The Oort Cloud Explained

[dad]

Would you care to explain the meaning of any bright comet that has been seen in the past 100 years?

Just to take one example, Comet Ikeya-Seki was nearly as bright as the full moon, and was visible in the daytime.



Sign schmign.

Well, I assume that things man sees in the heavens should convey some message. One message they convey is that the heavens declare the wonders and glory of the creator. Another message I often get is that science is clueless about it.

 

[dad]

Can someone give a summary of why the Oort cloud is so significant to science and why the Oort cloud is so significant to creationism?

It is an imaginary cloud used to explain comets and stuff. It shows that science grasps at straws to avoid God as creator, and fits all things, even things they made up...into the godless models.

 

[Foxhole87]

Well, I assume that things man sees in the heavens should convey some message. One message they convey is that the heavens declare the wonders and glory of the creator. Another message I often get is that science is clueless about it.

Do you spend hours every day looking for messages in wax dripped into pans of water?

 

[Foxhole87]

It is an imaginary cloud used to explain comets and stuff. It shows that science grasps at straws to avoid God as creator, and fits all things, even things they made up...into the godless models.

I gathered that you simply don't accept the Oort Cloud (nor the scientific consensus), but why would the existence of the Oort Cloud be manifested as a way to avoid God?

 

[dad]

This is probably overkill, but I found a presentation by someone from Caltech. Some nice data of an occultation by Saturn, showing how noisy it is.

Then some calculations on Kuiper Belt objects, showing that it's just about on the edge of feasibility. If you watch a star for an entire year, there should be about 100 events from KBOs with durations of a few tenths of a second that might be noticeable out of the noise.

Oort Cloud objects on the other hand seem to be too far and small to see this way, even if a new satellite were designed to look for these kinds of occultations.

About the beyond Pluto belt. I googled that they had found 1000 objects. They envision a lot more is there. I don't see how that really matters or relates.

In a state change, I would envision that many heavenly bodies near earth underwent, in some cases, drastic change. That could affect orbits. Therefore having a lot of debris here and there is no shocker. In fact, I do not know that the planets in our solar system were either all here, or all exactly in the orbits and the way we see them now before our nature started!

Trying to attribute actual objects and comets and asteroids to some self forming of the universe and solar system untold imaginary, godless years ago, is to me, truly the depths of insanity.

 

[dad]

Do you spend hours every day looking for messages in wax dripped into pans of water?

No. Nor do I spend all day denying Scripture.

 

[dad]

Fist of all you have to realize not all stars have fully lit photospheres.

http://www.aip.de/en/news/science/starspots

So not every darkening and brightening may be due to a planet.

Then you also have to remember that not only has the fable of comets been falsified - but stars have been observed to directly contradict the claimed lifetime of stars in the HR diagram.

http://electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm

Let me guess, a big electric field and some plasma did a hula dance and that made the comets?

 

[dad]

A sign, eh? The Oort cloud is too far away for humans to see. Why did God create a sign which we can't see? Did he miscalculate?

No. The Oort Cloud and the easter bunny are too far to be seen. But some believe.

 

[dad]

Explanation, noun: The unfounded assertion that god must have done it for a reason and any theory not involving god must be wrong.

Science: The unfounded assertion that no God must have done it for no reason and any theory not involving god must be right.

 

[dad]

It is easier to detect Oort Clouds around other stars by the infrared reflection of the debris.

Thanks for that, the thread needed some humor.

 

[dad]

I gathered that you simply don't accept the Oort Cloud (nor the scientific consensus), but why would the existence of the Oort Cloud be manifested as a way to avoid God?

Why grasp at straws to explain comets? The whole thing is an exercise in cooking up any pathetic explanation that fits with the godless, no creation model. Engaging in that sort of delirious giddy lobotomized reinvention of the created universe is a waste of time and indicative of pre conceived beliefs.

 

[Oafman]

Thanks for that, the thread needed some humor.

I dunno dad. There was already plenty of humour from where I'm sitting.

 

[dad]

I dunno dad. There was already plenty of humour from where I'm sitting.

Well, tell us about mass loss for the star. How far away and big it is?

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40678627?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

 

[The Barbarian]

And not a single trace of water was found in a single sample returned.

It's been known for a very long time that comets are largely composed of ice.

Spectroscopy detected water on comets a long time ago. That's not at issue.

 

[The Barbarian]

Can someone give a summary of why the Oort cloud is so significant to science and why the Oort cloud is so significant to creationism?

It explains long-period comets. You see, long-period comets, unlike short period ones, come in at all angles. The Kuiper Belt, being confined to the plane of the solar system, only produces comets that are along that plane.

Kepler's laws and Newton's theory of gravitation can tell us the periods of these comets by the shape of their orbits. We can tell that they do orbit the sun, because they have parabolic motions unlike a body at escape velocity, with a hyperbolic orbit.

We can also tell how far out they started by their observed paths.

This information indicates a spherical cloud of comets as much as one light year from the Sun.

Obviously the times involved in such motions would make YE creationism impossible.

 

[Nithavela]

It's been known for a very long time that comets are largely composed of ice.

Spectroscopy detected water on comets a long time ago. That's not at issue.

Water, not ice! Duh!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Let me guess, a big electric field and some plasma did a hula dance and that made the comets?

Apparently they aren't the only ones that ignore the data.

http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news113.html

"When we started pulling these particles out and examining them in electron microscopes and other instruments, we found even more surprises... Like in meteorites most of the components from the comet have isotopic compositions similar to Earth and are of solar system origin."

And since yes we are discussing Plasma "Instead of the mild heating that astronomers envisioned the comet samples were heated during their formation to severe temperatures, temperatures high enough to melt or vaporize them. The temperatures above 1300 �C and the samples were white hot" Most undoubtedly that electric field was involved.

 

[Astrophile]

Well, tell us about mass loss for the star. How far away and big it is?

The star is 39±1 parsecs away; it has a radius of 1.34±0.05 solar radii and a luminosity of 4.9±0.4 times the Sun's.

HR 8799 is a main-sequence star with a spectral type of F0, so it probably isn't losing much mass. The Sun, which is a fairly similar star, loses only a hundred-trillionth of its mass per year, so HR 8799 is probably losing about the same amount.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HR_8799

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Of course it contains a debris disc and planets now - that's how planets form - split from a star undergoing high electrical stress per square meter.

http://electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm

 

[The Barbarian]

Of course it contains a debris disc and planets now - that's how planets form - split from a star undergoing high electrical stress per square meter.

I actually read this back in the early 60s. Sounded like the real thing to me. Of course, I was 15, and hadn't taken any physics. It was a huge disillusionment when I did. No one said anything about Velikovsky, but everything in physics was contrary to his beliefs.