The Oort Cloud Explained

[Crowns&Laurels]

Scientists don't just sit around scheming up complex theories and forming cabals to run out anyone who disagrees.

Yes they do! Are you kidding, what do you think started this whole thing to begin with

 

[Oafman]

Yes they do! Are you kidding, what do you think started this whole thing to begin with

Socrates?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Socrates?

No. Modern day, atheist apologist scientists.

 

[Foxhole87]

No. Modern day, atheist apologist scientists.

Care to give specific examples?

 

[Goonie]

No. Modern day, atheist apologist scientists.

a majority of scientists are likely to be christian.

 

[Foxhole87]

a majority of scientists are likely to be christian.

But any scientist that is a Christian is just beat into the conspiracies or else they lose their jobs or worse!

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

a majority of scientists are likely to be christian.

Yeah, the one's who aren't on the media smearing Christian beliefs.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

But any scientist that is a Christian is just beat into the conspiracies or else they lose their jobs or worse!

It's not a conspiracy theory that the more scientists have to do with their religion the less the field wants to do with them.

 

[Goonie]

But any scientist that is a Christian is just beat into the conspiracies or else they lose their jobs or worse!

Lol

 

[keith99]

Yes they do! Are you kidding, what do you think started this whole thing to begin with

People who know almost no science and most likely no scientists.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

People who know almost no science and most likely no scientists.

False. It's time that it is realized scientists aren't all saints, and that atheists have to compensate by treating them as such. Time to call that perpetuated bias for what it is.

 

[Oafman]

So dad, are you and your creationist buddies still denying the existence of the Kuiper Belt too?

 

[The Barbarian]

But any scientist that is a Christian is just beat into the conspiracies or else they lose their jobs or worse!

Francisco Ayala, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins are all world-class biologists who openly discuss their scientific beliefs, and no one gives them any guff about it.

Probably true in other disciplines as well. You've been fed a load of prune product about that.

Edit: Actually, Dobzhansky is now deceased.

 

[keith99]

False. It's time that it is realized scientists aren't all saints, and that atheists have to compensate by treating them as such. Time to call that perpetuated bias for what it is.

No one claims they are, rather there is professional competition, nay not mere competition outright jealousy. Scientists are rivals and the rules of the scientific game give them adequate opportunity to discredit their rivals. The great conspiracy theory could not be further from the truth.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

No one claims they are, rather there is professional competition, nay not mere competition outright jealousy. Scientists are rivals and the rules of the scientific game give them adequate opportunity to discredit their rivals. The great conspiracy theory could not be further from the truth.

So is that why Dawkins toured the Middle East slandering the religious? Is that why in all public debates, they have a smirk on their face when a gay person or atheist stands up and says something ridiculous? Have you seen these atheist gatherings?

People pretending to be persecuted is not a conspiracy theory. Again, it is common observation, and I think you all use 'conspiracy theory' to simply manipulate others into thinking the painfully obvious isn't obvious.

 

[dad]

So, would you believe that I am actually posting from a different solar system? Why or why not?

No, the Oort cloud is not a different solar system it is a made up zone.

 

[dad]

So how do you explain the observations of long-period comets? Some of them have orbital semi-major axes of 20,000 AU, and that implies orbital periods of about 3 million years. How can you have these long-period comets entering the inner solar system every few years without there being at least millions of them at distances of about 20,000 AU?

Easy as pie. You think the orbital path "implies" something. That is your mistake. Tell us why that orbit implies that to you exactly, and we shall see.

 

[keith99]

So is that why Dawkins toured the Middle East slandering the religious? Is that why in all public debates, they have a smirk on their face when a gay person or atheist stands up and says something ridiculous? Have you seen these atheist gatherings?

People pretending to be persecuted is not a conspiracy theory. Again, it is common observation, and I think you all use 'conspiracy theory' to simply manipulate others into thinking the painfully obvious isn't obvious.

Yea Christian in the U.S. are soooo persecuted. Just like the in crowd in High School is persecuted by not being allowed to do whatever they want to the outsiders.

 

[dad]

Mira (omicron Ceti), chi Cygni and delta Cephei vary in brightness because they are pulsating; the star expands and contracts on a more or less regular cycle. The predicted times of maximum are based on the periods of the light variation derived from observations of the stars.

So a star brightens and dims on a regular basis. That all??!! So what?

Also, theoretically, the period is proportional to the inverse square root of the density of the star; the larger and less dense the star, the longer its photometric period.

Theoretically indeed. That says little but that you see something and try to make a formula.

Eclipsing binary stars like Algol (beta Persei) vary because the stars occult each other as they orbit round each other; it is the same as the occultations and transits of Jupiter's satellites.

?? You kidding? So some things go round other things in deep space...so?? That doesn't tell you how big the things are, all that they are made of (only the physical bits we can detect from a prism here on earth), how dar away they are, or WHY they actually go round...etc.

The predictions of the times of minima are based on the period derived from observed minima,

Is this just me or does this sound somewhat circular to anyone else!?

But in any case times means time. The times are seen here where there IS time....

and also from spectroscopic measurements of the orbital period.

What about these? Are you still trying to establish the obvious that things go round other things in space??

 

[Foxhole87]

Francisco Ayala, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins are all world-class biologists who openly discuss their scientific beliefs, and no one gives them any guff about it.

Probably true in other disciplines as well. You've been fed a load of prune product about that.

You missed the piggy face.