Hoang and Loeb argue that evaporative cooling changes a trapped-hydrogen explanation for ’Oumuamua’s acceleration. The critique depends on selected thermal assumptions and does not establish an artificial origin.
Preprint text and figures readSiraj, Loeb and colleagues outline requirements for a proposed interstellar-object intercept. Detection and reachability forecasts depend on assumptions; material analogues and modelled spectra do not identify an artificial object.
Preprint text and figures readPhan, Hoang and Loeb model erosion and modification of icy interstellar objects under assumed cosmic-ray, material and travel conditions. Prior observations and fits support theoretical predictions rather than new detections or demonstrated composition.
Complete supplied seven-page manuscript; conditional erosion modelSiraj and Loeb assess whether nitrogen-ice fragments could account for the earlier Oumuamua detection. Their conclusion depends on population and mass-budget assumptions; no new data are generated or analyzed.
Complete supplied three-page manuscript; conditional mass-budget modelHoang and Loeb model destruction and formation of pure hydrogen ice under assumed radiation, material and cloud conditions. They challenge one proposed explanation of Oumuamua while retaining environmental exceptions; no hydrogen object is observed and no artificial origin is established.
Complete supplied eight-page manuscript; conditional hydrogen-ice modelForbes and Loeb forecast near-Sun interstellar-body encounters and propose spectroscopy. Encounter rates and candidate probabilities depend on uncertain density, orientation, population and detection assumptions. Listed probabilities do not confirm individual origins. Ordinary cometary explanations, bound-orbit caveats and an ISON non-detection remain explicit. Parameter and catalogue-filter discrepancies are unresolved. Forbes’s fellowship is distinct from work-level grant support; neither establishes government access.
Received written text and native layouts; original-record and interpretation gapsBialy and Loeb develop a conditional radiation-pressure explanation for ’Oumuamua’s acceleration. Thin natural material and an artificial sail are discussed as possibilities; the calculations do not identify a spacecraft.
Preprint text and figures readSiraj and Loeb combine reported detections and non-detection limits to propose meteor trajectory, spectroscopy and sample tests. The administrator flags substantial text overlap with their earlier meteor paper; IM1 and Oumuamua are reused. The allowed slope range is not a demonstrated confidence interval. Camera coverage, parent-star association, isotopes and sample recovery are forecasts, rather than achieved results. Ordinary alternatives and source discrepancies remain.
Received preprint text and native layouts; overlap and original gapsA curated public selection. Source review describes what was read; it does not establish that a claim is true. Our research approach