Avi Loeb

So you have roughly the same total mass in rocks that are, let's say, 100 meters in size compared to rocks that are kilometers in size, roughly speaking, or 10 kilometers in size.

So there are many fewer objects, there are 10 times less objects that are 10 times more massive.

So if Oumuamua is one part in 10,000 of the mass of Three-Eyed Atlas, and it could be even less than that, we should have seen 10,000 Oumuamuas before seeing Three-Eyed Atlas.

We haven't.

So what's going on here?

Of course, with a Rubin telescope, we might find many more, and so that would settle the issue.

What about through Atlas?

Didn't we have some strange, I don't want to say maneuver, but some strange movement of that object?

There is a non-gravitational acceleration, just like with Oumuamua, but it's less significant.

The deviation from the path

that it would follow if it follows only gravity is tiny.

Every second, it's less than the thickness of human hair.

It's really small deviation.

But the surprising fact about it is recently, I mean, NASA announces the non-gravitational acceleration.

They have their own outlet.

And they insisted that the dominant non-gravitational push is away from the Sun by a factor of 5 compared to the other components.

Then comes along a different analysis which shows that, based on all available data, it looks like the sideways push is comparable to the push away from the Sun.

And what does it show?

Well, first,

NASA is not an oracle that is always right.