Talk:ʻOumuamua
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ʻOumuamua article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | A news item involving ʻOumuamua was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 November 2017. |  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 19, 2020 and October 19, 2022. |
|
|||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
New paper
edit- On the Anomalous Acceleration of 1I/2017 U1 `Oumuamua Darryl Seligman, Gregory Laughlin, Konstantin Batygin (Submitted on 12 Mar 2019)
"Part of the sky"
edit- But as a nearby star, Vega was not in the same part of the sky at that time
Speaking as a non-astronomer: to me, "part of the sky" means the apparent constellation it's found in. But the rest of that para is about Vega's distance from the Sun at the time. Am I misunderstanding it, or is it a phrasing problem? Marnanel (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Unecessary ambiguity?
editIn the section on composition, the sentence "The authors calculated that a month after perihelion, that ʻOumuamua had lost 92% of the mass it had upon entering the Solar System" would appear to apply to an object that consisted largely of ice, similar to a comet.
So the uncommented transition to the first sentence of the next paragraph "Light curve observations suggest the object may be composed of dense metal-rich rock that has been reddened by millions of years of exposure to cosmic rays" creates an unnecessary non-sequitur since a "dense metal-rich rock" object would hardly lose 92% of its mass by passing the Sun at a distance of 37,000,000 k.
I don't have the expertise to fix this authoritatively. Pascalulu88 (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Try now :) cyclopiaspeak! 08:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing that up! Pascalulu88 (talk) Pascalulu88 (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)