The Oort Cloud Explained

[dcarrera]

OK so we see light or the background radiation a certain way. We get it. Now...show why that fits a big bang exactly.

I showed you! The green line in the plot is the prediction. The red dots are the observations.

 

[dad]

DAD writes:


It tells us, for example, whether the object has enough energy to escape the solar system, or will return. If the latter, it also tells us how far out it will go before returning, and how long that will take.

That won't help you.You need the rest of the universe to obey laws in our solar syatem and you need time available to come back, and you need nothing else changing the orbit...etc!

That was how Halley correctly called the return of the comet named for him. It's how we keep tabs on worrisome bits of rock that come rather closer to the Earth than we'd like.

We can do that for mere centuries...irrelevant.

Kepler's Laws:

1. The orbit of a planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci.
2. A line segment joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.
3. The square of the orbital period of a planet is proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.

Unless you know the distance and size of something doesn't help you anyhow.

 

[dcarrera]

I propose that time is built into the distance measures. Therefore unless time existed there at the star as well as here, the distances are garbage.

That is not an answer to the question "what is your proposed explanation for parallax?".

 

[dad]

I showed you! The green line in the plot is the prediction. The red dots are the observations.

Well, in your words who made this prediction and what did it say? Don't just draw colored lines.

 

[dcarrera]

Unless you know the distance and size of something doesn't help you anyhow.

We know the distance to nearby stars and comets from basic geometry. If you are so determined to reject scientific information that you don't like that you will go as far as to reject the validity of geometry and straight lines, I don't think there is any hope for a fruitful discussion. I am willing to change my mind, and I will never selectively reject basic math concepts to maintain a doctrine.

 

[dcarrera]

Well, in your words who made this prediction and what did it say? Don't just draw colored lines.

I gave you a link to the paper. What more do you want? What do you have against colored lines? Show me your own plot, produced by the creationist model, with your own colored line. I would like to see a demonstration of your claim that the creationist model fits the CMB data too. Why is it that I am the only one who has to show data but you don't feel that you have the burden of supporting your own claims? I gave you a link to the research article, and the plot, and I am still waiting for you to do the same for the creationist model. You said that the creationist model also fits the CMB. Well, show me.

 

[Foxhole87]

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.

I don't even know what you are asking at this point. You seem to be suggesting a sort of solipsism, and I honestly don't grant you the sophistication involved with understanding the concept.

No. heaven operates differently. The spiritual realm operates differently...etc.

How do you know? Have you been to either of those places?

No, we then dispose of all the absurdities your belief system gave us, like the universe coming from a speck o soup, etc.

So you haven't told me why I can't simply be posting from another solar system.

 

[Astrophile]

Now if we only ever see a comet once and the trajectory suggests it won't be seen for a million years forget about it! There are untold oodles of things that could have affected an orbit since creation! You look at just 'the present orbit'! You then assume it always was like that and will be another million years! Hilarious.

There are not 'untold oodles of things' in the Oort cloud that could have perturbed a comet's orbit over, say, the last ten million years. The only significant gravitating mass is the Sun, and in the two-body problem (Sun + comet), the comet will pursue an elliptical orbit with the same elements essentially for ever. There is no evidence for large planets in the Oort cloud; even if planets exist there, their gravity could perturb the orbits of only an infinitesimal proportion of the Oort cloud comets. The same is true of stars passing near to or through the cloud; such stellar encounters are rare, and they affect only a very small part of the cloud.

How, pray tell, if a comet had an orbit of a million years would it appear frequently!?

I didn't mean that the same million-year comet returns frequently. I mean that there are many different comets with orbital periods of up to a few million years, so that the appearance of a long-period comet is a frequent event.

No, they are not distributed evenly.

Have you any scientific reason for thinking this?

Something likely affected the orbits, since we know the time of creation!

How do we know the date of creation? What scientific evidence is this knowledge based on?

Whoah! Calm down. How many comets have we seen?? Quit inventing this billions thing.

'As of November 2014, there are 5253 known comets' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet .
I don't know whether that includes the 3000 Sun-grazing comets discovered by the SOHO telescope in the last 20 years - http://www.nasa.gov/image_feature/3000th-comet-spotted-by-solar-and-heliospheric-observatory-soho . However, I have already explained the reasons for thinking that the comets we have seen represent only a very small fraction of the comets that actually exist in the solar system. These are that there must be a 'conveyor belt' to explain the frequent appearance of new, unobserved long-period comets, and that the very-high-eccentricity comets that we do see are only a small sample of the total number, most of which have much smaller orbital eccentricities.

 

[dad]

That is not an answer to the question "what is your proposed explanation for parallax?".

I don't need one. I just need to know your explanation bites it.

 

[dad]

I don't even know what you are asking at this point. You seem to be suggesting a sort of solipsism, and I honestly don't grant you the sophistication involved with understanding the concept.
How do you know? Have you been to either of those places?
So you haven't told me why I can't simply be posting from another solar system.

Too bad I do not grant you an earth zone like universe.

 

[dad]

Why are you evading my question? I am asking a legitimate question, and your evasion just tells me that you don't actually care about what other people have to say. I asked whether you reject you consider it "blind faith in man" when your doctor tells you that you are sick. This is a legitimate question. Does your religion make you reject the entire notion of expertise in a field?

My doctor may be the one to ask about drugs or a sore toe, but not about time and space.

 

[Foxhole87]

Too bad I do not grant you an earth zone like universe.

So I could very well be posting from another solar system, you say?

 

[dad]

There are not 'untold oodles of things' in the Oort cloud that could have perturbed a comet's orbit over,

Got that right. There is no silly Oort cloud.

say, the last ten million years. The only significant gravitating mass is the Sun, and in the two-body problem (Sun + comet), the comet will pursue an elliptical orbit with the same elements essentially for ever.

Hate to break the news, but your problems are far far far greater than some imaginary problem about imaginary time.

There is no evidence for large planets in the Oort cloud; even if planets exist there, their gravity could perturb the orbits of only an infinitesimal proportion of the Oort cloud comets.

You claim there is any evidence for some Oort cloud? Let's see it. And don't say comet trajectories HERE!

The same is true of stars passing near to or through the cloud; such stellar encounters are rare, and they affect only a very small part of the cloud.

Relax. Nothing affects an imaginary cloud. What affectes things would be real, albeit unknown to your little belief system and circular way of thinking.

I didn't mean that the same million-year comet returns frequently. I mean that there are many different comets with orbital periods of up to a few million years, so that the appearance of a long-period comet is a frequent event.

Very funny. Were you here a million years ago to see one? You are telling stories.

Have you any scientific reason for thinking this?

Yes, there is no scientific reason an Oort cloud exists, that is speculation and theory. So forget talking about how things are 'distributed' there!

How do we know the date of creation? What scientific evidence is this knowledge based on?

That depends on who we is. You don't/ Science doesn't. I do.

'As of November 2014, there are 5253 known comets' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet .
I don't know whether that includes the 3000 Sun-grazing comets discovered by the SOHO telescope in the last 20 years - http://www.nasa.gov/image_feature/3000th-comet-spotted-by-solar-and-heliospheric-observatory-soho . However, I have already explained the reasons for thinking that the comets we have seen represent only a very small fraction of the comets that actually exist in the solar system. These are that there must be a 'conveyor belt' to explain the frequent appearance of new, unobserved long-period comets, and that the very-high-eccentricity comets that we do see are only a small sample of the total number, most of which have much smaller orbital eccentricities.

Several thousand short and long term comets do not make billions or trillions like your Oort fantasy claims!

All we have here is a simple clear case of a fantasy running amok.

 

[dad]

So I could very well be posting from another solar system, you say?

What should we call you, the Oort man? Or My favorite Oortonian?

 

[dad]

I gave you a link to the paper. What more do you want? What do you have against colored lines? Show me your own plot, produced by the creationist model, with your own colored line. I would like to see a demonstration of your claim that the creationist model fits the CMB data too. Why is it that I am the only one who has to show data but you don't feel that you have the burden of supporting your own claims? I gave you a link to the research article, and the plot, and I am still waiting for you to do the same for the creationist model. You said that the creationist model also fits the CMB. Well, show me.

Show us in your own words the prediction of the cmb. Use links for reference.

 

[Foxhole87]

What should we call you, the Oort man? Or My favorite Oortonian?

Tell me whether or not you grant me the possibility of posting from another solar system, and then tell me why.

 

[dad]

Tell me whether or not you grant me the possibility of posting from another solar system, and then tell me why.

Sorry I can't grant you being in another solar sytem, you are grounded.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No, the Oort cloud should be close to spherically symmetric.

OK.

This is correct. Click here for a calculation.

Thanks for that; interesting - nice to have someone who can back up what they're talking about with calculations!

 

[Astrophile]

Got that right. There is no silly Oort cloud.
Hate to break the news, but your problems are far far far greater than some imaginary problem about imaginary time.

You claim there is any evidence for some Oort cloud? Let's see it. And don't say comet trajectories HERE!

Relax. Nothing affects an imaginary cloud. What affectes things would be real, albeit unknown to your little belief system and circular way of thinking.


Very funny. Were you here a million years ago to see one? You are telling stories.

Yes, there is no scientific reason an Oort cloud exists, that is speculation and theory. So forget talking about how things are 'distributed' there!
That depends on who we is. You don't/ Science doesn't. I do.


Several thousand short and long term comets do not make billions or trillions like your Oort fantasy claims!

All we have here is a simple clear case of a fantasy running amok.

I have done my best to present the evidence for the Oort Cloud. If you refuse even to try to understand it, that is your loss.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Water, not ice! Duh!

ho-ho!