Earlier this year, a Harvard professor claimed that ten tiny spheres found on the ocean floor came from a meteorite known as IM1. The professor, an astrophysicist named Avi Loeb, and some of his colleagues say the orbs are alien technologyς και ότι είχαν ταξιδέψει στη Earth μέσα στον μετεωρίτη. Τώρα, ωστόσο, ορισμένοι επιστήμονες λένε ότι μπορεί να ήταν απλώς βιομηχανικά waste.
The claim that the ten orbs found at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean were alien technology first surfaced in July this year. The orbs are mostly made of iron, and while it would be interesting to be a batch of alien technology, it's more likely that they're just industrial waste. new analysis that have not yet been peer-reviewed claims.
It's no secret that many in the scientific community believed that Loeb's claims of alien technology were made too quickly and without proper analysis. Therefore, it is not unexpected to see a counter-argument circulating. According to this new analysis, the tiny spheres that Loeb considers to be alien technology are likely more consistent with those of coal ash.
Patricio Gallardo, a researcher at the University of Chicago, advanced the new analysis. Gallardo claims the chemical composition of tiny spheres of 'alien technology' found on the ocean floor matches coal burning in power plants energyand steam engines.
However, Loeb is not ready to give up on the theory that these tiny spheres are actually alien technology. Writing in a medium post Last week, Loeb says claims that the spheres are coal ash "are based on unattributed comments that skimmed a few pieces of evidence out of the dozens we analyzed."
Therefore, the scientific community is a bit divided as to what these orbs are and whether they are actually extraterrestrial in nature or not. It is also possible that the area where the bullets were found is not known for any kind of coal burning exposure. However, this does not completely dismiss the counterargument.
At present, it is not clear which side is correct. We will have to wait for more analysis and possible peer reviews of Gallardo's argument to see which seems the most scientifically accurate.