The Oort Cloud Explained

[pat34lee]

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

Not even a decent dodge.

 

[pat34lee]

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?

All long-term comets have a lifespan. They continually lose matter as they travel.
The maximum age of them is measured in thousands of years. After a million,
they should all be gone. Then again, so should Saturn's rings and our moon.

 

[dad]

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.

Having some hot material in comets does not mean a plasma/electric universe. Not unless you think a volcano doesn't get hot. There are many ways things can get hot.

 

[dad]

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.

Nice fable.

"A parsec is equal to about 3.26 light-years" -wiki

Unless you can prove that distance your radius is worthless. You can't. There may not even be time where the star is. So forget light moving so many miles in one YEAR! You are preaching beliefs.

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

In your theories, it is or is not doing lots of things.

 

[dad]

All long-term comets have a lifespan. They continually lose matter as they travel.
The maximum age of them is measured in thousands of years. After a million,
they should all be gone. Then again, so should Saturn's rings and our moon.

Hilarious. Can you guarantee that comets do not somehow get recharged? How many you seen disappear? You guys really need to learn to phrase your fantasies better. Something more like..'If our whacked out theories of where comets originated and when, and IF our earth laws and time and space applied, then we think a comet would last so many years..'

 

[crunchihuahua]

If there IS an Oort cloud the universe IS billions of years old, if not its 6000 years old, in other words if theirs no comet generator pumping out new ones and comets don't make too many treks around the sun.......you get the idea.

Now they have absolutely no idea if there is an Oort cloud, its still a "theory", it is a tool they use to push the evolution crock on us with NO evidence, I can prove evolution is a big fat lie but if its not true there IS a God and therein lies the problem, too many want their fairy tale instead of having to answer to someone higher than themselves.

Forgive me for rambling a bit

 

[dad]

If there IS an Oort cloud the universe IS billions of years old, if not its 6000 years old, in other words if theirs no comet generator pumping out new ones and comets don't make too many treks around the sun.......you get the idea.

Now they have absolutely no idea if there is an Oort cloud, its still a "theory", it is a tool they use to push the evolution crock on us with NO evidence, I can prove evolution is a big fat lie but if its not true there IS a God and therein lies the problem, too many want their fairy tale instead of having to answer to someone higher than themselves.

Forgive me for rambling a bit

Since God is a known quantity, there is no Oort cloud.

 

[The Barbarian]

(Creationists think God is too weak to make a universe that would last billions of years)

 

[Oafman]

Nice fable.

"A parsec is equal to about 3.26 light-years" -wiki

Unless you can prove that distance your radius is worthless.

Given that the star in question is so close, it's absolute distance can be measured by parallax. So we can be very confident about the distance. Hipparcos measurements

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Hi Dad!

Do confirmed scientific predictions cut any ice with you?
For instance, when a theory predicts the existence of something and this is later observed and shown to confirm what was predicted? The logic of this being that if what is observed matches what was predicted before the observation was made, then the prediction and the theory it was derived from should be accepted as accurate descriptions of reality.

I have a few examples in mind, but I'd like to find out if it's worth citing them first.

So would you be prepared to look at this with an open mind?

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[Oafman]

Hi Dad!

Do confirmed scientific predictions cut any ice with you?
...
So would you be prepared to look at this with an open mind?

You must be new to this forum! I suspect dad will be honest enough to admit that the answer to both questions is a resounding no.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Hey Oafman!

I joined in Oct '12, so I'm not exactly a newbie.

If Dad's reply is 'No' I'm hoping he'll also say why that is.
If he's happy to let me cite my examples, I'll then be interested as to his reaction to them.
And if we get that far, maybe I'll ask him what he thinks about science's ability to accurately predict the existence and nature of things currently unseen.

Time will tell.

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[Oafman]

Good luck!

 

[dad]

(Creationists think God is too weak to make a universe that would last billions of years)

Our main concern is with us and heaven and the new heavens and earth lasting, thanks. Last we will. The folks in the former nature who believed are alive as we speak. Trying to peg all things to just the present way that the state of things are here is deathly foolish.

 

[dad]

Hey Oafman!

I joined in Oct '12, so I'm not exactly a newbie.

If Dad's reply is 'No' I'm hoping he'll also say why that is.
If he's happy to let me cite my examples, I'll then be interested as to his reaction to them.
And if we get that far, maybe I'll ask him what he thinks about science's ability to accurately predict the existence and nature of things currently unseen.

Time will tell.

Thanks,
E.I.

Science deals with the physical. Whatever they predict about the unseen will be based only on the laws of today. You'd be better off to buy a fortune cookie.

 

[dad]

Hi Dad!

Do confirmed scientific predictions cut any ice with you?

yes if they involve reality and this present state world. No if they involve the far future or past.

For instance, when a theory predicts the existence of something and this is later observed and shown to confirm what was predicted?

Depends what it is. If we do that, then soon as a prediction fails, we toss out the whole thing as about as valuable as predictions of a crystal ball reader.

Even the predictions they claim work do so inside their imaginary realms only in many cases. Other times a prediction, let's say that there would be found a fish that walked a bit one day...have no real meaning in propping up their version of why we would find that! Etc.

The logic of this being that if what is observed matches what was predicted before the observation was made, then the prediction and the theory it was derived from should be accepted as accurate descriptions of reality.

They think everything matches their ideas basically. When a match is in some fairy world of time that never really existed, it is hard to disprove or prove. They try to claim credit for the vague.

Some physics claim say, a 65% success rate. It is the 35% that betray them! As for the supposed 65%, hey, a tall dark stranger meeting doesn't really say much. Science declares the universe a tall dark stranger! 95% unknown dark stuff.

I have a few examples in mind, but I'd like to find out if it's worth citing them first.

I have been known to indulge in the game of prediction demolition.

So would you be prepared to look at this with an open mind?

I am prepared to look at any fable with an open mind.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Ok Dad.

How about this?
In 1980 a prediction was made about a type of radiation that would be observed from very soon after the Big Bang.
In 1990 this radiation was observed, exactly confirming what was predicted a decade earlier.

Here is a link about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
Please look at the graph on the right, in the 'Features' section. The prediction (green line) exactly matches the observed data from the COBE satellite (red crosses) and has since been independently confirmed by the WMAP and Planck satellites. When I say 'exactly' I mean that you'd have to magnify the graphic 400x to see any deviation between the prediction and the observed data. This is best match between prediction and observation ever seen in nature.

So would you accept this as a valid example of science's ability to accurately predict unseen things from the very distant (13.7 billion years ago) past..?

If not, why not?

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[Foxhole87]

I wonder if the user "dad" has ever bothered producing any useful scientific insight on anything.

 

[Oafman]

I wonder if the user "dad" has ever bothered producing any useful scientific insight on anything.

Well, recent gems include thread titles such as "If man is evolving, why is there still war" and "Chimp and human species look nothing alike". And my personal favourite, "Light years is a time measure"!

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.

 

[dad]

Ok Dad.

How about this?
In 1980 a prediction was made about a type of radiation that would be observed from very soon after the Big Bang.
In 1990 this radiation was observed, exactly confirming what was predicted a decade earlier.

Here is a link about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

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.

Please look at the graph on the right, in the 'Features' section. The prediction (green line) exactly matches the observed data from the COBE satellite (red crosses) and has since been independently confirmed by the WMAP and Planck satellites. When I say 'exactly' I mean that you'd have to magnify the graphic 400x to see any deviation between the prediction and the observed data. This is best match between prediction and observation ever seen in nature.

Explain why it fits in your mind? Describe in your words why the spectrum would be expected to make a curved line like that.

So would you accept this as a valid example of science's ability to accurately predict unseen things from the very distant (13.7 billion years ago) past..?

If not, why not?

Thanks,

Show us first how the data is predicted. Who said we should expect a line like that? Why did they say it?


Remember that you better prove the exotic stuff also like the inflation they made up.

"How could pieces of the Universe that had never been in contact with each other have come to equilibrium at the very same temperature? This and other cosmological problems could be solved, however, if there had been a very short period immediately after the Big Bang where the Universe experienced an incredible burst of expansion called "inflation." For this inflation to have taken place, the Universe at the time of the Big Bang must have been filled with an unstable form of energy whose nature is not yet known"

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/

Ha. Hilarious.