> "The retrograde orbital plane... of 3I/ATLAS around the Sun lies within 5 degrees of that of Earth... The likelihood for that coincidence out of all random orientations is 0.2%." Not sure where he comes up with 0.2%.
This part of the calculation, at least, is basically correct. The orientation of a plane in space is defined by its normal vector, so the right way to look at probabilities is in terms of solid angle. The normal of 3I/ATLAS's orbit falls within a cone around Earth's normal vector, having a half-angle of 5 degrees, and that cone's solid angle occupies about 0.2% of the full sphere.
Of course, this is only the chance of a retrograde alignment. Presumably, if the comet's orbit was prograde aligned with the Earth's to within 5 degrees, Loeb would be making exactly the same claim. So really, the relevant probability is 0.4%.
Nevertheless, I agree that the article is basically just a bunch of cherry-picked probabilities and insinuations that don't add up to much.
Also:
> "the brightness of 3I/ATLAS implies an object that is ~20 kilometers in diameter (for a typical albedo of ~5%), too large for an interstellar asteroid."
But to justify this, Loeb cites his own work showing that the object is either a large asteroid, or a comet with a small nucleus. And then he seems to have looked at some earlier spectra and jumped to the conclusion that 3I/ATLAS couldn't be a comet, so it must be a large asteroid. But of course, follow-up observations have debunked this point and clearly shown it to be a comet.
I think there's also a sampling bias here? ATLAS, the survey that discovered the comet, is specifically looking for potential Earth impactors. One assumes that would involve looking close to Earth's own orbital plane.
This part of the calculation, at least, is basically correct. The orientation of a plane in space is defined by its normal vector, so the right way to look at probabilities is in terms of solid angle. The normal of 3I/ATLAS's orbit falls within a cone around Earth's normal vector, having a half-angle of 5 degrees, and that cone's solid angle occupies about 0.2% of the full sphere.
Of course, this is only the chance of a retrograde alignment. Presumably, if the comet's orbit was prograde aligned with the Earth's to within 5 degrees, Loeb would be making exactly the same claim. So really, the relevant probability is 0.4%.
Nevertheless, I agree that the article is basically just a bunch of cherry-picked probabilities and insinuations that don't add up to much.
Also:
> "the brightness of 3I/ATLAS implies an object that is ~20 kilometers in diameter (for a typical albedo of ~5%), too large for an interstellar asteroid."
But to justify this, Loeb cites his own work showing that the object is either a large asteroid, or a comet with a small nucleus. And then he seems to have looked at some earlier spectra and jumped to the conclusion that 3I/ATLAS couldn't be a comet, so it must be a large asteroid. But of course, follow-up observations have debunked this point and clearly shown it to be a comet.