They also claim there that its possible its artificial.
Yeah, yet you state several times in this thread, that Oumuamua being artificial is the conclusion.
It might just be a language barrier and that you don’t quite understand what you are actually typing. But so far, as well in the OP, you clearly state that the scientists have come to the conclusion that Oumuamua was artificial, which is not true if one reads the article and understand what they are saying.
2 Likes
You dont understand how that works, I understand what I write, its the different meaning of a word you cant know because you never imagined someone in poland can use a translator that gives such meaning. Its me who actually resolved that problem.
A może mam pisać po polsku, ciekawe co byście wtedy zrozumieli? 
Rozumiem polskiego. Mozesz pisac po polsku, ale to nie zmienia faktu ze jestesz bledny.
Nie, kiedy piszę że naukowcy wysnuli wniosek że Oumuamua jest obiektem sztucznym, nienaturalnym, stworzonym przez jakąś istotę, to nie zamyka to tematu, absolutnie.
Piszesz jakbyś nie mógł. 
Nie mam polskiego tastatury installowany.
Wniosek byl prawdopodobny. Ale w twoim OP, piszesz jakby to byl jedyny wniosek.
Nie, nie to mam na myśli, uważam tylko, że jest najbardziej prawdopodobny. Most probable. Ok?
I nie wniosek był prawdopodobny, to wniosek jest propozycją, taki jest sens.
Tutaj wnioski nie są ostateczne. Mogą zostać zawsze podważone.
To nie jest religia z dogmatami, to jest nauka.
You can keep writing in Polish, my Polish is a bit rusty so taking too much effort to write a few lines.
I think what people have been discussing about and what they’ve had issue with (at least for me), is that your own bias have influenced what the OP was trying to say. As you say yourself, you consider the conclusion of Oumuamua of being artificial to be the most likely. But that is your own opinion, since nowhere in the linked paper does the scientists take any favor in terms of what theory would be most probable. When you then relay the scientific study, as if the scientists came to the final conclusion that the object was artificial, I think you can see why some people might have some problems with that.
Anyway, I think we generally agree on what the paper said. It is basically just how this information was then presented in this thread that was the issue.
2 Likes
Well said.
Based on the data and calculations.
I never thought about that PROPOSAL being final. I only wrote its most probable, very plausible it was artificial, for me. Data and calculations and proposal was their.
I only added most probable from myself. 
Also, based on assumption that it was here for a reason, because we here have a good planetary candidate to have some life. And someone could have wanted to explore it by sending solar sail powered probe.
Still just an opinion…
No matter how much butter you put on it, it remains just that…
Original post:
last post:
You aren’t exactly precise in your language then.
You specifically said the paper was conclusive in their discussion about it being artificial.
But however, it is nice that you have understood it all now, and can speak about your opinions in a clearer way.
1 Like
It was a mistake in translation from wniosek.
You assumed it means something different than I. In polish it have different meaning, it can be “proposal” and in english it sounds like “final verdict” when translated direclty, but it actually depends on context when used in polish. I just used wrong word, that word causes problems because you can get wrong idea without context. I should have used proposal, but that did not sound right as it was more like justified proposal, so in polish its wniosek, that happens to be a conclusion when translated directly.
Do you understand now?
I do.
And I am sorry for being a little harsh over a mis-understanding, but I hope also that you can understand why people, especially me, got riled up by such a translation… issue…
Especially when the translation… issue… is so central to the meaning of the sentence.
Translation is hard, and subtle things can either be lost or emphasized when translated.
But all in all, I’m just happy to see people as exited about space-science as me, even if our subjective takes on findings are incompatible.
Glad we cleared it up.
Fly safe o7
1 Like
Also, why people keep writing exited when its actually excited? You are the second person here that makes this error.
Typo…
Boys, we have what is called an incomplete set of observations on this one. That means that we must either infer most probable explanations, or float some additional assumptions and premise to compliment our observations so that we can make inferred conclusions using deductive reasoning.
But the key fact is, the object is now gone, and it is too late to test anything that we come up with… This is why when an object like this pops up, scientists scramble about like crazy bastards to take measurements and record observations. It is the only thing that really counts for anything.
