The Oort Cloud Explained

[Foxhole87]

You thought guess which solar system I am from was a fun game?

Not a game, but rather an argument used to demonstrate how you use uniformitarianism because it is a useful and necessary assumption to get you through life.

You haven't answered my question, "would you believe that I'm posting from another solar system; why or why not?" and I suspect it is out of your personal dishonesty with regards to your rejection of uniformitarianism.

 

[Astrophile]

I just don't know how to deal with people like this. Should I just ignore them?

That is what I intend to do from now on.

 

[Astrophile]

You need to show the original prediction that a CMB would be found one day and show the reasons that was claimed and how it fits.

The original prediction of the cosmic microwave background was published in a paper entitled 'Evolution of the Universe' by R.A. Alpher and R.C. Herman (1948), Nature, 162 (4124), pp. 774-5. The paper contains the words, 'the temperature of the universe at the present time is found to be about 5°K.' See P.J.E. Peebles, 'Discovery of the hot Big Bang; What happened in 1948', http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/1310.2146 and http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v162/n4124/abs/162774b0.html

In what way must the CMB be only something that fits into a godless universe from a little hot soup model?!

Alpher was Jewish. You know about the Jews; they were the people who wrote the Old Testament. Alpher also suffered severely from anti-Semitic attitudes at the beginning of his career.

 

[dad]

Not a game, but rather an argument used to demonstrate how you use uniformitarianism because it is a useful and necessary assumption to get you through life.

You haven't answered my question, "would you believe that I'm posting from another solar system; why or why not?" and I suspect it is out of your personal dishonesty with regards to your rejection of uniformitarianism.

Try to prove uniformismmatism.

 

[dad]

The original prediction of the cosmic microwave background was published in a paper entitled 'Evolution of the Universe' by R.A. Alpher and R.C. Herman (1948), Nature, 162 (4124), pp. 774-5. The paper contains the words, 'the temperature of the universe at the present time is found to be about 5°K.' See P.J.E. Peebles, 'Discovery of the hot Big Bang; What happened in 1948', http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/1310.2146

From your link.."The Astrophysics Data System lists, for the years 2007 through November 2013, 54 citations of the Alpher-BetheGamow paper, 20 citations of Gamow (1948a), which is the first published discussion of the physics of formation of chemical elements and galaxies in a hot Big Bang, and 12 citations of Alpher and Herman (1948a), which presents the first estimate of the temperature of the CMB. Mather (2007) and Smoot (2007), in lectures on their Nobel Prizes in recognition of great advances in measurements of the CBM, both refer to the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper but not the other two. This is ironic, because Alpher, Bethe, and Gamow (1948) assume a cold Big Bang cosmology, and it makes no mention of thermal radiation. Also, the picture in this paper is physically inconsistent. The inconsistency was resolved later that year by the proposal that elements formed in the early universe in a sea of thermal radiation."

So the original was cold..? So we take one out of four prophets of science and pick one that happened to hit it!!?? Hilarious.

Anyhow since you didn't post the relevant bits I don't intend to sift through a huge document to see what you think helps you. Obviously there is a total dependence on the unproven early phase, the expansion and etc etc.

One could just as easily say that Jesus used something like a rapid expansion when he formed the universe! That would have been after the earth was already here, when He made the stars maybe. Maybe part of that was when He made space first to put us in! NO WAY can you claim credit for the temperatures for your imaginary phases.

Alpher was Jewish. You know about the Jews; they were the people who wrote the Old Testament. Alpher also suffered severely from anti-Semitic attitudes at the beginning of his career.

God wrote Scripture He used BELIEVING Jews only. You cannot try to associate the race itself with Scripture. Only the believers.


The pattern almost seems to be with the prophets of science, that they declare how it was by figuring out how it 'must have been' to fit their descent into fantasy!

" Alpher (1948a) considers the assumption that the mass in the early universe is dominated by baryonic matter with mass density ρmat = nm, where m is the nucleon mass. In this model the expansion time t at density ρmat computed from much higher density satisfies ρmat = nm = (6πGt2 ) −1 , or nt = 5 × 1029(s/t) s cm−3 , (11) for t in seconds. If this value of nt were to be comparable to hnti in equation (7) or (10) nucleosynthesis would have to started when the expansion time was ti ∼ 1011 s. (12) But this is many orders of magnitude longer than the neutron half-life, t1/2 ∼ 1000 s. In another way to put it, at expansion time t equal to t1/2 equations (8) and (11) indicate – 8 – that σvnt1/2 ∼ 108 , meaning there is ample time for neutrons to combine with all the protons as they appear from neutron decay, leaving no hydrogen, an absurd situation. If this early element buildup were somehow prevented until the time ti in equation (12) then the neutrons created with the expanding universe would have long since decayed. What could have produced a flood of neutrons this late in the game? There are ways out, but none looked attractive then or now."

etc etc etc

 

[dcarrera]

Well since I never noticed, you might consider you did not really do that at all.

If many posters, from both sides of the discussion, come forward and agree with you I will consider the possibility that I completely imagined my post; but since I can see my post in the forum, I stand by my position that I did write a post where I did extract the figure that I felt was most relevant, and I did write an description. Furthermore, you will not find a copy of my text in the original paper, which serves as evidence that I wrote that text myself, and hence it was in my own words. So I think the evidence is overwhelming that I did write that post, and that you simply choose to pretend that whatever I wrote "doesn't count" for some reason or another.

Science uses the word predict rather loosely. All things are predicted to be made by Jesus!

What a load of nonsense. You make no prediction of any kind whatsoever, and have the audacity to claim that the precise predictions for specific measurements with actual error bars that science provides somehow don't exist.

Not if they believe the bible.

Sorry to break it to you, but you are in the minority here. Most Christians would agree that you are writing nonsense and that you don't know how to read your bible.

Even worse it implies a dead or lying God.

I think you are the one who believes in a lying god. You believe in a god that has seriously gone out of his way to create a fictional universe that gives every possible indication of being very old, very big, and that follows a rigid set of natural laws for the sole purpose of lying to humanity. We have direct empirical evidence for the universality of the laws of nature in the form of testable and tested predictions, and only a lying deceiving god could be reconciled with your claim that this isn't so. Let me give some examples:

1) GR predicts that the early universe was very hot and radiation-dominated because the dilation of space means that photon density goes with the 4th power of the universe scale while matter density only goes with the 3rd power. You would say that "nonsense" to all of this, but let's continue... Applying thermodynamics and particle physics to this, we get that protons and helium nuclei would have been in thermal equilibrium with photons... you would call this "nonsense" too, but all this nonsense piled upon nonsense makes a specific prediction as to the ratio of hydrogen to helium in the universe. Then we can take the spectral signatures of these atoms, that we measure here on Earth, which you would say are completely inapplicable to the external universe, and use them to measure the hydrogen to helium ratio. You would call that measurement "nonsense" too.... So given all this supposed nonsense, coupled with nonsense being tested by nonsense, isn't it more than a little amazing that the H/He ratio predicted by the BB is exactly what we measure with the equally nonsensical spectral lines?

2) We have observed an object in the sky that astronomers have determined to be a pair of orbiting pulsars. This object is loaded with all the things you love to criticize. The designation of the orbits of the pulsars has everything to do with time and space in the universe. The spin of the pulars, and the uniformity of their pulses also has everything to do with time and space. This is loaded with all the stuff you would love to call nonsense. But this totally-nonsensical fit, makes a specific prediction. If this object really is a pair of neutron stars, with the sizes and orbits that we claim they have, and if GR (a theory entirely about space and time) is correct and applicable to the wider universe, then these pulsars should be emitting gravitational waves. By the emission of gravitational waves, their orbits should be shrinking, and that, according to the model that you would call nonsense, implies that the interval between certain pulses should have a decreasing amplitude as the orbit shrinks... Here is a prediction that could not be more loaded with all the "nonsensical" assumptions about the uniformity of time and space and physical laws... So isn't it really amazing that this drift in the pulsation is detected, and it is exactly in line with the prediction of this model that has GR and time and space coming out the wazoo?

3) The shift in the spectrum absorption lines from distant supernove and its physical interpretation is completely filled with GR, and time, space, and distance. In turn, the determination of mass of galaxy clusters does not use GR, but instead requires the determination of mass and size of things. And in turn, the CMB requires a different aspect of GR (e.g. propagation of light through the universe), and a bunch of other things. Three different models, all nonsense according to you, all made at different times by different people, all based on Earthly physics, and yet all three agree with each other. I can make a plot of the dark energy and matter components of the universe, something that you would call complete nonsense, and show the permitted regions of this parameter space corresponding to these three models, which you would call nonsense on top of nonsense, and yet somehow the three predictions line up and they all agree on the same point on that nonsensical phase space.

Like these, I could describe many more, and in great detail. The prediction of the anisotropy of the CMB is completely packed physics (what you'd call "nonsense"), and yet the prediction fits. The prediction that starlight should bend when it goes near the Sun has everything to do with spacetime; and yet it fits. The prediction of Einstein rings is completely loaded with GR, and distances, and masses, and the age of the universe; and yet we see them.

At some point you have to either accept that the laws of physics that we discover here really do apply to the rest of the universe, as demonstrated by the evidence, or you have to dream up of a lying, deceitful god who has *REALLY* gone out of his way to create an intricate illusion of a universe that does an insanely good job at pretending to follow a universal set of physical laws, while doing something else altogether.

This this, I think I'll conclude my participation in this thread cause I'm busy with work. I think I've made my case.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I am quickly giving up on "dad". Some people simply do not want to have a legitimate discussion, and will refuse to even read the other person's comments.

You're right - 'dad' doesn't seem to want to have a legitimate discussion, but just to deny and denigrate any science that contradicts his belief system; it reminds me of the Monty Python 'Argument Clinic' sketch:

I just don't know how to deal with people like this. Should I just ignore them?

There seems little point in going into details that will just be denied or ignored, but if you can make a concise point in response to egregious errors, it might help inform other forum contributors and lurkers.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No. That would just make it clear to all what you are saying.
...
Actually there is a claim often made that the CMB was specifically predicted as part of the BB. You think you need to post the theory of GR to address the simple issue?

The LCDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter) model (that produced the green line on the graph posted by dcarrera) is the current standard big bang physical model. If you run that model forward from the big bang to the present day, you can compare its predictions with how the universe actually appears to us now to see how good a model of the universe it provides.

The green line on the graph is one of the predictions the model makes of how the CMB should appear to us today, and the red dots are what we see when we examine the CMB today. The two are in surprisingly close agreement, suggesting that the LCDM model is a pretty good model of how the universe has developed from the big bang to the present.

The wikipedia link gives a more detailed explanation of the model.

Does that help?

 

[dad]

Furthermore, you will not find a copy of my text in the original paper, which serves as evidence that I wrote that text myself, and hence it was in my own words.

No? Guess all that was easier than citing the post number? I suspect that you did not really make it clear or I probably would have remembered what you were trying to say no matter how wrong.

What a load of nonsense. You make no prediction of any kind whatsoever, and have the audacity to claim that the precise predictions for specific measurements with actual error bars that science provides somehow don't exist.

Get a grip. Jesus created all things, and if your tiny little science is correct, it could be that the way He did it...rapidly! In fact, come to think of it the stars were made in a part of a day!!!!!!! So was space itself!!! The evidence mounts! The Creation Microwave Background!!

You guys serve a purpose, you help me focus in on how it actually came down.

I think you are the one who believes in a lying god. You believe in a god that has seriously gone out of his way to create a fictional universe that gives every possible indication of being very old, very big, and that follows a rigid set of natural laws for the sole purpose of lying to humanity. We have direct empirical evidence for the universality of the laws of nature in the form of testable and tested predictions, and only a lying deceiving god could be reconciled with your claim that this isn't so. Let me give some examples:

I am bracing for a laugh as we speak, thanks for the heads up...as for God lying, no. That would just be you miscomprehending the creation in a methodological and deliberate way.

1) GR predicts that the early universe was very hot and radiation-dominated because the dilation of space means that photon density goes with the 4th power of the universe scale while matter density only goes with the 3rd power.

At least you are using your own words there. That is meaningless outside your belief system though. The so called radiation may have been something that we just interpret as radiation here on present state earth and area where radiation does exist. In any case, whatever form of energy it is or was may indeed have been hot! Creation of the sun and stars just could have involved some heat! Sorry you cannot steal that for your fable.

Applying thermodynamics and particle physics to this, we get that protons and helium nuclei would have been in thermal equilibrium with photons...

In other words applying earth laws as the be all end all reason that anything happened at creation....is all you do!

makes a specific prediction as to the ration of hydrogen to helium in the universe.

Hilarious!!
There is probably a lot more out there than science can discern or detect. But they can see the hydrogen and helium, so they concocted a scheme where that and earth physics was responsible for all things! What a cheap game. In NO way is the ratio we so far detect of those things evidence that a godless expansion dunnit! How about a rapid God created expansion? How about..well a million other possibilities that you never even considered? You bag of tricks from which you pull out all possibilities is so small it is ridiculous.

Then we can take the spectral signatures of these atoms, that we measure here on Earth, which you would say are completely inapplicable to the external universe, and use them to measure the hydrogen to helium ratio.

The ratio does not mean a godless expansion dunnit. Neither does it mean that is all that is there!...or was there

isn't it more than a little amazing that the H/He ratio predicted by the BB is exactly what we measure with the equally nonsensical spectral lines?

No. What IS amazing is the string of whoppers you use to get to that bit of data! A universe in a little hot soup too small at one time for the naked eye to even see! Then a magic unexplained rapid godless expansion that left all we see...etc.

2) We have observed an object in the sky that astronomers have determined to be a pair of orbiting pulsars. This object is loaded with all the things you love to criticize. The designation of the orbits of the pulsars has everything to do with time and space in the universe. The spin of the pulars, and the uniformity of their pulses also has everything to do with time and space.

Right, it shows that here on and near earth we see things in TIME! We have a certain time and space. The mere fact that God has things moving round other things in space in NO way helps you or your rather insane idea that all the universe is a physical only freak show to be modeled after present state earth!

If this object really is a pair of neutron stars, with the sizes and orbits that we claim they have, and if GR (a theory entirely about space and time) is correct and applicable to the wider universe, then these pulsars should be emitting gravitational waves. By the emission of gravitational waves, their orbits should be shrinking,

Ha! So orbits observed only in the last centuries or decades are getting bigger or smaller because of your little theories!!!? No. That is circular logic. You observe and THEN you 'predict' why it is happening. The problem is that all your modeling is strictly belief based nonsense. Atoms go round too, notice? Not because of gravitational waves either. So whatever the stars really are, and however big and far away they actually are, is something that you do not know and never even considered yet.

implies that the interval between certain pulses should have a decreasing amplitude as the orbit shrinks...

One of a billion things we could invoke to explain it.

So isn't it really amazing that this drift in the pulsation is detected, and it is exactly in line with the prediction of this model that has GR and time and space ..

The pulsing is simply not something your fable has a monopoly explaining. Your folks are DESPERATE to try to prove a godless belief set. Example..

" Various gravitational wave detectors exist and on 17 March 2014, astronomers at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics erroneously claimed that they had detected and produced "the first direct image of gravitational waves across the primordial sky" within the cosmic microwave background, providing flawed evidence for inflation and the Big Bang"

..."Although gravitational radiation has not been directly detected, there is indirect evidence for its existence"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

In other words 'something is happening out there..' Whoopee do!

3) The shift in the spectrum absorption lines from distant supernove and its physical interpretation is completely filled with GR, and time, space, and distance.

The light and all things from there are ONLY seen here! There is time here, and our timespace. Your interpreting is biased and comically limited!

In turn, the determination of mass of galaxy clusters does not use GR, but instead requires the determination of mass and size of things.

In other words it depends on the totally unknown. Thanks for that.

And in turn, the CMB requires a different aspect of GR (e.g. propagation of light through the universe), and a bunch of other things.

Light is only seen here in our solar system area. Any wave or anything else entering here must exist in time as we know it. You have used that to claim the universe is old. You are now busted. Clearly.

Three different models, all nonsense according to you, all made at different times by different people, all based on Earthly physics, and yet all three agree with each other.

You admit they are all based on earth physics! Is it any wonder they agree with each other? If they were all based on the easter bunny they would also agree with each other. Circular. Cultish. Inbred thinking. That is tantamount to creation denial as I see it.

I can make a plot of the dark energy and matter components of the universe, something that you would call complete nonsense, and show the permitted regions of this parameter space corresponding to these three models, which you would call nonsense on top of nonsense, and yet somehow the three predictions line up and they all agree on the same point on that nonsensical phase space.

You guys destroy your own cases so well I just need to sit back and marvel! In other words the 95% of the universe that to you is unknown dark stuff you invented to explain things that go on in the universe, will be plotted to exist where what the things you need invented them to explain ARE! 'Gee there must be a lot of dark stuff in these regions..'. Totally absurd.

The prediction that starlight should bend when it goes near the Sun has everything to do with spacetime; and yet it fits.

Yes light bends. Here in our system gravity seems to bend it. In the far universe you assume all bent light is also bent by gravity. Ho hum. Circular, much??!

How sweet it is.

 

[dad]

The LCDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter) model (that produced the green line on the graph posted by dcarrera) is the current standard big bang physical model. If you run that model forward from the big bang to the present day, you can compare its predictions with how the universe actually appears to us now to see how good a model of the universe it provides.

The green line on the graph is one of the predictions the model makes of how the CMB should appear to us today, and the red dots are what we see when we examine the CMB today. The two are in surprisingly close agreement, suggesting that the LCDM model is a pretty good model of how the universe has developed from the big bang to the present.

The wikipedia link gives a more detailed explanation of the model.

Does that help?

Well, if you can simply outline a few things, maybe.. from your link..

"The ΛCDM (Lambda cold dark matter) or Lambda-CDM model is a parametrization of the Big Bangcosmological model in which the universe contains a cosmological constant, denoted by Lambda (GreekΛ), associated with dark energy, and cold dark matter (abbreviated CDM). It is frequently referred to as the standard model of Big Bangcosmology, because it is the simplest model that provides a reasonably good account of the following properties of the cosmos:"

So, in what way if any is the unknown dark stuff figured into the equations that give us this lambda?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So, in what way if any is the unknown dark stuff figured into the equations that give us this lambda?

As I understand it, cold dark matter (proposed as an explanation for gravitational anomalies at galactic scale and above) is modeled as a yet undetected weakly interacting ('dark') elementary particle, 'cold' because it moves at non-relativistic speeds. Dark energy (proposed to account for the accelerating expansion of the universe) is modeled as a pervasive quantum field that exerts a constant repulsive force on spacetime equivalent to a 'negative pressure'.

The actual forms of dark matter and dark energy are not known yet, but in the case of dark matter, some possible explanations have been ruled out by observational evidence. The fact that when they plug the influence of hidden mass and a repulsive force into the cosmological model, it produces predictions that closely match what we observe, suggests that they're on the right track with those formulations.

I'm sure someone will be able to correct any errors I've made in that explanation, I'm no expert.

 

[JacksBratt]

I just tuned in and have not read all of the thread so forgive me if someone else asked if there is any proof at all for this Oort Cloud?

 

[dad]

As I understand it, cold dark matter (proposed as an explanation for gravitational anomalies at galactic scale and above) is modeled as a yet undetected weakly interacting ('dark') elementary particle, 'cold' because it moves at non-relativistic speeds. Dark energy (proposed to account for the accelerating expansion of the universe) is modeled as a pervasive quantum field that exerts a constant repulsive force on spacetime equivalent to a 'negative pressure'.

The actual forms of dark matter and dark energy are not known yet, but in the case of dark matter, some possible explanations have been ruled out by observational evidence. The fact that when they plug the influence of hidden mass and a repulsive force into the cosmological model, it produces predictions that closely match what we observe, suggests that they're on the right track with those formulations.

I'm sure someone will be able to correct any errors I've made in that explanation, I'm no expert.

OK, so I think you are saying they DO use dark stuff in the math. (for the Lambda). If so that is a deadly problem for them. They would first assume the dark stuff, then use it in the math to claim it matched predictions. If that is that case, we have we know not what being used. No match is possible for their theories.

 

[dad]

I just tuned in and have not read all of the thread so forgive me if someone else asked if there is any proof at all for this Oort Cloud?

Not one speck, it is a story.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I just tuned in and have not read all of the thread so forgive me if someone else asked if there is any proof at all for this Oort Cloud?

The evidence is indirect, so it's only a hypothesis at present. It's a plausible source and explanation for the number and characteristics of long period comets observed - their paths don't indicate interstellar origin, and they don't appear to come from a single point.

 

[dcarrera]

I just tuned in and have not read all of the thread so forgive me if someone else asked if there is any proof at all for this Oort Cloud?

This is what we have: We observe comets with orbits so eccentric that they spend most of their time very far away from the Sun; like thousands of times the Earth-Sun distance. At a minimum, these comets are "Oort Cloud objects", and in that sense, yes, we can directly see some Oort cloud objests (i.e. the ones with orbits eccentric enough). The idea of the Oort cloud is that there are probably other objects in the same area that do not have these dramatic semimajor axes.

 

[Michael]

The LCDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter) model (that produced the green line on the graph posted by dcarrera) is the current standard big bang physical model. If you run that model forward from the big bang to the present day, you can compare its predictions with how the universe actually appears to us now to see how good a model of the universe it provides.

First of all, even claiming that Lambda-CDM has anything to do with "predictions" is a misnomer, and ultimately it's untrue. Even the inclusion of "dark energy" was simply an ad hoc knee jerk reaction to the fact that it *failed* to correctly predict the observations of SN1A events correctly. It's nothing more than a postdicted supernatural fudge factor, and it makes up the *vast majority* of the entirely theory. Guth *knew* that the universe was pretty much homogeneous *before* he *postdicted* a fit with inflation. There are no *predictions* made by Lambda-CDM. It's all been a postdicted ad hoc fit based on 95 percent supernatural gap filler.

Even the "fit" you speak of *fails* at larger angles, and the fact there are *hemispheric variations* that BB theory did not *predict* is an inconvenient truth that BB'ers simply sweep under the rug.

Lambda-CDM is a postdicted ad hoc fit based on 95 percent supernatural gobbledygook galore.

 

[Michael]

As I understand it, cold dark matter (proposed as an explanation for gravitational anomalies at galactic scale and above) is modeled as a yet undetected weakly interacting ('dark') elementary particle, 'cold' because it moves at non-relativistic speeds.

The whole concept was based upon *pitifully flawed* galaxy mass estimation techniques being used in 2006, and prior. Since 2006, there have been *numerous* revelations of *serious* mass underestimation problems in the mainstream baryonic mass estimate models of various galaxies:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850

The mainstream *grossly* underestimated the number of stars in various galaxies and the number of stars between galaxies. They also grossly underestimated the amount of mass found in plasma *around* the galaxies that they just found out about in 2012.

Furthermore, and more damning, every single so called "test" of exotic matter theory in the lab has been a complete and total bust. They've falsified their models by the dozens, but the supernatural snipe hunt continues unabated.

Dark energy (proposed to account for the accelerating expansion of the universe) is modeled as a pervasive quantum field that exerts a constant repulsive force on spacetime equivalent to a 'negative pressure'.

The actual forms of dark matter and dark energy are not known yet, but in the case of dark matter, some possible explanations have been ruled out by observational evidence. The fact that when they plug the influence of hidden mass and a repulsive force into the cosmological model, it produces predictions that closely match what we observe, suggests that they're on the right track with those formulations.

If you follow that Thunderbolts links, and read my first post, you'll see that "dark energy" is simply the latest example of ad hoc gap filler based upon another premise which has since been falsified. When dark energy was proposed, it was "assumed" that SN1A events were all the same. Now we know for a fact that is *not true*, yet the supernatural dark energy mythology continues as well.

95 percent of Lambda-CDM is based upon *supernatural* entities, none of which are required to explain the observations in question. Supernova events were never exactly alike so "dark energy" theory was based upon a now falsified premise. Exotic matter was never necessary to explain the mainstream's *gross underestimate* of stellar and plasma mass found in various galaxies.

I'm sure someone will be able to correct any errors I've made in that explanation, I'm no expert.

You've correctly portrayed their claims, but you've yet to deal with the problems in their claims which you will find at that Thunderbolts link.

 

[JacksBratt]

So, there is no evidence but we know they must come from somewhere, so lets call this "somewhere" the "Oort cloud"

Now they all come from the Oort cloud and we can all sleep at night knowing their origin no matter how fictitious.

 

[Michael]

So, there is no evidence but we know they must come from somewhere, so lets call this "somewhere" the "Oort cloud"

Now they all come from the Oort cloud and we can all sleep at night knowing their origin no matter how fictitious.

As much as I might malign Lambda-CDM, the concept of an Oort cloud is pretty reasonable from my perspective. Pretty much every computer model predicts bands and clouds of materials that don't completely condense into fully formed planets. The Oort cloud is just the outermost band of material.

We're seeing other objects far beyond Pluto:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/planet_like_body.html