Names do not constitute knowledge. However, some scientists enjoy the illusion that they know something about things by giving them names that reflect a particular interpretation.

It is surprising that I get paid as an astronomer, given our current level of ignorance about the cosmos. Astronomers do not know the nature of 85% of the matter in the universe, and they refer to it by the name “dark matter”. They do not know the nature of the energy that powers the accelerated cosmic expansion, and they call it by the name “dark energy”.

If gravity happened to be modified on cosmic scales, these anomalies might be signatures of a different behavior of gravity rather than forms of matter or energy. Until we figure out the nature of these anomalies, the names we call them introduce prejudice and bias into the conversation.

Similarly, astronomers do not know the origin of near-Earth objects (NEOs) which display non-gravitational acceleration but no visible cometary tail. As of a few months ago, experts call them “dark comets”.

From the perspective of more knowledgeable scientists, the naming of these “dark” unknowns might be a trademark of the dark age of science.

If alien scientists figured out the nature of dark matter, dark energy and dark comets, they might have used this knowledge for better propulsion schemes. An invisible fuel composed of dark matter, a fuel-free engine based on the repulsive gravity of dark energy, or a rocket which releases an invisible gas through its exhaust in the spirit of dark comets, could all lead to NEOs that maneuver in anomalous ways.

When astronomers spot anomalous NEOs, they tend to classify them as rocks of a type that they had never seen before, in the spirit of the hydrogen or nitrogen iceberg scenarios for Oumuamua. Some NEOs are currently classified as Empty Trash Bags Objects (ETBOs), like the object A10bAMz — which exhibits strange zig-zag motion around Earth. When SETI astronomers argue that there is no credible evidence for Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAPs) in our sky, they ignore objects like Oumuamua or A10bAMz. If A10bAMz is a broken piece of a human-made object pushed by sunlight — as experts suggest, then why couldn’t `Oumuamua be a broken piece of an extraterrestrial technological object pushed by sunlight?

Alternatively, if Oumuamua is a hydrogen or a nitrogen iceberg, then why couldn’t A10bAMz be the same? Experts should be consistent in allowing for the possibility that both Oumuamua and A10bAMz have the same nature, as I suggested in my 2018 paper with Shmuel Bialy. That interpretation was fiercely disputed by SETI astronomers, even though they are supposed to be engaged with the search for extraterrestrial technological signatures in the sky.