The Oort Cloud Explained

[dad]

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.

Says you. However, unless you have seen a comet return to earth a million years ago, and again today, you are merely claiming that the present orbital path could not have been affected 'far away' somehow. You don't know that.

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).

No. The Oort cloud is fantasy. If any zone of comets existed for any reason it would not be why you say or when!

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.

The dream of the Oort zone is that it is old and that the current orbits of some comets require it according to your version of the universe.

 

[dad]

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.

Total baloney since the models also assume the universe...all that the universe is...came sailing out of an imaginary speck.
I see no reason that trillions of comets have to be lurking in a zone. That would not be created presumably. So where would it come from? I could see a lot of debris formed in the nature change, so there could be a lot of comets in that zone. Not for the reasons science claims though.

We're seeing other objects far beyond Pluto:

Obviously there are a lot of objects. They claim what a trillion or so in the Oort? They have seen how many? Do the math. The Oort Imaginarium is a creation of man, not God.

 

[Michael]

Says you. However, unless you have seen a comet return to earth a million years ago, and again today, you are merely claiming that the present orbital path could not have been affected 'far away' somehow. You don't know that.


No. The Oort cloud is fantasy. If any zone of comets existed for any reason it would not be why you say or when!

The dream of the Oort zone is that it is old and that the current orbits of some comets require it according to your version of the universe.

http://theplanets.org/oort-cloud/

Objects found in the Oort Cloud are known as trans-Neptunian objects. This applies to all objects beyond the orbit of Neptune and includes the Kuiper Belt objects as well.

Ya know.....

It's not like I haven't leveled my own criticisms at astronomers over the years, but I really don't grasp your personal disdain for the concept of an Oort cloud. It's basically made up of every solid object found outside of the orbit of Neptune, which technically includes a number of dwarf planets, including Pluto.

 

[Michael]

Total baloney since the models also assume the universe...all that the universe is...came sailing out of an imaginary speck.

Well, I tend to agree with your criticism of that particular point, but not so much on the concept of an Oort cloud.

I see no reason that trillions of comets have to be lurking in a zone.

Well, you'd have to think that *some* amount of material is orbiting *outside* of the orbit of Neptune, wouldn't you? It might not contain as many objects as they imagine, but it's bound to contain *some* objects of some number, isn't it?

That would not be created presumably. So where would it come from? I could see a lot of debris formed in the nature change, so there could be a lot of comets in that zone. Not for the reasons science claims though.

It would have formed as the solar system itself formed, from exactly the same processes that formed the rest of the solar system. It's essentially just the leftover material that happens to orbit outside of the orbit of Neptune.

Obviously there are a lot of objects. They claim what a trillion or so in the Oort? They have seen how many? Do the math. The Oort Imaginarium is a creation of man, not God.

I'd grant you that the number of objects might be debatable to some degree, but it seems like the least of the worries of astronomers at the moment. They've got their hands full explaining why 'dark matter' hasn't shown up in any experiment on Earth, and trying to justify their flawed and now falsified estimates of the baryonic composition of various galaxies. With their luck, there are actually *far more* objects than they "assume", and that's just another reason why their galaxy mass estimates were so far off in 2006.

 

[dad]

http://theplanets.org/oort-cloud/

Any particular reason you posted a link? I see that it says they estimate two trillion items in the cloud. Cute. It also admits they have no way to prove that. Of course.

Ya know.....

It's not like I haven't leveled my own criticisms at astronomers over the years, but I really don't grasp your personal disdain for the concept of an Oort cloud.

They claim it is billions of years old for one thing...

It's basically made up of every solid object found outside of the orbit of Neptune, which technically includes a number of dwarf planets, including Pluto.

Yeah right.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

We can see Oort Clouds directly surrounding other stars. It is easier see at a distance than in our own solar system.

 

[dad]

Well, I tend to agree with your criticism of that particular point, but not so much on the concept of an Oort cloud.

So a cloud that God didn't make formed billions of years ago?

Well, you'd have to think that *some* amount of material is orbiting *outside* of the orbit of Neptune, wouldn't you?

Yes. But for the reasons or time they claim.

It would have formed as the solar system itself formed,

Ah THERE is your big mistake. The solar system never formed. It was created. Now it is possible the planets and orbits changed somewhat at some point several thousand years ago, but that is another thread.

from exactly the same processes that formed the rest of the solar system. It's essentially just the leftover material that happens to orbit outside of the orbit of Neptune.

Utterly false. As I pointed out Jesus created the earth and moon and sun, and planets.

I'd grant you that the number of objects might be debatable to some degree, but it seems like the least of the worries of astronomers at the moment.

The number is not the big issue. Although I must admit 2 trillion does sound like a whopper.

They've got their hands full explaining why 'dark matter' hasn't shown up in any experiment on Earth, and trying to justify their flawed and now falsified estimates of the baryonic composition of various galaxies. With their luck, there are actually *far more* objects than they "assume", and that's just another reason why their galaxy mass estimates were so far off in 2006.

You can forget mass estimates altogether. There is firstly more to creation than physical mass. Secondly the size and distances of stars is utterly unknown...they base both on belief only.

 

[Michael]

Any particular reason you posted a link? I see that it says they estimate two trillion items in the cloud. Cute. It also admits they have no way to prove that. Of course.

Since we're basically quibbling about the numbers, not the concept, I don't get the feeling this is your primary objection to the idea. I'm guessing it is this issue:

They claim it is billions of years old for one thing...

Unless you're simply going to toss out the whole concept of radiometric dating (which I'm not inclined to do), this solar system is in fact system is billions of years old. They'd be the same age as the Earth in all likelihood.

Yeah right.

Well, that is the physical definition they use. Pretty much everything orbiting outside of the orbit of Neptune is technically part of the Oort cloud. It's just a physical boundary that designates the end of "planets", and the beginning of the objects in the Oort cloud.

 

[dad]

We can see Oort Clouds directly surrounding other stars. It is easier see at a distance than in our own solar system.

Dream on. Do you see Oort clouds when you look in a microscope too? How bout in your coffee?

 

[dad]

Since we're basically quibbling about the numbers, not the concept, I don't get the feeling this is your primary objection to the idea. I'm guessing it is this issue:

Not numbers...the concept of billions of years ago some uncreated cloud formed...that is hooey.

Unless you're simply going to toss out the whole concept of radiometric dating (which I'm not inclined to do),

Yes out the window. That concept does not fit the future or past, and if you think they dated the far universe...brief us now will you?

this solar system is in fact system is billions of years old.

No. Stop preaching nonsense.

They'd be the same age as the Earth in all likelihood.

You can't date either so what is that to you?

Well, that is the physical definition they use. Pretty much everything orbiting outside of the orbit of Neptune is technically part of the Oort cloud. It's just a physical boundary that designates the end of "planets", and the beginning of the objects in the Oort cloud.

They are more specific in the dates and origins of the concocted cloud.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Dream on. Do you see Oort clouds when you look in a microscope too? How bout in your coffee?

You are just humiliating yourself and bringing discredit on Christan faith.

"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." - Thomas Aquinas, c.a. 1225 - 1274, Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q68. Art 1. (1273).

 

[dad]

You are just humiliating yourself and bringing discredit on Christan faith.

Like you'd know.

"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches.

He can take a hike.

The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." - Thomas Aquinas, c.a. 1225 - 1274, Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q68. Art 1. (1273).

So prove it to be false and you can talk, Buzz.

 

[dcarrera]

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.

Why is it fictitious? Every single long-period comet really really really has an orbit that puts it very far away from the Sun most of the time. Isn't this enough to make it non-fiction? Do you think that long-period comets are fiction? The notion that there are other bodies with similar, but less eccentric orbits is speculation, but do you really think that it is an unreasonable speculation?

 

[JacksBratt]

Why is it fictitious? Every single long-period comet really really really has an orbit that puts it very far away from the Sun most of the time. Isn't this enough to make it non-fiction? Do you think that long-period comets are fiction? The notion that there are other bodies with similar, but less eccentric orbits is speculation, but do you really think that it is an unreasonable speculation?

Well, firstly, what is this cloud orbiting? One of our planets? Only Saturn has rings. Orbiting the sun? Would we not be able to see this "ring around our other orbits"? What would cause one of these masses to suddenly, randomly, break away from a billion years of routine pattern of orbit and get the momentum to come toward earth?

You know what? This is one big universe. There are chunks of rocks out there. Every once and a while one comes our way.

There doesn't have to be a cloud of orbiting debris out there that spits one out from time to time. We have the Hubble telescope and it can look light years into the great beyond. It hasn't found the Oort cloud.

"Scientists" have fabricated another figment of their speculation and we are supposed to believe them because they have no other explanation. They cannot bring God into it or their house of cards falls down.

I'm done with believing the scientists of this age just because they have letters after their name AND other like minded fish from their schooling review their work and give it the rubber stamp of approval.....like that holds any weight any more.

Oort shmort.... not observable, not measurable, not believable. It's faith in figments.

"Good science is observable, measurable and repeatable. Everything else is junk!"

 

[dad]

Why is it fictitious? Every single long-period comet really really really has an orbit that puts it very far away from the Sun most of the time.

Orbits do not mean that the orbit existed since creation.

 

[Michael]

Dream on. Do you see Oort clouds when you look in a microscope too? How bout in your coffee?

We do actually observe some objects beyond the orbit of Neptune, including dwarf planets. Due to the limits of our technology, nobody can currently hope to track every object inside our solar system, and certainly not every object beyond the orbit of Neptune. There are some objects however which have been observed, even if not by me personally. Since there's all kinds of "space junk" throughout our solar system, I see no logical reason to believe that there are no objects beyond the orbit of Neptune. You're basically complaining about their "guestimate" of the number of such objects, not the fact that some objects must exist in orbit beyond Neptune.

 

[dad]

We do actually observe some objects beyond the orbit of Neptune, including dwarf planets. Due to the limits of our technology, nobody can currently hope to track every object inside our solar system, and certainly not every object beyond the orbit of Neptune. There are some objects however which have been observed, even if not by me personally. Since there's all kinds of "space junk" throughout our solar system, I see no logical reason to believe that there are no objects beyond the orbit of Neptune. You're basically complaining about their "guestimate" of the number of such objects, not the fact that some objects must exist in orbit beyond Neptune.

Well, isn't it like they have the Kuniper belt and then they needed some comets with a different orbit angle? So they say, do they not that they Oort cloud is like a big disk, sort of sideways. I think they say it acts like a cosmic conveyor belt, that keeps bringing comets into our system in that different direction/orientation...

If someone cares about the fable, maybe they could inform you about the silly details..

 

[Michael]

Well, firstly, what is this cloud orbiting?

Ultimately it orbits the sun.

One of our planets?

Some junk does kinda orbit around planets, but the Oort cloud is assumed to orbit the sun.

Only Saturn has rings.

Actually we now know that several planets in our own solar system have faint rings.

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/195-How-many-planets-in-the-Solar-System-have-rings-

Orbiting the sun? Would we not be able to see this "ring around our other orbits"?

We do observe such rings of "stuff" inside our own solar system, like the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Some debris simply may not form into fully condensed planets.

What would cause one of these masses to suddenly, randomly, break away from a billion years of routine pattern of orbit and get the momentum to come toward earth?

It could be some debris in the cloud itself simply interacts with other debris over time, or it may be due to very small gravitational changes from planetary movement that ultimate result in movement out of orbit. It could be that a lot of that stuff never had a "round" orbit to begin with, and has *always* had an eccentric orbit around the sun.

You know what? This is one big universe. There are chunks of rocks out there. Every once and a while one comes our way.

There doesn't have to be a cloud of orbiting debris out there that spits one out from time to time. We have the Hubble telescope and it can look light years into the great beyond. It hasn't found the Oort cloud.

Hubble, marvelous as it might be, has limits in terms of how much it can see. Many objects simply wouldn't emit enough light to be observed by Hubble even on a good day.

There's a lot (95%) wrong with astronomy theory today, but frankly the concept of an Oort cloud isn't really one of them IMO.

 

[JacksBratt]

IMO it's a nice story or "explanation" but no proof. Speculation, assumption, extrapolation is not good science.

Seems that most of the stuff they are looking into these days has far too much space between the measurable, observable, repeatable things.

It's like taking every 100th page of a book reading them out of order and predicting the story that was intended by the author.

 

[dcarrera]

Well, firstly, what is this cloud orbiting? One of our planets? Only Saturn has rings. Orbiting the sun?

The Sun. Absolutely the Sun. The Sun completely dominates the gravitational potential of the solar system. Every giant planet has rings. Saturn only has the biggest and most beautiful ones.

Would we not be able to see this "ring around our other orbits"?

It is not a ring, it is a cloud. Spherically symmetric. We say that because long-period comets come from all directions, not just from one particular plane.

What would cause one of these masses to suddenly, randomly, break away from a billion years of routine pattern of orbit and get the momentum to come toward earth?

That's a good question. The answer is that no, they do not suddenly, randomly break away from a billion years of routine pattern. The Oort cloud objects probably have a random distribution of orbits. The vast majority of those orbits could never be made into comets; but in a random distribution there will always be a small fraction of bodies that have already extremely eccentric orbits. These are bodies that have extremely little angular momentum. A circular orbit has maximum angular momentum, and a perfectly radial orbit has zero angular momentum. An Oort cloud object that has a semimajor axis of 10,000 AU and reaches as far down as (say) Saturn, already has only 1.4% of the angular momentum of a circular orbit. If it loses another 1%, it will reach the Earth. So a small gravitational nudge could do it. Oort cloud objects are far enough that they are only very loosely bound to the Sun; so a torque from a passing star or the Milky Way itself an nudge them.

You know what? This is one big universe. There are chunks of rocks out there. Every once and a while one comes our way.

That wouldn't work. First, things in the Galaxy are too far away for random chunks of ice to get to another star. Second, the orbits of these comets show that they are bound to the Sun. They are orbiting the Sun; they are not external.

There doesn't have to be a cloud of orbiting debris out there that spits one out from time to time. We have the Hubble telescope and it can look light years into the great beyond. It hasn't found the Oort cloud.

Why do you think that Hubble would be able to see the Oort cloud? An Oort cloud object way dimmer than a distant star. Consider: You can't even see Neptune with the naked eye, but you can see many stars with the naked eye. Neptune is a lot dimmer than a star. Well, a 1km body at 10,000 AU is a 10 quadrillion times dimmer than Neptune.

They cannot bring God into it or their house of cards falls down.

You did not bring god into it either. You were talking about random chunks of ice coming randomly into the solar system. Your hypothesis is disproven by the orbits of the comets. They clearly belong to the solar system.

Oort shmort.... not observable, not measurable, not believable. It's faith in figments.

"Good science is observable, measurable and repeatable. Everything else is junk!"

Don't believe if you don't want to. But the Oort cloud concept is testable: (1) If the Oort cloud objects formed with the solar system, they should have an isotopic composition that matches the solar system. This is difficult to test, but it is testable. (2) We could send a probe there (like, maybe a solar sail). Difficult, but it should be done one day. Let's distinguish between "not observable" and "hard to observe".