Can’t these "scientists" do basic math? If Oumuamua were traveling at the speed of light and originated in the closest of these potential birth places, it would have only traveled about one-third of the distance to our solar system by now!
Yet, they measured Oumuamua’s velocity at only 200,000 MPH, not the 186,282.25 miles per second velocity of light in a vacuum… about 3,300 times slower than light speed.
The real fact are that the Carina-Near-Moving-Group of stars is NOT that far away as the bozos writing this article claim, but more like 8,000 to 10,000 light years (not an absurd 100 to 160 million Light Years as stated in the article!). The diameter of our entire Milky Way Galaxy is only about 100,000 light years… and the obscuring debris clouds are between us and the Moving-Group of twenty supposedly connected Carina Stars… where Oumuamua is postulated to have been born in a cloud of postulated magical "molecular matter" that just wants to form an elongated object for an unknown reason.
But they are pulling navel lint from their belly buttons with these claims. They literally have ZERO facts aside from a vague notion of the incoming orbital mechanics before it entered our star’s gravitational influence and after our system had already gravitationally affected that orbit BEFORE we noticed Oumuamua at all and finally measured anything at all about it. They’re admiring their lint, and making conclusions on data that may be wildly inaccurate.
Shoot! There goes my theory it was a weather balloon.
“These “scientists” claim this object is approximately “35,000,000 years old” but then later try to tell us it originated from a hydrogen cloud 100 to 160 million light years away???!!!!”
I’ve always wondered if the universe was much older than estimated.
You seem to be confused between who wrote the article and the scientists who wrote the paper. You are blaming the scientists for obvious mistakes made by the journalist who wrote the article.
Nowhere does the paper claim that the hydrogen cloud is 100 to 160 million light years away.
To add to the absurdity, while making claims about the scientists being incorrect, you appear to be just making up your own numbers. You claimed that the Carina-Near-Moving-Group is 8,000 to 10,000 light years away. This is simply not true. The Carina group is 100 light years away, and the Columbia association is 160 light years away.
(from your posting)
“The real fact are that the Carina-Near-Moving-Group of stars is NOT that far away as the bozos writing this article claim, but more like 8,000 to 10,000 light years”
Clearly the author of the article (not the scientists) added in the “million” to the distances that they quoted from the article.
The speed you quotes of 200,000 mph is more than sufficient to cover the distance of 100 light years in 35 million years. It would only have to be travelling at 2000 mph to cover that distance. Also it is worth noting that the 200,000 mph speed was only at perihelion. The speed when entering and leaving the solar system was much slower.
So your argument really falls apart once you realize that you are taking what was written and the mistakes made by the journalist (Harry Pettit) and attributing it to the scientists in order to claim that they can’t do basic math.
Reading and comprehension is important.
Good points and they never mentioned that it is probably filled with the proto molecule.