Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why grasp at straws to explain comets?
There is a background glow in the observable universe. That glow is observed on and near earth. In no way does that mean a big bang. It also fits a creation model.
Unrelated to science then, except they sit and watch something happen.I have already explained that it is extrapolating into the future what has been observed in the past. The prediction of future light maxima or minima is based on the period obtained from past maxima and minima.
In other words you try to squeeze in your earth nature law explanations for what we see far away..after the fact!!!!No, I am not kidding. The behaviour of variable stars tells astronomers a lot about stellar structure and the physics of pulsation, and about mass transfer between binary stars.
Take a person who predicts weather. If all they did was sit there and tell you what they saw yesterday, most of us would not consider that a prediction of things to come. If a psychic predicts that JFK got assassinated back in 1963, that is not much of a prediction. If I see a light go on in a room set to a timer every night at 8pm and predict it will go on all week, that is a mickey mouse prediction.I am not sure what this means. Perhaps you mean that making a prediction requires analysis of observations or having an understanding of the physics governing the observed phenomenon, or both. If so, I agree with you.
The name 'Oort Cloud' makes me think of old school Power Rangers or Star Trek
Also, I don't understand why something like that can't be seen. We can find Pluto but not this gigantic tirade of junk.
Trillions upon trillions of small chunks vs one Pluto, and Pluto goes right up in the Kuiper Belt.
Right I think we get that we calculate the projected orbits.Astronomers observe the movements of a comet against the frame of reference formed by the background of the 'fixed stars'. These cometary movements are used to calculate the comet's orbital elements, according to Newton's and Kepler's laws.
The calculated orbital elements are used to predict the motion of the comet while it is still visible. The agreement of the observed motion with this predicted motion confirms the accuracy of the orbital elements. Do you understand so far?
Nope! Therein lies your grave mistake! Forget Keppler's law! That is short sighted if one thinks it applies to all time and space.Now to come to the important point. The orbital elements of many comets, calculated, as I say, from their orbital motion, show that they have semi-major axes (a) of thousands of Astronomical Units, or even up to 20,000 AU. These comets must have orbital eccentricities (e) up to around 0.9995 in order for them to come within the Earth's orbit at perihelion. By Kepler's third law, they must have orbital periods (P) of tens of thousands or even millions of years.
How, praytell, if a comet had an orbit of a million years would it appear frequently!?If comets have P ~ 10,000 to >1,000,000 years and such comets appear frequently,
Not in any way.there must be a sort of 'conveyor belt' containing millions of comets that are approaching the Sun but still too far away to be visible.
No, they are not distributed evenly. Something likely affected the orbits, since we know the time of creation! Science doesn't know so they invented the Oort fantasy.If these comets are distributed evenly around their orbits, most of them must be near to aphelion, at distances up to about 40,000 AU. These comets form the Oort cloud
Whoah! Calm down. How many comets have we seen?? Quit inventing this billions thing.Moreover, if the distribution of the orbital eccentricities of comets is uniform, there must be 20,000 comets with e < 0.9995 for every one with e > 0.9995. Given a population of millions of high-eccentricity comets on the 'conveyor belt' bringing them towards the Sun, we now have billions of comets with e < 0.9995 that never come near the Sun and that therefore remain invisible.
Really? Can you use the creation model to predict the anisotropy distribution of the CMB and show that it fits the data of the Planck satellite at least as well as the LCDM model?
False! You take time...time exists here on and near earth you know..and space here...that is the base line for the triangulation. We know time exists here...not at the star though. You cannot extend a time and space line to the star!For a star only 40pc away we can easily measure its parallax, which gives its distance.
It only counts if they all care so much to scrutinize it. The 'overwhelming majority' also hold to dark matter & energy even though the jury is still out on that one altogether.
I bet Einstein's theory would have just lit right up in his mind if he followed you all's sheep mentality with science and philosophy.
Show us the prediction for the CMB.
They could merely be adapting to our space and time once they get in here for all we know. Or..they could have been affected by the state change long ago...or...who knows?! We can't lock in your belief based preferences.Well, they must come from somewhere, and they must be going somewhere, what with Newtonian laws of motion and all
No. heaven operates differently. The spiritual realm operates differently...etc.No, you believe that the world around you has the same limits it does everywhere else.
No, we then dispose of all the absurdities your belief system gave us, like the universe coming from a speck o soup, etc.See, once you throw out the baby with the bathwater by rejecting Uniformitarianism, you must be ready to welcome in a whole slew of absurdities.
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.
When your doctor says he got back from the far side of the universe we can ask him.Do you normally not trust experts? If your doctor tells you that you are sick and need medicine, do you consider that "blind faith in man"?
False! You take time...time exists here on and near earth you know..and space here...that is the base line for the triangulation. We know time exists here...not at the star though. You cannot extend a time and space line to the star!
OK so we see light or the background radiation a certain way. We get it. Now...show why that fits a big bang exactly.Sure. Here is the paper with the Planck results.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.5062v1.pdf
My favorite figure is figure 19 on page 27, which I include here:
The vertical axis is the power spectrum and the horizontal axis is the angular scale. For example, you can see that most features on the CMB are around 1 degree in size. In this figure, the green curve is the prediction of the LCDM model and the red points are the data from the Planck satellite including their 1-sigma error bars. I think that the fit is impressive, but I would be interested to see the same plot using the creationist model.
What is your proposed explanation for parallax? How does parallax even assume anything about time at the star?
When your doctor says he got back from the far side of the universe we can ask him.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?