3I/ATLAS Is Now On Track to Reach Earth! | 1 Hour of Brian Cox for Sleep, by Professor Brian Cox, November 4th, 2025

Jesus has said: “My Father and I will direct this comet to Earth”. It too matches ‘the Third Secret of Fatima’ as revealed by Pope John Paul II in Fulda Germany in 1980, and the Asteroid impact, between the islands in the Caribbean Sea, of Mona and Puerto Rico, given by the Reverend Ephrain Rodriguez on 6th August 2010. Posted already to BIN.

I would urge you to read other reports of this asteroid/Comet, and consider what’s in the offing. My impression of approved reports is that they don’t tell the truth, or they tell their truth based on a ’miss’ outcome. Spraying technology over the surface to distort the reality. The comet 3I/Atlas has not formed a tail after perihelion, and it’s turned blue, indicating a hot, or highly energized interior. The description of a hit case scenario is included in this transcript.

Why is this important? Is because Jesus has said that after the death of the physical body, people have only two places to go. Either to Heaven or to Hell. There will be “no purgatory” in the after-life after His Second Coming (a coming not in the flesh, but in Spirit-form only). And I would just like to add that ‘space’ and ‘time’ are created in the mind. Form life exists only at the Mental, Astral and Physical levels. Above that, at finer levels, exist only life and being. The Great I AM, creates other I AM’s by incarnating itself as Spirit, in matter, which is another aspect of itself. There is naught but God, and when civilization gets too out of control – too misoriented, then that civilization is destroyed.

Brian Cox

11/04.2025

Something extraordinary is happening right now in the deep darkness of space. And it’s heading this way. An object from another star system cataloged as 3I/Atlas, was once believed to be just another cosmic wanderer drifting through the void. But recent data suggests something far more unsettling. This visitor isn’t following the path we expected. It’s changing course. And if the numbers hold, if the acceleration we’re witnessing continues, this object could align itself with Earth by December 19th, 2025.

Let me be clear, this isn’t speculation pulled from thin air. Independent researchers analyzing orbital mechanics have shown that a sustained non-gravitational push of just 0.02 mm/s squared applied over 50 days would shift this object’s velocity by 86 m/s. That might not sound like much, but in the vacuum of space over time with the right trajectory, it’s enough to turn a distant flyby into something far closer. Close enough to make you wonder whether we’re witnessing physics at work or something altogether different.

And there’s more. Faint signals have been reported. Rhythmic pulses at 1.4 GHz. A frequency that’s not random. A frequency that sits right in the middle of what astronomers call the water hole – the quiet band of the electromagnetic spectrum where civilizations might choose to send messages. Could this be coordination? Could this object be steering itself? Or are we watching natural forces play out in ways we’ve never seen before?

Stay with me because what unfolds in the next several minutes will give you the full picture. The data, the calculations, the implications, and most importantly, what scientists are watching for in the weeks ahead that will either confirm this as the most ordinary comet we’ve misunderstood or the most significant discovery in human history. If this story has you gripped the way it has me, make sure you hit that like button and subscribe so you don’t miss what happens next. Drop a comment telling me where you’re watching from, what time it is there, and what your gut tells you about this object. And if you think others need to see this, share it everywhere on X, on Reddit, in your group chats, wherever. This community grows because of you, and I’m grateful for every single person here.

Now, let’s dive in. Right now, somewhere in the space between Mars and Jupiter, an object that shouldn’t be here is moving through our solar system. It’s not a piece of debris from our own planetary formation. It didn’t originate anywhere near our sun. This is a visitor from the stars and it was discovered on July 1st, 2025 by a network of telescopes in Chile designed to spot threats coming toward Earth. They cataloged it as 3I/Atlas – the third confirmed interstellar object ever detected. But here’s what makes this one different. It’s not just passing through. Something is pushing it. And that push, that acceleration can’t be explained by gravity alone.

i

A series of posts appeared online laid out by an independent researcher who ran the numbers and came to a conclusion that stopped people cold. The claim is this. If 3I/Atlas sustains a non-gravitational acceleration of roughly 0.02 mm/s squared for about 50 days, it would gain a velocity change of 86 m/s. And if that velocity change is applied in the right direction at the right time, the object could line itself up with Earth on December 19th, 2025. Let me repeat that: “line up with Earth, not pass by at a comfortable distance, but adjust its trajectory to bring itself closer to our planet.” The post didn’t stop there. It suggested this wasn’t random. It framed the acceleration as “intentional maneuvering”. It mentioned possible signals, alleged communications at 1.4 GHz, handshakes between this object and something near Mars. It painted a picture of coordination, of purpose, of something deciding to come this way.

Now, before you dismiss this as just another conspiracy theory making the rounds, let’s look at what we actually know. Because some of this is grounded in hard science. The object is real. Its trajectory is hyperbolic, which means it’s not bound to our sun. It came from interstellar space, and it’s on its way back out. Its closest approach to the sun, what astronomers call perihelion, happened around October 30th, 2025. And yes, there are reports of non-gravitational acceleration. That means this object is moving in ways that gravity alone cannot account for. Non-gravitational acceleration isn’t magic, it’s physics we don’t fully understand in this specific context.

When an object in space deviates from the path that gravity predicts, something else is pushing it [or pulling it by its great gravity]. Usually that something is outgassing. Comets do this all the time. Ice on the surface turns to vapor. Jets of gas shoot out and the object gets a tiny push. 0.02 mm/s squared doesn’t sound like much. It’s about 150,000th of Earth’s gravity. But in the vacuum of space over days and weeks, tiny pushes compound. They add up.

Here’s where it gets truly interesting. This is only the third confirmed interstellar object we’ve ever detected. The first was Oumuamua in 2017, the elongated mystery that sparked endless debate. The second was Borisov in 2019, which looked like a normal comet. Now we have 3I/Atlas and unlike the others, this one is showing behavior that makes people ask uncomfortable questions. What are the stakes here? If this is just a comet, albeit an unusual one, it’s still scientifically valuable. A piece of another star system passing through ours offering clues about planetary formation elsewhere in the galaxy.

But if the acceleration is intentional, if something is steering this object, then we’re looking at a different category of event entirely. We’re looking at the possibility, however remote, of an engineered object from another civilization. The objective here is simple. We’re going to examine the claim. We’re going to look at the data, the assumptions, the arithmetic, and the speculative leaps. We’re going to explore what we know versus what we’re guessing. And we’re going to look ahead to what’s coming in late 2025 and early 2026 when observations could confirm or destroy this hypothesis entirely. This isn’t about feeding paranoia. It’s about understanding what’s real, what’s possible, and what’s just noise. Space is full of things we don’t understand yet.

Every now and then, something comes along that challenges our models. 3I/Atlas might be one of those things. Or it might be a perfectly normal interstellar comet that happens to be outgassing in ways that look strange to us. By the time we’re done here, you’ll be asking yourself a question. “Natural comet, alien probe, or something in between?” You’ll have the tools to form your own judgment. You’ll understand the science, the math, the observational campaigns, and the broader implications, and you’ll know what to watch for in the coming months. The universe is indifferent to our comfort. It doesn’t care whether we’re ready for what it reveals. For most of human history, we believed we were alone, that Earth was the center of everything, that the cosmos revolved around us. Every major discovery since then has been a step toward humility. We learned Earth orbits the sun. We learned the sun is one of billions. We learned galaxies stretch beyond counting. Now we’re learning that objects from other star systems can visit us. What happens when one of those visitors does something we can’t easily explain?

Let’s look at what the data actually show so you can judge for yourself whether this claim holds water or evaporates under scrutiny. The discovery happened on July 1st, 2025. A network of telescopes in Chile designed to spot near-Earth objects picked up something unusual. At first, it looked like any other faint dot moving across the sky. But orbital calculations quickly revealed something extraordinary. The trajectory was hyperbolic. A hyperbolic trajectory means the object is not bound to the sun. It’s moving too fast to be captured by solar gravity. It came from somewhere else, passed through our solar system, and will leave again, heading back into the void between stars. This is the hallmark of an interstellar visitor.

The designation ‘3I’ was assigned, marking it as the third interstellar object ever confirmed. Let’s talk about the orbit. Perihelion. The closest approach to the sun occurred around October 30th 2025. The distance was approximately 1.36 to 1.4 astronomical units. An astronomical unit is the distance from Earth to the sun, about 150 million km. So perihelion put 3I/Atlas somewhere between 203 and 210 million kilometers from the sun roughly inside the orbit of Mars. The closest approach to Earth is predicted for December 19th, 2025. The distance will be about 1.8 astronomical units, roughly 268 to 270 million km. To put that in perspective, the moon is about 384,000 km from Earth. This object will pass at a distance equivalent to about 700 times the Earth moon distance. Far. Very far. Outside any conventional definition of a close call.

Now we get to the anomaly. Avi Loeb. The controversial Harvard astrophysicist known for his work on Oumuamua and the search for extraterrestrial technology reported something unusual in a post on ‘Medium’. Astrometry data from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Atacama Large Millimeter Array showed a deviation from the expected path. The object was not where it should be if gravity alone was guiding it. The offset was about four arcsecs. A tiny angular shift, but significant when you’re tracking something across millions of kilometres. Loeb calculated a non-gravitational acceleration of approximately 0.02 mm/s squared. He then applied a momentum conservation equation to explore what could cause that.

If outgassing is the driver, meaning jets of vapor pushing the object, then the rate of mass loss must be substantial. His calculation suggested that at least one sixth of the object’s mass would need to evaporate over the course of about a month to produce that level of acceleration. Let’s pause on that- a Non-gravitational acceleration is not exotic by itself. Comets experience it routinely. When ice sublimates, turning from solid to gas, it escapes from the surface and creates thrust. It’s a rocket effect, weak but measurable.

The challenge with 3I/Atlas is the scale. If the object is as massive as some estimates suggest, tens of billions of tons, then losing one sixth of that mass in a month should produce a spectacular cloud of gas and dust, a visible coma, a tail, something we could detect. Visually, 3I/Atlas has shown some unusual features. Images reveal a jet structure, possibly directed toward the sun rather than away, which is uncommon. The color of the object has also drawn attention. Reports describe it as bluer than the sun, potentially indicating ionized carbon monoxide rather than typical dust. These are clues, but they’re not conclusive. Comets can be weird. Interstellar comets, even more so.

What does the data not show? Loeb himself does not claim the object is on an Earth intercept trajectory. He does not say it is intentionally maneuvering toward us. The data show an acceleration. They show an offset. They suggest something interesting is happening. The leap to earth intercept to intentional steering comes from elsewhere. It comes from the social media post that took Loeb’s numbers and ran a calculation.

Here’s the key distinction. The data are intriguing but not inexplicable. A hyperbolic interstellar object with some outgassing and a jet structure fits within known physics. It’s on the unusual end, sure, but not impossible. The question is whether the data support the bold claim that 3I/Atlas is actively altering its course toward Earth or whether someone has taken real data and added layers of assumption to reach a dramatic conclusion. So far what we have is this: an interstellar object real and confirmed. A trajectory that brings it relatively close to Earth but still very far away. A non-gravitational acceleration that could be outgassing or could be something else. and a calculation that shows mathematically how a small continuous push over 50 days could result in a significant velocity change. Is that enough to claim the object is lining up with Earth? That’s the question we need to tackle by examining the math and the assumptions that turn data into narrative.

Let’s do the arithmetic. The social media claim starts with a simple equation from classical physics. ‘Acceleration times time equals velocity change’. If you have a constant acceleration of 0.02 mm/s squared and you sustain it for 50 days, what velocity change do you get? 50 days is 4,220,000 seconds. Multiply that by 0.02 mm/s squared, which is 2 * 10 ^ -5 m/s squared and you get approximately 86.4 m/s. That’s the delta v – the change in velocity. The math is correct. There’s no dispute about the arithmetic itself.

Now, let’s talk about displacement. If you apply a constant acceleration over time, you don’t just change velocity, you also change position. The displacement under constant acceleration is (1/2 * acceleration * time)^2. Plug in the numbers: (1/2 * 2 * 10^-5 m/s)^2 * (4.32 * 10^6)^2, you get approximately (1.87 * 10 ^8) meters. That’s 187,000 km, roughly half the distance from Earth to the moon. So yes, the numbers are non-trivial. A small but continuous thrust over 50 days could shift an object’s path by hundreds of thousands of kilometers. In the context of orbital mechanics, that’s significant. It could change where and when an object crosses a particular plane. It could alter a miss-distance. It could theoretically convert a distant flyby into a closer one.

But here’s where assumptions start to pile up. The calculation assumes the acceleration continues unabated for 50 days. Does it? We don’t know. The acceleration was measured at a specific point near perihelion. Whether it persists for weeks or months is unclear. Outgassing typically varies with distance from the sun. As an object moves away from perihelion, solar heating decreases and so does the rate of sublimation. The thrust might weaken or stop altogether. The calculation also assumes the acceleration is applied in exactly the right vector. Direction matters as much as magnitude. If the thrust is sideways relative to Earth’s orbit, it might change the orbital plane but not significantly alter the miss-distance. If it’s prograde, speeding the object up, it changes arrival time. If it’s retrograde, slowing it down, same thing. If it’s radial, pushing toward or away from the sun, it changes the semi- major axis and eccentricity. Without knowing the direction of the acceleration, integrating the velocity change into a trajectory prediction is speculative.

Timing is another critical assumption. The object has to apply the thrust at the right time and in the right direction such that the resulting path intersects Earth’s orbit when Earth is actually there. Earth moves at about 30 km/s around the sun. It covers vast distances in days. Hitting a moving target requires precise timing and vectoring. A shift of 187,000 km might move the crossing point, but if Earth isn’t there at that moment, the intercept doesn’t happen. Then there’s the question of energetics and mass. If the object is as massive as estimates suggest- tens of billions of tons, sustaining a thrust requires enormous energy. If it’s natural outgassing, the mass loss rate must be high as Loeb calculated. If it’s artificial, it implies a propulsion system capable of long-duration thrust. Either scenario strains plausibility unless we see supporting evidence.

Finally, there’s the issue of perturbations. Space is not empty. Solar radiation pressure, the gravitational pull of planets [Nibiru?], solar wind, even the Yarkovsky Effect [sunlight repels] can all influence a small body’s trajectory. The simple calculation assumes these are negligible or average out, but in reality, they add noise and uncertainty. A purely deterministic 50-day burn is an idealization. Let me use an analogy. Imagine you’re driving on a highway. You know you can accelerate 60 kmh faster than your current speed. That’s like knowing your delta V. But merging into the right lane at the right time to reach a specific exit requires more than just speed. You need to know where the exit is, how fast traffic is moving, when to accelerate, and in which direction to steer. The arithmetic of velocity change is one thing. The geometry and timing of orbital mechanics is another. The social media extrapolation assumes the acceleration was acting in a useful direction for Earth lineup. We don’t have evidence for that. The data shows some acceleration but not its vector relative to Earth’s orbit. The claim adds, “This acceleration is purposeful and Earth targeting”. That’s an interpretation layered on top of the data, not derived from it.

Here’s what we know versus what is assumed. We know there’s a non-gravitational acceleration. We know it’s small but measurable. We know the object’s orbit brings it relatively close to Earth in December. We assume the acceleration persists for 50 days. We assume it’s pointed in the right direction. We assume the timing aligns. We assume no other factors interfere. And we interpret all of that as intentional maneuvering toward Earth. Each assumption is a link in a chain. Break one link and the whole claim collapses. The question isn’t whether the math is correct. It is. The question is whether the real world conforms to the assumptions.

The official numbers are clear. According to NASA and the European Space Agency, 3I/Atlas will pass Earth at a distance of approximately 1.8 astronomical units on December 19th, 2025. That’s about 268 to 270 million km. To give you a sense of scale, one astronomical unit is the average distance from Earth to the Sun, roughly 150 million km. So 1.8 astronomical units means the object will be nearly double Earth’s own distance at its closest approach. This is not close. Not by any standard used in planetary defense. An object is considered potentially hazardous if its orbit brings it within 0.05 astronomical units of Earth, about 7.5 million kilometers. 3I/Atlas will pass at more than 30 times that threshold.

NASA and ESA have both stated explicitly that the object poses no threat to Earth. So how do miss distances work in orbital mechanics? When an object approaches on a hyperbolic trajectory, its path is determined by its velocity, direction, and the gravitational influences it experiences. The miss-distance is essentially the closest point of approach calculated from the object’s trajectory relative to Earth’s position at a given time. For 3I/Atlas, that calculation yields 1.8 astronomical units on December 19th. Now, let’s address the central question. Could a velocity change of 86 m/s significantly alter that miss distance? The answer is ‘yes’ and ‘no’ depending on context. Yes. In principle, a delta V of 86 m/s applied over 50 days could shift the object’s trajectory by hundreds of thousands of kilometres. As we calculated earlier, the displacement could be around 187,000 km. That’s not nothing. In orbital mechanics, small changes in velocity can produce large changes in position over time, especially if applied early in the trajectory. But ‘no’, converting a 270 million km miss into an Earth impact would require far more than 86 m/s, unless the vector and timing were extraordinarily favorable. The object is moving at roughly 60 km/s- 60,000 m/s. 86 meters/s is less than 0.15% of its total velocity. To change the trajectory enough to shift the miss distance from 270 million km to zero, you’d need either a much larger delta V or an almost perfect alignment of thrust direction and timing.

The direction of the thrust is everything. Imagine the object’s trajectory as a line through space. If you push sideways perpendicular to the velocity vector, you change the orbital plane. You might shift the path by 100,000 km laterally, but that doesn’t necessarily bring it closer to Earth. If you push forward or backward along the velocity vector, you change the arrival time. The object might reach the Earth’s sun plane earlier or later, but again, that doesn’t guarantee a closer approach unless Earth happens to be in that exact spot. If you push radially toward or away from the sun, you alter the shape of the orbit, the eccentricity, and the perihelion distance.

There’s a concept in orbital mechanics called the B-plane. It’s a virtual plane perpendicular to the incoming trajectory used to calculate where an object will cross relative to a target. Think of it like a dart board. The bullseye is Earth. The object’s trajectory pierces the plane at some point and the distance from the bullseye to that point is the miss-distance. A small velocity change can shift where on the plane the object crosses. But moving from the outer edge of the dartboard to the center requires a very specific push. Without knowing the direction of 3I/Atlas’s non-gravitational acceleration relative to Earth’s position, we can’t say how much the miss-distance. The social media claim assumes the push is in the right direction. That’s a big assumption.

There’s also the matter of the object’s mass. Estimates suggest 3I/Atlas is massive. potentially more than 33 billion tons with a diameter of several kilometers. Maneuvering a body of that size is difficult if the mechanism is natural outgassing. You’re essentially trying to steer a mountain by evaporating ice off its surface. If the mechanism is artificial, it implies an engine or propulsion system of tremendous power. Either way, the physics is challenging.

NASA and ESA scientists who have access to the full astrometric data and orbital models have concluded the object is not on an Earth intercept course. They factor in uncertainties, perturbations, and potential non-gravitational forces. Their models show a safe passage. If the numbers suggested otherwise, if there were even a small chance of impact, the alarm bells would be ringing. Planetary defense networks exist precisely to identify and track potentially hazardous objects. 3I/Atlas is not on their threat list. So the miss-distance reality check comes down to this. The geometry and timing make an Earth impact scenario very unlikely at this stage. The object would need a much larger velocity change applied in a very specific direction at a very specific time to convert a 270 million km flyby into something dangerous. The numbers might look alarming if you focus only on the arithmetic of delta V, but the full picture, the orbital mechanics, the timing, the miss-distance, all point to a distant passage.

That doesn’t mean the object is uninteresting. Far from it. The non-gravitational acceleration, the unusual features, the sheer fact that it’s an interstellar visitor, all make it scientifically valuable. But the Earth Intercept scenario, the claim that it’s lining up with us, remains speculative. The next few months are critical. Between now and early 2026, 3I/Atlas will be under intense scrutiny. Telescopes around the world and in space are already tracking it. Perihelion passage occurred around October 30th, 2025 when the object was closest to the sun. Now it’s heading outbound, moving toward its December 19th close approach to Earth. This is the observation window, and it won’t last forever. Once the object moves past Earth and heads deeper into the outer solar system, it will fade from view.

The major instruments involved in this campaign include some of the most powerful tools humanity has built. The Hubble Space Telescope can capture high resolution images in visible and ultraviolet wavelengths. The James Web Space Telescope with its infrared capabilities can detect heat signatures and analyze the composition of any gas or dust surrounding the object. Ground based observatories like the Very Large Telescope in Chile and the Keck Observatory in Hawaii are also contributing. Radio telescopes are listening for any unusual emissions. And closer to home, Mars Orbiters might catch a glimpse as 3I/Atlas passes relatively close to the red planet. There’s also an interesting coincidence. On November 4th, 2025, the European Space Agency’s Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer, known as JUICE, will pass within approximately 64 million kilometers of 3I/Atlas. That’s not close enough for a dedicated flyby, but Juice’s instruments might be able to gather data from that distance. Every bit of information helps.

Avi Loeb and other researchers have laid out testable predictions. These predictions hinge on whether the non-gravitational acceleration is due to natural outgassing or something else. If outgassing is the cause, the mass loss should be substantial. Loeb’s calculation suggested at least 1/6th of the object’s mass evaporating over roughly a month. That should produce a massive cloud of gas and dust, a visible coma, probably a tail stretching behind the object as solar wind pushes the particles away. So, the first prediction is straightforward. If the acceleration is natural, telescopes should detect a large gas and dust envelope. Spectroscopy should reveal the presence of volatiles like water, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, or methane. The object should behave like a comet showing all the classic signs of sublimation driven activity. But if no large cloud appears, if the mass loss is minimal or absent, then the natural outgassing hypothesis weakens. That would be a significant result. it would mean the acceleration is coming from something else, something that doesn’t require ejecting large amounts of material. That’s when non-natural or technological explanations start to look more plausible.

The measurements to watch include astrometric residuals, the differences between; where the object actually is versus where a purely gravitational model predicts it should be. These residuals reveal the magnitude and direction of any non-gravitational forces. Over the coming weeks, as more observations accumulate, astronomers will refine the orbit and quantify the acceleration with greater precision. Spectroscopy is another key tool. By splitting the light from the object into its component wavelengths, scientists can identify the molecules and atoms present. 3I/Atlas has already been noted for its unusual color described as “bluer than the sun”. That could indicate ionized carbon monoxide, a signature of certain types of comets, or it could mean something else. Detailed spectroscopy will tell us more about the composition and whether it matches known cometary chemistry. Imaging is important, too. The morphology of any coma or tail, the structure of jets, the presence of asymmetries, all provide clues. Some reports mention an anti-tail, a jet directed toward the sun rather than away from it. That’s unusual, but not unheard of. Comets occasionally show forward directed features due to geometry or rotation. High resolution images will clarify whether what we’re seeing is consistent with natural processes.

Then there’s radio astronomy. The social media posts claim the object was sending 1.4 gigahertz pings, alleged communications or course correction signals. That’s entirely unverified, but radio telescopes will be listening anyway. If there are any unusual emissions, whether at 1.4 GHz or any other frequency, they’ll be detected and analyzed. Radio signals from a comet are rare but possible, usually associated with plasma interactions. A strong structured signal would be another matter entirely. There are challenges to this observational campaign. Timing and geometry matter.

Around perihelion, the object was close to the sun in the sky, making it difficult to observe without being blinded by solar glare. Now, as it moves away from the sun and towards Earth, visibility improves, but by late December, after the close approach, it will start fading. As it moves farther from both the sun and Earth, the window is narrow. Weather, telescope availability, funding, and coordination all play roles. Not every telescope can observe every night. Data need to be reduced, analyzed, peer-reviewed, and published. Science moves slower than social media. The claims might spread in hours, but the observations take weeks or months to confirm or refute. Still, this is an exciting time. We’re watching a visitor from another star system in real time. The same telescopes that peer at distant exoplanets that probe the chemistry of alien atmospheres are now turned towards something passing through our own neighborhood. It’s a rare convergence of opportunity and technology.

By early 2026, we should have answers. If 3I/Atlas behaves like a comet showing massive outgassing, a coma, a tail, and spectroscopic signatures of volatiles, then the natural explanation holds. The non-gravitational acceleration was just a comet doing comet things, perhaps more dramatically than usual because of its interstellar origin and composition. But if the observations come back showing minimal mass loss, no significant cloud, and yet the acceleration persists or shows directionality inconsistent with jetting, then we have a problem. Not a disaster, but a scientific puzzle that doesn’t fit neatly into our models. That’s when the conversation shifts. That’s when the exotic hypotheses, the ones we need to explore next, stop being idle speculation and start demanding serious consideration.

What if the acceleration isn’t natural? What if 3I/Atlas isn’t just a comet doing comet things? What if it’s something engineered, something sent, something designed? Avi Loeb and his colleagues have published a paper asking the question outright. “Is the interstellar object 3I/Atlas alien technology?” It’s not a joke. It’s a serious scientific inquiry framed within the context of what we can and cannot rule out. The paper considers the possibility that the object is a technological artifact, perhaps a probe from another civilization. Why would anyone suggest this? Several factors converge. First, the non-gravitational acceleration. If it’s not outgassing or if the outgassing explanation strains credibility due to the required mass loss rate, then we need alternative mechanisms. Second, the size and mass estimates. A large massive object experiencing measurable acceleration implies significant energy and momentum transfer. Third, the trajectory. Loeb notes that the object’s path through the inner solar system, its timing, and its alignment with the plane of Earth’s orbit are statistically unusual. Not impossible, but unlikely if it’s a random visitor from interstellar space.

The energetics are worth exploring. For an object with a mass of tens of billions of tons to sustain an acceleration of 0.02 mm/s squared for weeks, the required thrust is substantial. Force equals mass times acceleration. Plug in (10 ^13 kg) and * (2 * 10 -5 m/s) squared and you get a force of about 200,000 newtons. That’s the thrust of a small rocket engine sustained continuously. If this is natural, outgassing must provide that thrust. But as we’ve discussed, the mass loss rate required is enormous. If this is artificial, what kind of propulsion could do it? Solar sails come to mind. A large reflective surface (pushed by sunlight) could generate thrust without expelling mass. But solar sails are inefficient unless they’re very large and very reflective. Calculations suggest a sail large enough to accelerate this mass would need to be kilometres across and oriented correctly. Or maybe something more exotic, an ion drive, a fusion engine, or a technology we haven’t invented yet.

The 1.4 ghahertz pings mentioned in the social media post add another layer to this hypothesis. 1.4 gigahertz is significant in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence because it corresponds to the hydrogen line, a natural frequency emitted by neutral hydrogen atoms. It’s sometimes called the water hole in radioastronomy, a quiet band in the electromagnetic spectrum where signals could travel through space with minimal interference. If an advanced civilization wanted to send a signal, 1.4 GHz would be a logical choice. But here’s the problem. There’s no publicly verified detection of such pings from 3I/Atlas. Radio telescopes monitor the sky constantly and if there were a strong structured signal coming from the object, someone would have noticed. The claim remains unsubstantiated floating in the realm of speculation.

Still, let’s entertain the hypothesis. Suppose 3I/Atlas is an artificial probe. What would its purpose be? Reconnaissance? Observation? Maybe it’s been drifting through space for millions of years, a relic from a long dead civilization still carrying out its programmed mission to survey star systems. Or maybe it’s active, deliberately adjusting its course to study interesting targets. Could it intentionally steer itself to intercept Earth? The short answer is ‘yes’, if it has the capability. A probe with a functioning propulsion system could in principle alter its trajectory. But the delta V required to convert a 270 million km miss into an actual intercept is far more than 86 m/s. You’d need velocity changes on the order of kilometers/s applied with precise timing and direction. That’s a lot of thrust sustained over a long period. Loeb has also discussed the dark forest hypothesis in relation to 3I/Atlas. The dark forest idea popularized by the science fiction author Lou Chikshin suggests that the universe is full of civilizations, but they remain silent to avoid detection by potentially hostile neighbors. Revealing your presence could invite destruction, so everyone stays quiet, hiding in the cosmic dark forest. Loeb speculates that if 3I/Atlas is a probe, its behavior might reflect a cautious approach, observing from a distance rather than making direct contact. This is highly speculative. Multiple layers of assumption are piled on top of each other. Assumption one, the acceleration isn’t natural. Assumption two, it’s artificial. Assumption three, it’s controlled by an intelligence. Assumption four, that intelligence is cautious or intentional in its approach to Earth. Each assumption reduces the probability of the overall scenario.

What would count as a smoking gun for technological origin? Several things come to mind. Unexpected radio emissions, especially structured signals with information content. Nonvolatile thrust signatures, meaning sustained acceleration with no corresponding mass loss or gas release. Extremely low mass loss with high acceleration violating the physics of rocket propulsion unless there’s an external energy source. highly reflective surfaces suggesting manufactured materials rather than natural rock and ice. Changes in attitude or orientation that can’t be explained by rotational tumbling. If observations detect any of these, the conversation changes immediately. Suddenly, the exotic hypothesis isn’t fringe speculation anymore. It’s a  viable explanation demanding investigation. But if none of these signatures appear, if the object continues to behave like a weird but natural comet, then the technological hypothesis fades back into the background. The stakes are enormous.

If the probe scenario is true, it would confirm we’re not alone. It would mean another civilization reached a level of technology sufficient to send objects across interstellar space. It would raise questions about their intentions, their longevity, their fate. Are they still out there? Did they send one probe or a thousand? Is 3I/Atlas ancient or recent? But the stakes being high doesn’t make the hypothesis true. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And right now, the evidence is ambiguous at best. The non-gravitational acceleration is real, but it’s not definitively non-natural. The trajectory is unusual, but not impossible for a random interstellar object. The radio pings are unverified. The lack of a massive coma is suggestive, but not conclusive. Science proceeds by testing hypotheses, by making predictions, and checking them against observations. The technological hypothesis makes predictions, too. No large gas cloud because there’s no outgassing. Persistent acceleration even as the object moves away from the sun because the propulsion isn’t solar driven. Possible radio emissions or other non-thermal signatures. Over the next few months, observations will test these predictions. If the object turns out to be natural, we’ve still learned something valuable. We’ve pushed the boundaries of cometary science, explored the chemistry and dynamics of interstellar visitors, and tested our models against an extreme case. If the object turns out to be artificial, well, that’s the biggest discovery in human history.

Either way, the observations coming in late 2025 and early 2026 will be fascinating. The posts appeared on X in mid-October 2025. An independent researcher, not affiliated with any major institution, laid out a series of claims. The core was simple. 3I/Atlas is accelerating. If it keeps accelerating at 0.02 mm/s squared for 50 days. It will gain 86 m/s of velocity. That velocity change applied in the right direction at the right time could line the object up with Earth on December 19th, 2025. Then the claims escalated. The researcher suggested the acceleration wasn’t random. It was intentional. The object was maneuvering, course correcting, aiming itself toward Earth. There were mentions of 1.4 gigahertz pings detected near Mars. Alleged communications, handshakes between the object and something else. The narrative shifted from interesting scientific anomaly to alien probe is targeting us.

Let’s break this down piece by piece. The data, the part about the acceleration, that’s real. Avi Lobe reported it. It’s based on astrometric observations from reputable sources. The arithmetic, the calculation that 0.02 mm/s squared * 50 days equals 86 m/s. That’s correct, too. Basic physics. No errors there. But then come the assumptions. The assumption that the acceleration persists for exactly 50 days. The assumption that it’s directed towards Earth. The assumption that the timing aligns perfectly with Earth’s position in orbit. None of these are verified. They’re extrapolations, guesses based on limited data. The interpretation, the claim that the object is lining up with Earth. That’s where data ends and narrative begins. Lining up implies intent. It implies the object is steering itself deliberately toward our planet. There’s no evidence for that. The miss-distance is still 270 million kilometers. NASA says no threat. The geometry doesn’t support an intercept scenario unless multiple unlikely factors align. The 1.4 gigahertz pings unverified. No major observatory has confirmed radio emissions from 3I/Atlas. If such a signal existed, radio astronomers would be all over it.

The lack of confirmation doesn’t prove the pings didn’t happen, but it means we can’t take them seriously without evidence. So, how did this narrative gain traction? Social media thrives on uncertainty and drama. A scientific anomaly, a gap in our understanding, becomes fertile ground for speculation. People take the data, add their own interpretations, and create stories. Those stories spread faster than the science because they’re more exciting. ‘An alien probe targeting Earth’ is a better headline than ‘Comet shows unusual outgassing’.

The psychology here is fascinating. Humans are pattern-seeking creatures. We see connections even when none exist. We’re drawn to narratives that give meaning to chaos. An interstellar object with an unexplained acceleration isn’t just a comet behaving oddly. It’s a sign, a message, maybe a warning. Conspiratorial framing amplifies this. Once the seed is planted that the object might be artificial, every ambiguity becomes evidence. The lack of a visible coma, proof it’s not a comet, the unusual color, engineered materials, the trajectory, deliberate targeting, the lack of official confirmation of the radio pings, a coverup, the narrative becomes self-reinforcing, immune to contradiction. This isn’t unique to 3I/Atlas. Oumuamua, went through the same cycle. A weird object appears. Scientists admit they don’t fully understand it. And the internet fills the gaps with aliens.

Sometimes the scientists themselves like Avi Loeb lean into the speculation. Loeb is known for entertaining exotic hypotheses publicly, arguing that we should consider all possibilities, including technological origins. That openness is valuable in science, but it also provides ammunition for sensationalism. Mainstream media picks up the story, often in simplified or exaggerated form. Headlines scream ‘alien probe’ even when the article itself is more measured. The New York Post ran a piece quoting Loeb on 3I/Atlas framing it as a potential alien engine. The framing matters. Most people don’t read past the headline. They absorb the idea that scientists think it might be aliens and that becomes the story. The responsibility in science communication is to distinguish between “here’s what the data show” and “here’s what someone extrapolates”. . They might be true, but they’re not established facts. There’s a balance to strike. On one hand, we shouldn’t dismiss possibilities prematurely. Science advances by considering ideas that seem unlikely. On the other hand, we shouldn’t treat speculation as equivalent to evidence.

The claim that 3I/Atlas is lining up with Earth is not on the same footing as the observation that it has a non-gravitational acceleration. One is measured, the other is inferred. Social media collapses that distinction. Everything becomes a claim, a theory, a possibility. The signal to noise ratio deteriorates. People argue about whether the object is a threat without agreeing on what the data actually say. Misinformation spreads not because people are lying but because the line between data and interpretation gets blurred. So where does that leave us? With a meta question. Are we prepared for the possibilities? What if the object is natural but genuinely weird pushing the boundaries of cometary physics? What if it is artificial, confirming we’re not alone? How do we as a society process information in a landscape where truth and speculation coexist on the same feed?

The social media narrative around 3I/Atlas is a case study in how science and storytelling intersect. The question remains, what happens if the story turns out to be more than just a story? If the object actually did something unexpected, let’s engage in a thought experiment. This is scenario analysis, not prediction. What if all the assumptions held? What if 3I/Atlas somehow managed to alter its course enough to intersect Earth? What would that mean? First, the parameters. Size estimates for 3I/Atlas range from a few hundred meters to several kilometers in diameter. Some calculations based on its brightness and assumed albido [white] suggest it could be 5 km across or even larger. Mass estimates exceed 30 billion tons, possibly more. That’s a mountain hurtling through space. Interstellar objects travel fast. When they enter a solar system on a hyperbolic trajectory, they’re not bound by the sun’s gravity, so they don’t slow down much. 3I/Atlas is moving at roughly 60 kilometers/s (60,000 meters/s). That’s over 130,000 m hour. At that speed, kinetic energy scales dramatically.

The kinetic energy formula is simple. Energy equals 1/2 * mass times velocity squared. Let’s use a conservative estimate. Say the mass is 30 billion tons, which is 3 * 10 ^13 kg. Velocity is 30,000 m/s, a midpoint estimate. Plug those in. (1 half times 3 * 10 ^13th) * (9 * x 10 ^8th), that gives you roughly 1.35 * 10 ^22nd jewels. How much energy is that? A megaton of TNT releases about 4.2 * 10 ^15th jewels. Divide the kinetic energy by that and you get approximately 3.2 million megatons- 3 million megatons. For comparison, the largest nuclear weapon ever tested, the Soviet Zar bomber, was 50 megatons. This impact would be 60,000 times more powerful. The consequences would be catastrophic.

An object of that size and speed would punch through the atmosphere in seconds. It wouldn’t have time to slow down or ablate significantly. It would hit the surface at nearly full speed, releasing all that kinetic energy in an instant. The explosion would dwarf anything in human history, natural or artificial. Firestorms would ignite across continents. The shock wave would flatten everything within hundreds of kilometers of the impact site. Earthquakes would ripple through the crust. If it hit an ocean, the tsunami would be thousands of meters high, traveling at jet speeds across ocean basins. Coastal cities would be obliterated. But the immediate destruction is only the beginning. The energy would vaporize the impactor and a huge volume of rock, soil, or water, sending it into the atmosphere. Dust and aerosols would spread globally within days, blocking sunlight. Temperatures would plummet. Photosynthesis would halt. Crops would fail. The resulting famine would kill more people than the initial impact. This is an extinction level event, not necessarily the extinction of all life. The Earth has survived worse, but the extinction of most large animals, including humans. We’re talking about a scenario comparable to the impact that killed the dinosaurs 66 million years ago.

Now let’s consider a less extreme case. Suppose 3I/Atlas doesn’t hit Earth but passes much closer than the predicted 1.8 astronomical units. Say it passes at tens of thousands of kilometers, roughly the distance to geostationary satellites. What happens then? A close flyby would still be dramatic. The object’s gravity would perturb Earth’s orbit slightly, though probably not enough to notice. Earth is much more massive, so the effect would be minimal, but the electromagnetic and plasma interactions could be interesting. If the object has a magnetic field or carries charged particles, there might be auroras, radio disturbances, even temporary disruptions to satellites. There’s also the question of debris. If 3I/Atlas is shedding material, either through outgassing or fragmentation, a close flyby could inject dust and particles into Earth’s atmosphere. Meteor showers could intensify. Spacecraft in low Earth orbit might be at risk from impacts. The International Space Station, satellites, everything in orbit would need to be monitored. From a scientific standpoint, a close flyby would be a bonanza. Telescopes would capture data at unprecedented resolution. Radar could map the surface. Spectroscopy could analyze the composition in detail. If the object turned out to be artificial, the evidence would be undeniable at close range.

But let’s return to the central question. How much delta V would actually be required to convert the predicted miss into an intercept? The miss distance is 270 million kilometers. To close that gap, you’d need to change the trajectory significantly. 86 m/s isn’t nearly enough unless the geometry is extraordinarily favorable. Let’s do a rough estimate. The object’s velocity is 60 km/s. A 1% change in velocity is 600 m/s. That might shift the miss-distance by a few million kilometers, depending on direction and timing. To shift it by 270 million km, you’d likely need a change of several kilometers/s applied over weeks or months in precisely the right direction. That’s not happening with 0.02 mm/s squared over 50 days. You’d need a much stronger acceleration, sustained much longer or applied much earlier in the trajectory. The numbers don’t support an intercept scenario based on the reported acceleration. So the worst case hypotheses are terrifying. But the chain of assumptions required to get there is long and fragile. The object would need to have a propulsion system capable of enormous thrust. It would need to have started maneuvering months or years ago, not just near perihelion. It would need precise knowledge of Earth’s position and velocity. And even then, the energetics are daunting. If the object were artificial and targeting Earth, what would the intention be? Observation seems most plausible. Why send a probe across interstellar space only to destroy it and the target in a collision? A flyby makes more sense. Get close enough to study the planet, its atmosphere, its biosphere, maybe even its technological signatures, then move on.

Alternatively, maybe it’s not targeting Earth at all. Maybe the trajectory is coincidental, the product of dynamics in whatever star system it came from. We’re reading intent into randomness, seeing patterns where none exist. What monitoring and defense options do we have? Not many at this point. Planetary defense systems like NASA’s double asteroid redirection test or ‘D’ are designed for smaller, slower objects that we detect years in advance. An interstellar intruder moving at 60 km/s detected only months before closest approach is beyond our current capability to deflect. Early warning networks help. If we detect the object years in advance, we might have time to plan a mission, maybe even intercept it for study. But 3I/Atlas was discovered in July 2025, only months before its perihelion and Earth approach. That’s not enough time to mount a deflection mission. So the worst case scenario motivates preparedness, but it doesn’t define our current situation.

The reality is that 3I/Atlas poses no threat according to every credible orbital calculation. The miss-distance is comfortable. The trajectory is well understood. Agencies are monitoring it, but they’re not sounding alarms. The broader implications of interstellar objects stretch beyond any single visitor. 3I/Atlas is only the third confirmed interstellar object ever detected. The first was Oumuamua discovered in October 2017. The second was Borisov, found in August 2019. Before that, we had no direct evidence that objects from other star systems ever visited ours. Now, we know they do, and probably more often than we realized.

The study of interstellar objects offers a unique window into the universe beyond our solar system. These are pieces of other worlds, debris from planetary systems light years away, delivered to our doorstep. By analyzing their composition, structure, and behavior, we can learn about the chemistry and dynamics of star systems we’ll never visit. Oumuamua, was a mystery from the start. Its elongated shape, tumbling rotation, and slight non-gravitational acceleration sparked endless debate. Was it a comet, an asteroid, something else? Spectroscopy revealed no coma, no tail, no obvious signs of outgassing. Yet, it accelerated as it moved away from the sun, suggesting some force beyond gravity. Avi Loeb famously suggested it might be a light sail, a thin reflective sheet pushed by solar radiation. Most astronomers disagreed, proposing instead that it was a comet with unusual properties, maybe composed of hydrogen ice or nitrogen ice that sublimates without leaving a visible cloud. Borisov was different. It looked like a normal comet. It had a coma, a tail, spectroscopic signatures of water and carbon monoxide. It behaved exactly as expected for an icy body passing close to the sun. In many ways, Borisov was reassuring. It showed that not every interstellar object is weird. Some are just comets from somewhere else.

3I/Atlas falls between these extremes. It shows some cometary features, but also anomalies that don’t fit neatly into standard models. The non-gravitational acceleration is stronger than expected for its size. The mass-loss rate, if it’s due to outgassing, is extreme. The color and possible anti-tail add further quirks. What does this tell us about interstellar objects in general? That they’re diverse. That we can’t assume they all behave like solar system comets or asteroids. That composition, structure, and history vary depending on where and how they formed. The dynamics of interstellar objects also challenge our understanding. How often do they visit? Where do they come from? Are they ejected from planetary systems kicked out by gravitational interactions with giant planets? Or are they remnants of star formation left over material that never coalesced into planets? Detection rates suggest interstellar objects pass through the inner solar system more frequently than we thought. With better telescopes and more sky surveys, we’re finding them.

3I/Atlas was spotted by the same system that looks for near-Earth asteroids. Future surveys like the Vera Rubin Observatory will detect many more. We might be finding one or two per year within a decade. This brings us to planetary defense. While 3I/Atlas poses no current threat, the fact that extra solar bodies can cross our solar system means future  ones might come closer. Detection and response capability must improve. Planetary defense against interstellar objects is harder than against solar system objects for several reasons. First, speed. Interstellar objects travel much faster, tens of kilometers/s instead of a few. That gives less time to react and makes deflection more difficult. Second, unpredictability. We don’t know their orbits until they’re already here. Solar system objects follow predictable paths we can track for years. Interstellar visitors appear suddenly. Third, limited observation windows. They pass through quickly and fade from view. We might have only months to study them.

Mission design becomes critical. If we detect an interesting interstellar object years before its closest approach, could we send a spacecraft to intercept it? The answer is maybe, depending on the trajectory and our readiness. Missions like the European Space Agency’s comet interceptor are designed to respond quickly to transient targets. More missions like that, pre-positioned in space, waiting for a target to appear, could revolutionize our ability to study interstellar visitors. Advanced radar and optical tracking would help, too. Better astrometry means more precise orbits, which means earlier detection of potential threats and better characterization of interesting objects. Artificial intelligence can assist sifting through vast data sets to flag anomalies and predict trajectories. There are technological spin-offs as well. Modeling high velocity objects improves our understanding of impact physics, which has applications in material science and planetary geology Tracking faint, fast moving objects pushes the limits of instrumentation and data processing. These advances benefit not just planetary defense but astronomy more broadly.

Now consider the implications if 3I/Atlas turns out to be artificial. The impact on the search for extraterrestrial intelligence would be enormous. SETI has been listening for radio signals for decades searching for deliberate transmissions from other civilizations. But an interstellar probe, a physical object sent across the galaxy, represents a different mode of communication and exploration. It suggests a civilization that built machines, launched them into space, and either still exists or has left these relics behind. If 3I/Atlas is natural but weird, the implications for solar system formation and extra solar chemistry are still massive. It means the diversity of small body physics is greater than we understood. It means our models of comets, asteroids, and planets need to account for a wider range of compositions and behaviours. Either way, 3I/Atlas is a wake-up call.

Whether the story ends with a confirmed comet or a revolutionary discovery, the object reminds us that our solar system is not isolated. The galaxy is vast, filled with countless stars and planets, and the space between them is not empty. Objects drift, collide, escape, and wander. Some of them end up here. Public fascination with alien probes can draw attention and funding to space science, but it also risks miscommunication. Planetary defense agencies must manage both data and narrative, providing accurate information while acknowledging uncertainty. The line between responsible speculation and sensationalism is thin. Scientists like Avi Loeb walk that line deliberately, arguing that we should remain open to all possibilities. Critics argue that entertaining exotic hypotheses without sufficient evidence undermines public trust in science. The debate is healthy. It reflects the tension between caution and curiosity, between conservatism and imagination. 3I/Atlas, regardless of what it turns out to be, embodies that tension.

Artificial intelligence is changing how we study the cosmos. Machine learning algorithms can process vast amounts of data, identify patterns, flag anomalies, and make predictions faster and more accurately than traditional methods. In 2025, several new AI-driven tools were released for astrometry and orbit prediction, and they’re already making an impact. One example is Orbnet, a neural network developed by a collaboration of universities and space agencies. Orbnet ingests astrometric data, observations of an object’s position over time, and compares them to a purely gravitational model. It outputs residuals – the differences between observed and predicted positions, and flags objects with significant deviations. Orbnet was trained on decades of asteroid and comet data. It learned what normal looks like and what doesn’t. When it encounters an object like 3I/Atlas with a measurable non-gravitational acceleration, it doesn’t just flag it. It suggests potential causes based on patterns it’s seen before. Outgassing, fragmentation, collisions, radiation pressure, even unknown thrust.

Why does this matter? Because subtle deviations in trajectory can be missed or mismodelled by classic methods. Humans fitting orbits to data might overlook small residuals, attributing them to noise. AI, with its ability to analyze thousands of parameters simultaneously, can pick up patterns that escape notice. For 3I/Atlas, AI systems are refining the orbit, detecting small-scale thrust vectors and helping rule out or confirm maneuver hypothesis. If the object’s acceleration changes over time, if it varies with distance from the sun, if it shows directionality inconsistent with outgassing, AI will catch it.

Another tool called Astro AI was released by the European Space Agency this year. It uses reinforcement learning to predict future positions of near-earth objects and interstellar visitors. By training on historical data and simulating millions of possible trajectories, it can estimate how much correction would be needed to achieve specific outcomes like aligning with a particular target. Researchers have already used Astro-AI to analyze 3I/Atlas. They input the observed acceleration, the current orbit, and Earth’s position. The AI ran simulations asking what velocity change applied when and in what direction would result in an Earth intercept on December 19th. The answer came back clear. The required delta V is far larger than 86 m/s. You’d need several kilometers/s applied months earlier with precise vectoring. The social media claim doesn’t hold up under rigorous modeling. This is where AI excels. It can explore parameter space, testing thousands of scenarios in seconds. A human astronomer might calculate one or two scenarios by hand. AI calculates them all and identifies which are physically plausible.

But AI has limitations. It’s only as good as its input data. If the astrometric observations have systematic errors, if the object’s motion is more complex than the model assumes, AI can produce misleading results. It can flag anomalies that aren’t real or miss subtle effects that aren’t in its training data. Also, AI can identify correlations but not always causation. It might notice that the acceleration correlates with solar distance suggesting outgassing, but it can’t tell you definitively what chemical process is driving it. That requires spectroscopy, imaging, and human interpretation. The role of AI in the 3I/Atlas investigation is supportive, not definitive. It helps refine orbits, detect patterns, rule out implausible scenarios. But the final judgment, whether the object is natural or artificial, comet or probe, rests on observational evidence and scientific reasoning.

There’s another dimension to AI in astronomy that’s worth mentioning. Pattern recognition in radio signals. The search for extraterrestrial intelligence generates enormous amounts of data. Radio telescopes scan the sky, recording signals across millions of frequency channels. Most of what they detect is noise – human made interference, or natural astrophysical sources. Finding a genuine techno signature, an artificial signal from another civilization, is like finding a needle in a haystack the size of a galaxy. AI helps. Algorithms trained to recognize patterns in noise can flag candidate signals for human review. They can filter out terrestrial interference, identify frequency drifts consistent with a transmitter on an orbiting or moving platform, and detect modulation patterns that suggest information content. If 3I/Atlas were emitting radio signals, the 1.4 gigahertz pings claimed in the social media posts, AI would likely detect them. The fact that no major observatory has reported such signals despite continuous monitoring of the sky is strong evidence they don’t exist. AI doesn’t miss things like that. If there were a structured radio emission from the object’s direction, it would have been flagged, analyzed, and either confirmed or explained as interference.

So the predictions from AI driven orbit analysis are that by late 2025 and early 2026, we’ll have definitive updates on 3I/Atlas’ trajectory. The residuals will be quantified with high precision. Any persistent acceleration will be mapped in three dimensions. Timing correlations with solar distance, rotation, or other factors will be identified. And the maneuver hypothesis, the claim that it’s steering toward Earth will be ruled in or out with confidence. The transparency of AI tools also helps with public trust. Results can be reproduced, checked, and verified by independent researchers. Unlike proprietary models or closed door calculations, open-source AI platforms allow anyone with the data to run their own analysis. This democratizes science, making it harder for misinformation to take root.

Radio astronomy has had a remarkable year. In early 2025, the ‘Breakthrough Listen Project», a major initiative searching for techno signatures, released results from a survey covering millions of stars across the 1.2 to 1.8 gigahertz band. This range includes the 1.4 gigahertz hydrogen line, a natural frequency considered a prime channel for interstellar communication. The survey found no confirmed techno signatures, but it placed stringent constraints. If civilizations are broadcasting powerful radio signals at 1.4 gigahertz within a few thousand light years of Earth, we would have detected them. The silence is informative. It suggests either intelligent civilizations are rare, they don’t broadcast in this band, their signals are too weak for us to detect, or they’re deliberately staying quiet. Advances in signal processing, larger arrays, and AI driven filtering have made radio astronomy more sensitive than ever. The MeerKAT array in South Africa, the very large array in New Mexico, and the soon-to-be completed square kilometer array will push sensitivity even further. We’re entering an era where detecting faint radio emissions from nearby stars or passing objects is not just possible, but routine.

This brings us to the social media claim about 1.4 gigahertz pings from 3I/Atlas. The claim suggests the object emitted structured signals near Mars, possibly handshakes or course correction communications. The frequency choice 1.4 GHz is significant. It’s in the water hole, a quiet part of the radio spectrum where galactic background noise is minimal and signals can propagate efficiently. If an advanced civilization wanted to send a signal that others could detect, 1.4 GHz would be a logical choice. It’s universal. The hydrogen line is the same everywhere in the universe. Any civilization with radio astronomy would recognize it. But here’s the problem. No public peer-reviewed detection of such signals from 3I/Atlas exists.

nb. ‘the WOW! signal and comet 3I/ATLAS: “The probability of it being random is 0.6%”’
https://en.as.com/latest_news/the-coincidence-that-is-alarming-astronomers-about-the-wow-signal-and-comet-3iatlas-the-probability-of-it-being-random-is-06-f202510-n/
“In August 1977, at the Big Ear radio telescope in Ohio, astronomer Jerry Ehman was so stunned by a radio signal that he scribbled “WOW!” in the margin of his printout. The signal lasted just 72 seconds and never returned..” It came from the direction of Sagittarius and the Galactic Center, the same direction from where 3I/Atlas has come and from where the Nibiru – a planet seven times larger than the Earth, is coming.
directed from- ‘Trump Ousts NASA Chief After Top Physicist Warns “What’s Coming Next Has NASA Terrified”’
https://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index5136.htm

Radio telescopes monitor the sky constantly. Projects like ‘Breakthrough Listen’ specifically search for transient signals, bursts, and anomalies. If 3I/Atlas were emitting 1.4 ghahertz pings strong enough to be detected on Earth or near Mars, someone would have noticed. Could the signals be too weak? Possibly. Radio signals weaken with distance according to the inverse square law. At a distance of one or two astronomical units, a weak transmitter might be below detection thresholds, but then it wouldn’t be detectable near Mars either, which is where the social media posts claimed the pings originated. Could the signals be intermittent, brief bursts that were missed? Also possible. Radio observations are not continuous. Telescopes have limited observing time, and they’re not always pointed at the right place at the right time. A short duration burst could slip through the cracks, but the lack of any independent confirmation is a red flag.

If the pings were real, multiple observatories should have detected them by now. The fact that none have suggests the claim is unsubstantiated. Let’s explore the plausibility from an engineering standpoint. Suppose 3I/Atlas is an artificial probe. What would it take to send a 1.4 GHz signal detectable across interplanetary distances? Radio transmission requires power and an antenna. Power depends on the transmitter’s design and energy source. An antenna’s efficiency depends on its size and the wavelength of the signal. At 1.4 GHz, the wavelength is about 21 cm. A reasonably efficient antenna might be a few meters across, small enough to fit on a spacecraft. If the probe has a nuclear power source or some other long-lived energy supply, generating a few watts or kilowatts of radio power is feasible and that’s enough to be detectable at distances of millions of kilometres assuming a sensitive receiver and a directional antenna. But natural sources can also produce radio emissions. Comets, when they interact with the solar wind, can generate plasma instabilities that emit radio waves. Lightning in dust clouds, if they exist, could produce broadband radio bursts. These are rare but possible. So even if a radio signal were detected from 3I/Atlas, it wouldn’t automatically mean the object is artificial. You’d need to analyze the signal structure looking for modulation, repetition, frequency drift, anything that suggests information content rather than random noise.

What should we watch for in the coming weeks? Upcoming radio astronomy observation campaigns are targeting the 3I/Atlas region. Multiple observatories are coordinating, covering different frequency bands and times. Data release schedules will bring results in late 2025 or early 2026. SETI organizations are also paying attention. ‘Breakthrough Listen’ has added 3I/Atlas to its target list. If there’s anything unusual in the radio spectrum, they’ll find it. The role of radioastronomy in this investigation is to either confirm or rule out the techno signature hypothesis. If no signals are detected despite thorough monitoring, the claim dies. If signals are detected and verified, the conversation shifts dramatically. Radio astronomy is also a tool for debunking. Many claimed anomalies, from fast radio bursts, initially thought to be alien signals to mysterious pulses that turned out to be microwave ovens in the observatory cafeteria, have been explained by natural or human-made sources. The field has a strong culture of skepticism and verification. Whether 3I/Atlas is natural or engineered, radio astronomy is a frontier tool for discovery. And for now, the silence from the object speaks louder than any alleged pings.

Let’s bring it all together. We started with a claim, a dramatic one, that three 3I/Atlas might be lining up with Earth. The claim was based on real data, a reported non-gravitational acceleration of 0.02 mm/s squared. And a simple calculation showing that 50 days of such acceleration could produce a velocity change of 86 m/s. The arithmetic is correct. The data are real. But the extrapolation, the leap from “There’s an acceleration” to “Its targeting Earth” relies on assumptions we can’t verify. The acceleration would need to persist, to be pointed in the right direction and to align with Earth’s orbital position at exactly the right time. None of that is established. We examine the trajectory and miss distance. Official sources say 3I/Atlas will pass Earth at approximately 1.8 astronomical units, about 270 million km on December 19th, 2025. That’s far, very far. Converting that into an intercept would require a much larger velocity change applied over a longer period with precise timing. The numbers don’t support the Earth lineup claim. We explored the natural explanations for the acceleration. Outgassing, the sublimation of ice is creating thrust, is the default hypothesis. But the required mass loss rate is high at least 1/6th of the object’s mass over a month. If Avi’s calculation holds, that should produce a massive coma, something telescopes haven’t definitively observed yet. The jury is still out.

We also entertained the exotic hypothesis. Could 3I/Atlas be artificial? A probe from another civilization? The acceleration, the size, the trajectory, all raise questions. But there’s no smoking gun, no radio signals, no nonvolatile thrust signatures, no definitive proof. The hypothesis remains speculative, intriguing, but unproven. The social media narrative amplified the claim, turning a scientific anomaly into a story of alien interception. That narrative spread faster than the science, blurring the line between data and interpretation. It’s a reminder of how information flows in the modern age, how uncertainty becomes spectacle, how pattern-seeking minds fill gaps with drama. We looked at what happens if the worst case scenario were true. If the object somehow did intercept Earth, the consequences would be catastrophic, an extinction level event. But the chain of assumptions required is long and fragile. The object would need capabilities, intentionality, and timing that border on implausible. We also widen the lens, connecting 3I/Atlas to broader trends in space science. Exoplanet atmosphere imaging, dark matter research, AI driven orbit prediction, radio astronomy, all feed into the context. This isn’t just about one object. It’s about how we study the universe, how we detect anomalies, how we interpret data, and how we prepare for the unexpected.

So, what are the key takeaways? First, 3I/Atlas is a rare interstellar visitor, scientifically valuable regardless of whether it’s natural or artificial. Second, the arithmetic behind the 86 m/s velocity change is correct, but it doesn’t automatically imply Earth impact. Third, key unknowns remain. The vector of the acceleration, whether it persists, the timing relative to Earth’s orbit. Fourth, observations coming up in late 2025 are critical. Mass loss, astrometric residuals, spectroscopy, radio monitoring, all will clarify what this object is. Fifth, while worst case scenarios are dramatic, they hinge on many unverified assumptions and official agencies say no threat. Sixth, broader science fields converge on 3I/Atlas, making it a nexus for multiple lines of inquiry.

Let’s talk about the timeline. Perihelion occurred around October 30th, 2025. The object has passed its closest point to the sun and is now heading outbound. November marks the ramp up of observation campaigns. The object is emerging from the sun’s glare, becoming easier to observe. December 19th, 2025 is the closest Earth approach. This is the key date, the moment the social media claim pointed to. By then, we’ll have weeks of additional data. Early 2026 brings the outbound phase with a possible distant flyby of Jupiter around March. After that, 3I/Atlas fades, moving deeper into the outer solar system and eventually back into interstellar space.

What should you watch for? Official orbit updates from NASA, ESA, and other space agencies. Look for refined calculations of the miss-distance and any changes to the trajectory. Pay attention to spectroscopy results. Are volatiles detected? Is there a coma? Does the color continue to be unusual? Watch for imaging reports. High resolution photos from Hubble or JWST might reveal surface features, jets, or other structures. Monitor radio telescope announcements. Any signal detections at 1.4 gigahertz or elsewhere would be huge news. Also, watch the contrast between media narratives and scientific statements. How do mainstream outlets report the story? Do they emphasize caution or sensationalism? How do scientists respond to the social media claims? This interplay between public perception and scientific rigor is part of the story, too. If nothing dramatic appears by early 2026, what then? Does that mean the maneuver claim was wrong? Almost certainly. If the object behaves like a comet showing predictable outgassing that weakens as it moves away from the sun. If the acceleration drops or stops. If no radio signals are detected, then the natural explanation wins. 3I/Atlas joins the ranks of interesting but ultimately normal interstellar visitors.

 

Links-

”3I/ATLAS Is Now On Track to Reach Earth! | 1 Hour of Brian Cox for Sleep”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cABjdaiAeyQ

Mary’s Messages
/spirit/2020/05/marys-messages-to-help-us-during-tribulation-period-2517355.html