You'd start your own initiative to look at these objects. And then you later did, you know, prove me wrong. You started Galileo project. But you were kind of, I mean, I was pushing back on you. And I said, also, I'd send a spacecraft after it and try to catch up to. You said, oh, no, Brian, trust me, there'll be many objects to come. And I said, like, you know, if I didn't propose to my wife, Avi, you know, I could have said, well, there'd be many women to come. But I would have missed out on the best one in the world, right, for me. So I said that to you. And you were like, no, trust me, Brian. And I didn't trust you, honestly, back then, but now I do trust you. Okay. So it shows extreme negative.

So how many, Jason, how many anomalies would it take, even if they're all unrelated, but just the preponderance of the evidence that this object is strange? And are you truly upset that this object is getting attention? And you're not a planetary scientist. Steve Dash is not the planetary scientist's studies. extrasolar comets and asteroids and so forth. Brian, I just want to highlight one fact that what Jason is advocating for is for the object to remain boring, uninteresting to the public, and not worthy of our attention. That's what he's advocating.

Let's forget about this object being important and interesting and unusual and anomalous. Let's just move on with our business and continue to argue that we need to search for radio signals. Yeah. Okay. So now he says the wow signal thing is ridiculous, even though he agrees with the probability. So for what it's worth, it's not as if we know aliens are out there in the direction of the wow signal. The wow signal failed the sky localization test. And I think most SETI practitioners believe it was some sort of instrumental glitch. Okay, fine. I'll give them that. Let's give them that. Let's just move on. Because you never claimed it came from the solar system, you know, the galaxy perhaps or solar. It was just a coincidence of arrival direction. Yeah, so you didn't, right. Now, people brought that up. But near Parakeal... I used this to motivate radio observers to look at Rayatlas

because we don't expect radio transmission from Iraq. And I heard back from them and they said they're on the target. So I'm just trying to encourage observers. Which they wouldn't have done if you hadn't brought attention to this object. And I put that out in this. And somebody said, you know, Avi, you're saying that nobody would have cared about this object if Avi didn't make it a big deal. I said, read what I wrote.

What I wrote is that Avi has given more attention to this object for whatever reason that you have. But we only have one opportunity. So it's very different than the LHC converting a black hole, Brian Cox, because that's a one-time event that can be falsified by merely doing the experiment. And then obviously, a lot of people don't believe that it didn't create a black hole.

Okay, so forget about that. But this object was under extreme time pressure, Avi. It's very different than the LHC. because you can restart the LHC as they did, but you can't restart this comment on its trajectory. So if you didn't bring attention to this object, as you did, I claim that it wouldn't have generated as much interest in the media, in the public, and jealousy among other scientists.

Let's keep going. Okay, here's another one. This is, I mean, Jason, it's embarrassing to read this. I mean, I really wish you would have the integrity, at least, to have a conversation with me, if not with Avi. I know Avi's would be up for it, too, if it could be done in a, and let me know in the comments if you want me to kind of put that together. I'm willing to do that. I've gone through your writing. I've tried to be respectful of what you're saying.

I'm not mocking or doing any at how many of them attacks. But here we go again, Jason. Number nine, near Perahelian, it brightened faster than any known comment and was bluer than the sun. That's weird. And he says, yep, this is an interesting anomaly. No scare quotes this time. So maybe he's run out of ink with the quotes. But it did brighten very quickly for a comment. But again, we expect. It's expected to bright and unusually as it's coming in unusually fast, although this calculation tries to take this. Also, bluer than the sun is a weird way to express an anomaly. The light it's reflecting depends on the composition of the gas of its gaseous coma. No, the light doesn't depend on that.

The light that it is reflecting doesn't do it. That's coming from the sun, right? I think he's wrong here. He's saying the light that is reflecting depends on the composition of the gaschish in the gas. What we see that the reflected light that we see is depends on the composition of the gaseous. Yeah, I suggested actually one explanation, possible explanation, and apparently Jason is not reading what I write. But I suggest maybe it's ionized carbon monoxide.

That's the only thing I could think of as a natural origin. So that's a carbon monoxide is carbon and oxygen combined making a molecule. And if you remove one electron, it has transitions in the blue band. So that, you know, if it emits spectral lines in the blue band, maybe that gives this blue color, but you would need a lot of emission. You know, the equivalent width of those lines needs to be very large. And there is no evidence so far for spectroscopy that would illustrate that. All right.

But my point is that I think he's scientifically wrong. I'm willing to be proven wrong myself. Again, I'm an experimental cosmologist, Jason. But you're saying something that's factually incorrect. You're saying that the light that it gets from the sun is dependent on the composition of the comet. That's like saying the light that we see on Earth is, is dependent or the light at the top of the atmosphere or wherever is dependent upon what the atmosphere does. But actually, we're talking about the reflected light, which comes from the sun.

And so therefore, it should look and appear like the sun, except if there's some processes that Avi just just notify. Anyway, I don't get it. It could be semantics. I don't want to be accused of being semantic. There are two other things that should be mentioned. And that is, if there is dust, it would redden the object. It should be redder. That's right. We know the object's surface, the nucleus surface, should be cooler than the sun. And cold temperature are redder. So for those two reasons, we would have expected it to be red. And that's what many comets are.

I don't like talking about dust, Avi, and polarization. You know that. You should know that from Bicep 2, right, Davy? Okay. You should be more sensitive to my needs here. We're going to get to questions from the members of the channel in just a minute. And I can only take questions from the members. There's tons of them, Avi.

I love my members. Join the channel. It's 99 cents. Not a big deal. I don't get any real major compensation for it, but it does send signals to YouTube, which then will get more attention to the great scientists that I bring on.

Again, I'm having Terence Tao, Fields Medalist, World's Second, Third Smartest Man, after President. No, I'm just kidding. Terry Tao's on the podcast, and he's brilliant. It's talking about Trump on Monday on the podcast. You'll get that if you are a channel member as well. Okay, last one. It exhibits non-gravitational acceleration,

which requires massive evaporation of at least 13% of its mass, blah, blah, blah. And then he agrees, okay, this one will go down as the most discussion among planetary scientists. So this is an unusual thing. But even if it's correctly measured and his math is correct here, which I don't have time for. So he doesn't think you can do math, which is strange for someone who has over 1,000 citations, was the chair of Harvard and as, you know, the black hole in this, all the stuff you do. So he claims that this... I wrote the equation in my essay.

I provided its momentum conservation. It's really simple. And there is no way out of it. And right now I'm writing a scientific paper that will give the results. And I'm collaborating with a student who actually redid my calculation with much more detail. And he found exactly the same answer. About 15% of the mass had to be evaporated based on the numbers that were reported for the non-gravitational acceleration. Now, the numbers for those for the non-gravitational acceleration accelerators.

for the non-gravitational concern, keep being revised. And of course, they may go down, in which case the level of operation will go down. When you need to build up your team to handle the growing chaos at work, use Indeed-sponsored jobs. It gives your job post the boost it needs to be seen and helps reach people with the right skills, certifications, and more. Spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates

who check all your boxes. Listeners of this shell will get a $75-sponsored job credit at Indeed.com slash podcast. That's Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need a hiring hero? This is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs. So, assuming your student can do math, you know, better maybe than some of our, you know, colleagues are doing stuff here.

He counts out 10 anomalies and he says only four of them are really anomalous. I count actually when I read through the essay, I'm thinking, yep, it's weird, yep, it's weird, arrival time and so forth. Asplum is weird. So four out of ten. By the way, Avi, if you go to the doctor, Haasfa Shalom, and he says, well, we've done ten tests. Four of them are really anomalous, Avi.

One of them has a 99% chance that you have deadly cancer. But the other three are, you know, they're anomalies too. They have like 10%, 20%. Who cares, right? 99% that's going to get your attention, especially if there's some false So he's using this fallacy that it's the number of a number of anomalies, which he agrees, all these are anomalous, maybe the wow signal, let's give it to him, that that's, you know, strange or whatever. It has nothing to do with it being the

common itself, whatever. But that was kind of a throwaway thing anyway. But let's say nine of the major arguments you make, almost half of them are true anomalies. Why would he put it in quote? Why is this like, Jason, why are you trivializing this? And then we're going to move on to questions, because I have to go teach. Go ahead. Go ahead. Another point that I would like to emphasize is even if Those are all natural processes that account for the anomalies. We need to understand them. Why? Because we are missing something.

Okay? So that is nature's way of telling us you're missing something. And Jason wants us to forget about it or to put it aside because it's a comet, forget about it. And to ban any discussion on unidentified objects that the Pentagon take seriously, you know, I just find that. Be happy that it's a comet. He's happy that it's a comet because that's what he thought from the beginning. Let's be honest, Jason. I mean, honestly, you knew this was a comet from the beginning, and now this confirmation bias, it doesn't even need to have any further confirmation to rule out

or to even investigate it, perhaps. And, you know, at least Brian Cox is saying, well, you know, this is, we should be thankful. This is a comet. But again, he also called it a comet before Perihelian. He said it was very confidently that it was a comet. He didn't mention like, oh, I'm going to go consult with all these scientists. But after Jason Wright wrote this article, then he helped to accentuate and get attention to it. So, Avi, any last words about Jason because I do have a bunch of questions. No, I don't think we should not waste too much time. Okay, great.

Okay, great. So we've got channel members that are asking questions here. So the very first one comes from Chase. I'll put it up on the screen. Why has the tail gone and why are people not looking at the propulsion being a fusion reactor? Now, you never really claimed it was thrusters per se. You just said, if it was technology, it would have to have some thrust, right? I mean, is that all you were saying?

I mean, yeah, I'm not. Yeah, well, one needs to understand. Any technological object, even if it's not using thrusters, need some power supply because there are things to get activated within it that require power. And of course, coming close to the sun is an opportunity to gain power. But for a natural comet, we know exactly how much power was consumed by the surface area of this object. However, if you have some engine, then you have excess power relative to that. And that's a technological signature.

So if we see, for example, if a blue color implies a hotspot on the object, then it could be an engine. Or if we see those jets carrying a very high speed outflow that cannot be generated because it's supersonic relative to what pockets of ice would generate, then we know that that could be a technological signature. So we just need to check these properties in order to assess whether we're going to be. understand the physics behind, you know, the energy source of this object. Okay. So next question I want to get, yeah, what can we say? Right, that's all good. Okay, so let me get the next question up from again, you can join the channel as a member and get some interesting questions answered from our guest here. Okay, next question. Pedro Moyer says the following. Avi sometimes uses

contradictory arguments. He says SETI vetoed him purely out of abuse of power, and yet dismisses Brian Cox and others as not being a scientist or not publishing articles. What is the contradiction? I don't see the contradiction here. And I didn't say this. I guess you're saying that Brian Cox saying you, SETI voted you out. Actually, SETI didn't vote you out. It didn't vote me. I was talking about banning UAP discussions in their conferences. It's not about me. You know, again and again, everyone is. focusing on me. I'm saying let's focus on the substance that is being discussed, which is there are unidentified objects in the sky. And SETI bans discussion of these objects. Now your,

your viewer is claiming that I said that SETI is banning me. No, I didn't say anything about me. I was talking about UAPs. How can UAPs be me? It's not me. It's the UAP.A.P. You know, to quote Groucho Marx, I don't think you'd want to be a member of the, you know, the PSU SETI extravaganza if they would have you as a member. Okay, next one comes from Stephen Dedalus. Avi could Three-Eye Atlas be some sort of unknown life form, a conscious celestial object,

a living entity itself and not a vehicle? You're the best. Anything is possible, but we need to examine what the data tells us. And that's why we need to collect as much data as possible and then analyze it and see if we can come up with a model that explains it.

And, you know, maybe, you know, maybe there is something we cannot really imagine and the CO2 comes from some living organism in it. Who knows? Yeah, I mean, we have to say that's very low probability. It's no probability, right? I don't want to dismiss anything because I see it as a learning experience. So I suggest let's follow the data.

Right. Carl Sagan said famously, my other finger puppet, that you should have an open mind, but you shouldn't let your mind be so open that your brains fall out of your head. My brain. All right. Next question comes from my friend Peter Haleran all the way from Ireland. Put it this way, regardless of what it is. Avi has still drawn more attention to this topic than Jason, whoever he is.

I've never heard of until now because Avi has opened up the topic. So where do we go from here, Avi? What's the next for your Atlas? What's the next for you? Yeah. So I say, well, first of all, I should highlight again. I see that as a precious opportunity to convey the excitement of data-based science. in the sense that data is coming in,

it will come in in the coming weeks, and it will revise what we think about triathlars. And if you don't allow for that, if you don't get excited by the fact that it has anomalies and we can figure them out, like in a detective story, you are basically stealing away the inspiration that science brings to society. And people are excited about the process

of not knowing and trying to figure things out. So why would we suppress the curiosity of people? Okay, that's what, drives the appreciation of science. And the public pays taxes that fund science. So let's make them happy. Why is that a sin from the point of view of academia for me to engage with the public?

That is a blessing because now if the public appreciates the scientific process because they get engaged in the collection of data, the interpretation. That would be a great boon for science in the future. The second aspect is that the public really cares about this question. of are we alone? Are there intelligence out there?

And therefore, this is a subject that should be supported and funded at billions of dollars, billions of dollars, not, you know, the small amounts that are used right now. Billions of dollars just like the search from microbes. Why? For one reason, we want to hedge our bets. The second reason is that these billions of dollars are coming from taxpayers' pockets. Okay? So if the taxpayers are telling you that this is a subject of great interest, how do we know that? From the millions of readers that I have to my essays, I know that.

I'm getting millions of readers per month to my essays. I've never had that just because I'm talking about the possibility that we might discover extraterrestrial intelligence. Yeah, that's right. Okay. So the next one comes from Mb14. New member, would an advanced civilization modify a massive comet as a spacecraft instead of building one, since it's already in space and easy to adapt. Well, that's possible.

Yeah, definitely. I mean, we were talking about the mining asteroids in the past. I mean, you know, various politicians talked about it. And NASA administrators talked about it. And so the next step would be, you know, perhaps to hollow out a natural object. And it would serve as a Trojan horse. Because if you are worried about something bad

happening along the path, then when you have this you know, envelope that protects you within the interior of a natural object, then, you know, nobody knows civilization would suspect that this is a technological object, and that would be to your benefit. And you often say, Brian, don't judge a book by its cover. And, you know, so it's possible that, you know, and we know that a Trojan horse was able to get into the city of Troy and achieve its goal. And so that is a tactic that could definitely be used by a, technological civilization. Mm-hmm.

Okay. Coming to the end, we still have a couple more minutes to ask questions. Again, you have to be a member of the channel to ask questions. You don't have to be a member of the channel to win one of these fragments of a real asteroid. Guaranteed Brian Cox to be an asteroid fragment. From older than the Earth, it's about 4.3 billion years old. Get that, Brian King.com slash YT. Or if you have an EDU email address in the U.S., you'll win one.

Brianking.com slash edU. Okay, I'd love to give out meteorites, obvious. It's so much fun. loves them and they're fun to play with. This one's very anomalous. It's got a lot of magnetic material. Okay, next one comes from NAMI Phoenix. Let's put NAMI Phoenix. What's the current lobe scale of 3-I Atlas after everything we know?

Right. So I didn't update my number from the beginning was four because I'm waiting for the data that we come in the next few weeks. And I would either revise it down to zero. or if it turns out that, you know, for example, just to give one example, that it broke up two pieces and a significant fraction of the mass was evaporated, and as a result, we know the composition of the body itself. Or if we measure the velocity, the speed of the jets,

and it looks like sublimated the volatiles from pockets of ice on the surface of the object, I would also argue, since the amount of mass carried by those jets is so big, it must be natural. So I'm just, it would be foolish to revise the ranking right now when we are about to get a flood of data. And I just wait for that data before I update my numbers, probably in mid-December. That's when, in just about the time when it gets closest to Earth on December 19th. And let's just hope that indeed, you know, it's not of any threat to us that there will be no unwanted gifts for the holidays.

So the next one, thank you very much for that reply. And also, it's true lesson in scientific integrity. What Avi said is that he's willing to be proven wrong. From the beginning, he assessed it with a 40% for scale. And now he's saying it could be as low as zero. Now, if someone was truly committed to this thing at all costs, it's a cult leader, I mean, it's a kind of reprehensible thing to call somebody, but let's just say you would never get that. I haven't noticed, you know, the people that, you know, claim, you know, that the branch Davidians or other things that they were leading a cult that they admit that they were wrong now, they just go and bring their followers down in flames. So I think that kind of language is reprehensible. But by the way,

what about the advocates of supersymmetry that were proven wrong by the large Hadron Collider? Were they cult leaders? I mean, they change their opinion now when we have the data. That's the way science is done. And that's what I meant by humility to learn. Exactly. Okay. Magic Mike says, can when NASA altered the photos from high-rise camera after the fact, could you detect any, you know, machinations? I don't think that's a likely thing, obviously. Well, the reason it's very unlikely is because a lot of people are involved. It's really impossible. And these are scientists. These are not government employees. You know, the University of Arizona has a team involved in high-rise. The bureaucracy of NASA prevented them from sharing the data with scientists,

but they are not employed. Many of them are not employed by NASA. And, you know, there are academics, and there is no way that the government would have modified the data just for us to be fooled. I don't think so. Got it. Okay, Grey Scout gave us a nice super chat in Canadian dollars.

$14 in Canadian dollars. Wow, that is great. I think I can buy some putine tonight for dinner. Grey Scout, thank you so much. If Three Eye Atlas release probes, how close would they get before we could detect the probes, Avi? Right. Is there any evidence that they release probes?

Well, that's an excellent question because I asked my research team at the Galileo Project to monitor the sky with our observatories. We have three of them for any unusual activity in the coming months to see if anything came from three-i-athlas in our direction. That is the possibility if you have probes that maneuver and change course and go towards the planets. And the same, I recommended to NASA to look at data from the rovers on the ground at Mars,

but also from the orbiters of Mars, for any unusual objects that suddenly appear in the sky of Mars as the result of the passage of Triadalus within 29 million kilometers from Mars. So these are useful things to do in the coming months. And it's a possibility, but we can rule it out if we don't see anything. Now in terms of the size of the objects, if these objects are of order 100 meters, we can see

them from the reflection of sunlight out to where Thri Atlas is right now if we take deep images. However, if there are 10 meters in diameter, then there are 100 times fainter than we can see at those distances. And you will need them to get closer to us. And so they need to be 10 times closer to us than you know, the Earth's sun separation for us to see a 10-meter object, you have to realize that humanity, most of the spacecraft that we launched are at the level of a few meters in size.

And those can be seen only as they come extremely close to Earth, you know, closer than the moon, you know, within a few times the diameter of Earth. And actually, even the Rubin Observatory will have a hard time noticing them because they will spend very little time within each frame, and you wouldn't be able to actually easily tell that they exist. So for that, we need observatories, just like the Galileo observatories, which are focusing on objects near Earth. And we could see a meter scale or 10-meter-scale objects within the Earth's atmosphere

with the Galileo Project observatons. So I take the last question before we wrap up from Peter Haller. And again, all the way from Ireland, my brother, probably from my Keating side. And Peter says, get Jason on. I want him to answer some anomalies and relativity, dark matter, hubble tension, black hole singularities, quantum gravity, Lorentz test, CMB, time loop causality, it's called science. So if I had him on, you've told me, you're willing to debate anyone as long as it's scientific and it has to be done in good faith.

So I'd love to have Jason on. I'd love to have him talk about it. again, I'd love to have two non-planetary scientists. I mean, but actually what your viewer said is extremely insightful because that's the way science is done. Science is done by having conjectures and testing them against data. And there is nothing wrong about talking about possibilities like this object being technological, nothing wrong about it.

Because look at the mainstream of theoretical particle physics, talking about extra dimensions, spatial dimension in the context of string theory. That was the prevailing hypothesis, completely speculative. We have no evidence for it after 50 years. There are no definite predictions that are testable by future experiments. Nevertheless, it's the mainstream of theoretical physics. So where is Jason criticizing the string community, the mainstream of theoretical? Where is Brian Cox criticizing string theory?

And the reason they don't do that is because they want to be liked. So they would never talk about speculation. that are popular within the mainstream, even though there are not, there are even more severe speculations than the one I'm making. Because for 50 years, you're talking about extra dimensions that were never seen. You know, if you were to do that more than a century ago,

you will be put in a mental institution. Nevertheless, there is a whole community of mainstream physics which are engaged for 50 years and getting honors, awards, appreciation, showing off, doing intellectual gymnastics, on something we've never seen. And Jason and Brian Cox do not have any problem with that. Well, it's unfortunately not that uncommon when it comes to, you know,

things that generate a lot of attention, that there'll be people that are affected by it that have non-scientific criticism. Again, I'm willing to have Dash Cox, right? I'm willing to have them all on. As Einstein said, you know, when a hundred German scientists said that relativity was wrong, he said if they were really correct, then only one. would be necessary. Avi, you do great work. I want to thank everybody out there. I do extend an invitation to all the critics. I'll put links to all their article. I'm not trying to, you know,

I'm not Avi's bodyguard. He doesn't need me. He's a big boy. He's been doing this a very long time, a very eminent career, one of the most creative, productive, generous, generative scientists. And we didn't even mention, we got, we got to mention, you know, for the final clicks. We got to get, we got to get in this last picture here of some say, you know, that, well, I'm not going to say it, because I don't want to sleep in the doghouse tonight, but I was going to say that there is a picture along with Brian Cox of Kim Kardashian in this article that you said. I don't know why she's there, but then actually a truly great. She was interested in Three-Ey Atlas. She asked Sean Duffy, the acting administrator about the nature of Three-I Atlas.

That's why she's in this article. Okay. But then there's Margot Robbie there. So this is totally not gratuitous at all I'm showing. But Margot Robbie was there too. Tell us a little bit about Margo and your conversation. Well, I was attending a gathering where 100 of the most accomplished actors and actresses in Hollywood and film directors as well as CEOs worldwide were there. friend, you know, during the break, I noticed Margot Roby, and then someone came for me to sign my book.

And she noticed that and approached me and said, are you Avila? I really wanted to know more about your research. I have to attend the wedding this evening, so I'll miss your talk. And then we spoke for 20 minutes until dinner started. And she was really curious and genuine about it. And this is just to illustrate the fact that, you know, I found her very sincerely curious and interested in the search for extraterrestrials, in the nature of three-eye Atlas and so forth.

And, you know, I do find people, you know, among the arts that are far more open-minded than in academia. And perhaps because they are used to the creative aspect of their profession. So I'll put links to it. There's also a thing from ES, the European Space Agency today. I'm going to put that in the show notes if you missed it. Don't forget, you can always chat with the guests that I bring on the show. I'd like to open it up because the public, again, pays our salaries, Avi, without their support and their attention, we wouldn't be able to do what we do, right?

Exactly. And that's why I don't feel myself as different from the public. I'm just grateful that I'm getting paid to maintain my curiosity. You know, that is amazing. How many jobs exist where you can follow your passion, and get paid for it. Very good. Well, Avi Love, thank you so much for all your time, attention,

and just a good nature spirit that you have at this. You don't attack people. I do enjoy that. Despite all the arrows that come your way, unfortunately, hopefully in good time, we'll be together again, and we'll have to touch base on the 20th or so December when it makes its kind of swan song and the outgoing coda to this interstellar interloper.

Everyone agrees it's an interstellar. Thank you. We should all remember that we live for a short while. And what we see around us is so much greater and more exciting and more significant that it's not about us. We have a duty to understand the universe. It's just spectacular to figure it out, you know. It's not about us.

We keep being obsessed about ourselves and about attacking other people and so forth. But this is very narrow-minded. Just look up and wonder about it. That's it. I'd be grateful that we live in a time where we can see these objects, study them, and most of all get captivated intellectually and otherwise. Avi Love, thank you so much, and we'll talk again soon. Bye, everybody.

Yamava Resort and Casino at San Manuel is California's number one entertainment destination for today's superstars. Catch the Jonas Brothers return to the Yamava Theater Stage on April 30th, the powerful vocals of Demi Lovato on May 17th, and the signature Southern Country Rock of Eric Church on July 19th. Tickets on sale now at Yamava Theater.com, only at Yamava Resort and Casino, celebrating its 40th anniversary. You win? Must be 21 to enter.

Did you know if your windows are bare, indoor temperatures can go up 20 degrees? Get ahead of summer with custom window treatments like solar roller shades from blinds.com and save up to 45% during the Memorial Day Early Access Sale. Whether you want to DIY it or have a pro handle everything, we've got you. Free samples, real design experts, and zero pressure. Just help when you need it. Shop up to 45% off site wide right now during the early access Memorial Day sale at blinds.com. Rules and restrictions apply.