The Oort Cloud Explained

[dad]

God uses stars for signs, so they have to be responsive to His will and able to message earth. Signs in the heavens also include bodies such as comets and asteroids. Science explains the repository of comets like this..

"The estimated two trillion objects in the Oort Cloud are primarily composed of ices such as ammonia, methane, and water. Formed in the beginning of the solar system, they remain pristine chunks of its early life..."
http://www.space.com/16401-oort-cloud-the-outer-solar-system-s-icy-shell.html

In other words they cannot begin to really explain it.

In fact the explanations get truly ridiculous..
"While gravity drew other bits of dust and ice together into larger celestial bodies, the residents of the Oort Cloud weren't as fortunate. Gravity from the other planets—primarily gas giants such as Jupiter—kicked them into the outer solar system, where they remain."

Fables of science aside, God placed them where they could fulfill a purpose as needed to be signs in heaven for man.

We could ask for proof that the claims of science are true...but obviously the fable is so foolish and unsupportable I think that would be a waste of time. If any true believers out there want to defend the faith of science, though, feel free. It may be good for a laugh.

Oort smort.

 

[SkyWriting]

God uses stars for signs, so they have to be responsive to His will and able to message earth. Signs in the heavens also include bodies such as comets and asteroids. Science explains the repository of comets like this..

"The estimated two trillion objects in the Oort Cloud are primarily composed of ices such as ammonia, methane, and water. Formed in the beginning of the solar system, they remain pristine chunks of its early life..."
http://www.space.com/16401-oort-cloud-the-outer-solar-system-s-icy-shell.html

In other words they cannot begin to really explain it.

In fact the explanations get truly ridiculous..
"While gravity drew other bits of dust and ice together into larger celestial bodies, the residents of the Oort Cloud weren't as fortunate. Gravity from the other planets—primarily gas giants such as Jupiter—kicked them into the outer solar system, where they remain."

Fables of science aside, God placed them where they could fulfill a purpose as needed to be signs in heaven for man.

We could ask for proof that the claims of science are true...but obviously the fable is so foolish and unsupportable I think that would be a waste of time. If any true believers out there want to defend the faith of science, though, feel free. It may be good for a laugh.

Oort smort.

I would think they'd be easier to document than planets around other stars.
Optically, they'd be huge compared to other planetary systems.
If there was such a cloud, I'd expect the stars to twinkle on their own.

 

[freezerman2000]

.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I would think they'd be easier to document than planets around other stars.
Optically, they'd be huge compared to other planetary systems.

Yes, but planets around other stars (with a couple of recent exceptions) are detected indirectly, e.g. by the reduction in brightness of the star as they transit, or their gravitational effect on the star making it wobble. Oort bodies are so distant (over twice the distance to Pluto) and so small that they're not visible. Oort Cloud in context.

If there was such a cloud, I'd expect the stars to twinkle on their own.

It will lie mainly in the plane of the ecliptic, so any twinkling due to Oort bodies would be limited to the ecliptic. Also, although numerous, they'll be small and spread over a huge volume, so you probably wouldn't see any even if you passed through the cloud. It's nothing like the asteroid fields in Star Trek & space games, where you have to dodge through them.

That's all assuming the Oort Cloud exists as such; as I understand it, it's the best hypothesis to explain a number of otherwise problematic observations, including comet origins and trajectories, but hasn't yet been observed directly.

 

[essentialsaltes]

God uses stars for signs, so they have to be responsive to His will and able to message earth. Signs in the heavens also include bodies such as comets and asteroids.

Would you care to explain the meaning of any bright comet that has been seen in the past 100 years?

Just to take one example, Comet Ikeya-Seki was nearly as bright as the full moon, and was visible in the daytime.

Oort smort.

Sign schmign.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Still have not even shown that Fairie Dust Oort cloud even exists. Because they sure don't believe it is the source of comets.


https://lcogt.net/spacebook/comets-kuiper-belt-and-oort-cloud/

"The Oort cloud has never been observed, but is believed to have at least 10^12 icy objects located between 3000 AU and 100,000 AU in a spherical distribution around the Sun."

Yes, faith is always nice to rely on when your theory is shown to be wrong.

http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news113.html

"A common expectation among scientists was that the comet samples returned by the Stardust Mission would in fact be composed of stardust, tiny grains that formed around other stars. Many expected that much of the solid matter collected from comet Wild 2 (pronounced Vilt 2) would be aggregates similar to "dirt clods" assembled from tiny grains of glass, minerals and carbon. It was imagined the individual components would be ancient samples of the same material that we see in the night sky as the dark band in the middle of the Milky Way, the edge-on view of our Galaxy. For a variety of reasons it was expected that the individual grains composing the dirt clod structures would be only about a third of a micrometer across or about 0.3 % of the width of a human hair...."

It was always imagined as such....

"...When we first looked at the tracks of comet dust captured in silica aerogel, it was clear that they were not solely "dirt clods" of sub- micrometer components. Most of the capture tracks, formed as particles slowed to a stop, were deep and were shaped like carrots. The production of deep tracks requires relatively large strong particles and even when we first opened the capsule we could see with our unaided eyes rather large particles at the ends of some of the tracks. We immediately suspected that the comet contained a sizeable amount of solid material that is much larger than interstellar grains. If the comet dust had been made of the expected dirt-clods composed of tiny stardust grains, they would have produced holes in the aerogel that looked more like shallow bowls than carrots because tiny components stop quickly and cannot travel far in aerogel. Some of the bigger particles found at the ends of the carrot- shaped tracks are a million times more massive than typical stardust grains...."

"...When we started pulling these particles out and examining them in electron microscopes and other instruments, we found even more surprises. First of all we found evidence that the standard astronomical predictions for the origin of dust in comets, or at least the ones in this comet, appear to be incorrect. While we did find stardust grains in the cometary materials, they appear to be only a minor component, at least in the particles larger than a micrometer that were well preserved during high speed capture. This judgment is based on the concept that the isotopic composition of stardust should be different from that of typical solar system materials. This is the way that rare stardust grains have been identified in meteorites and interplanetary dust. Like in meteorites most of the components from the comet have isotopic compositions similar to Earth and are of solar system origin."

But keep the faith in those imaginary clouds!!!!!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

"...The comet samples collected by Stardust contain abundant crystalline minerals and in most cases it is clear that they did not form by the predicted mild heating of interstellar dust. Many are too large, and have complex mineralogical and chemical compositions that could not have formed by this process. Instead of the mild heating that astronomers envisioned the comet samples were heated during their formation to severe temperatures, temperatures high enough to melt or vaporize them. The temperatures above 1300 �C and the samples were white hot. This is quite remarkable because the some of the ice components of comets appear to have formed only 30 degrees above absolute zero...."

Come on people, give up that Fairie Dust already.

 

[The Barbarian]

I remember when the Kuiper Belt was the subject of the same rant by creationists. No one had actually observed it, so they dismissed the evidence for it. Then we started finding some of them. No they retreat to the Oort cloud (the evidence is essentially the same).

The problem with hiding one's new religion in what men do not know, is that knowledge increases. And one's religion thereby is refuted.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I remember when the Kuiper Belt was the subject of the same rant by creationists. No one had actually observed it, so they dismissed the evidence for it. Then we started finding some of them. No they retreat to the Oort cloud (the evidence is essentially the same).

The problem with hiding one's new religion in what men do not know, is that knowledge increases. And one's religion thereby is refuted.

No, the hiding is pretending that theory of comets was anything close to being correct. That those scientists that were so surprised by what they found.... contrary to what they had believed.... yet still talk of the same balls of ice in space formed by the same processes they just admitted could not occur. Preaching exactly what we know they are not. Not even hiding, but preaching the same religion in the open they preached before Stardust falsified every single theory they had about what comets were and how they were formed. And you let them.

Religion in spite of the science - not because of it. I have my religion because of science, astronomers preach Fairie Dust in spite of the science. The science says those comets formed right here in the solar system - in the habital zone of a fully developed sun. And since all erode too rapidly as they orbit the sun - could not have been there all that long. Pointing to a recent event of planetary instability.

Oh but no, instead they'll pretend they were pushed out of the solar system to some imaginary Oort Cloud by processes only dreamed of. While ignoring 5 kilometers of the entire Northern Hemisphere of Mars is missing. And ignoring all those asteroids that suddenly begin to flare just like comets. Comets composed of rock and only trivial amounts of claimed stardust. And not a single trace of water was found in a single sample returned.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

It is easier to detect Oort Clouds around other stars by the infrared reflection of the debris.

 

[Nithavela]

Explanation, noun: The unfounded assertion that god must have done it for a reason and any theory not involving god must be wrong.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes, but planets around other stars (with a couple of recent exceptions) are detected indirectly, e.g. by the reduction in brightness of the star as they transit, or their gravitational effect on the star making it wobble. Oort bodies are so distant (over twice the distance to Pluto) and so small that they're not visible.

I'm not suggesting they be directly visible. I'm asking "Wouldn't they blot out stars?"
Even if they are the size of a basketball, they should be blotting out stars on a continuous basis.

 

[Oafman]

Fables of science aside, God placed them where they could fulfill a purpose as needed to be signs in heaven for man.

A sign, eh? The Oort cloud is too far away for humans to see. Why did God create a sign which we can't see? Did he miscalculate?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm not suggesting they be directly visible. I'm asking "Wouldn't they blot out stars?"
Even if they are the size of a basketball, they should be blotting out stars on a continuous basis.

They probably are, but given their size, their movement, the volume within which they're distributed and the literally astronomical distance between them and the stars, such occultations are likely to be infrequent in the limited field of any particular telescope, and too rapid to be visually obvious. I'm no expert, so I'm guessing here - but a star is effectively a point source, and an Oort Cloud object a dull point; bear in mind the difficulty of discovering an object the size of Pluto, when they were pretty sure it was there to be found, and which is within the solar system, and that it was eventually found by its albedo, not by it obscuring stars; this suggests that objects considerably smaller than Pluto and many times further away, will be unlikely to be particularly noticeable optically. YMMV.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It is easier to detect Oort Clouds around other stars by the infrared reflection of the debris.

Yah so now the Oort cloud is the same distance as our planet 1 AU? Lol. Might be looking at a protoplanetary disc is the best one can say at 1 AU.

Just give up the Fairie Dust already.

"Like in meteorites most of the components from the comet have isotopic compositions similar to Earth and are of solar system origin.""

Why will you people not just accept the science right in front of your faces and instead keep preaching that Fairie Dust?????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm not suggesting they be directly visible. I'm asking "Wouldn't they blot out stars?"
Even if they are the size of a basketball, they should be blotting out stars on a continuous basis.

That would be like looking from the nearest star and expecting the asteroids to blot out the sun.

You can try that experiment at home. Stand 20 feet from a light bulb. Take a sewing needle - see if the tip covers the light bulb. If it does your theory is confirmed, if it doesn't....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Fist of all you have to realize not all stars have fully lit photospheres.

http://www.aip.de/en/news/science/starspots

So not every darkening and brightening may be due to a planet.

Then you also have to remember that not only has the fable of comets been falsified - but stars have been observed to directly contradict the claimed lifetime of stars in the HR diagram.

http://electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'm not suggesting they be directly visible. I'm asking "Wouldn't they blot out stars?"
Even if they are the size of a basketball, they should be blotting out stars on a continuous basis.

This is probably overkill, but I found a presentation by someone from Caltech. Some nice data of an occultation by Saturn, showing how noisy it is.

Then some calculations on Kuiper Belt objects, showing that it's just about on the edge of feasibility. If you watch a star for an entire year, there should be about 100 events from KBOs with durations of a few tenths of a second that might be noticeable out of the noise.

Oort Cloud objects on the other hand seem to be too far and small to see this way, even if a new satellite were designed to look for these kinds of occultations.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is probably overkill, but I found a presentation by someone from Caltech. Some nice data of an occultation by Saturn, showing how noisy it is.

Then some calculations on Kuiper Belt objects, showing that it's just about on the edge of feasibility. If you watch a star for an entire year, there should be about 100 events from KBOs with durations of a few tenths of a second that might be noticeable out of the noise.

Oort Cloud objects on the other hand seem to be too far and small to see this way, even if a new satellite were designed to look for these kinds of occultations.

Or it simply does not exist and is just part of the Fairie Dust mainstream preaches. Like comets still being preached as balls of ice - when we now understand they were formed right here in the habital zone of a fully formed sun - not in deep space and are composed of material similar to the planets within the habital zone.

http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news113.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsterite

"In 2005 it was also found in cometary dust returned by the Stardust probe."

"Forsterite-rich olivine is the most abundant mineral in the mantle above a depth of about 400 km...Due to its high melting point, olivine crystals are the first minerals to precipitate from a magmatic melt in a cumulate process, often with orthopyroxenes. Forsterite-rich olivine is a common crystallization product of mantle-derived magma. Olivine in mafic and ultramafic rocks typically is rich in the forsterite end-member."

And is formed in lightning strikes within planetary nebula.

Cohen et al.

 

[Foxhole87]

Can someone give a summary of why the Oort cloud is so significant to science and why the Oort cloud is so significant to creationism?