The Oort Cloud Explained

[dad]

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

There is no scientific insight out of the fishbowl. It is scientific fantasy and fable.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
I'm sorry Dad, but that's not correct.

The prediction in question was based upon the scientific principle of Uniformitarianism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

The calculations factored in the same speed of light as we measure today, the same passage of time as we measure today and the same kind of nuclear and quantum interactions that we observe today.

The fact that the prediction matched the observed data to such exquisite accuracy tells us that all of these things happened in exactly the same way then (13.7 billion years ago) as they do now.

If the nature of any of these important factors had been even slightly different, the observed data wouldn't have agreed with the prediction to such an exact standard.

The excellence of the agreement clearly demonstrates that these scientific models do not fail.

They should therefore be accepted as a valid example of science's ability to accurately predict and describe events from the very distant past.

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Sorry Dad,

For some reason only the last paragraph of your reply came up on my screen and so I replied only to that.

I'll get back to you.

 

[dad]

I'm sorry Dad, but that's not correct.

The prediction in question was based upon the scientific principle of Uniformitarianism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

Thanks for admitting that! That is pure religion of the basest sort. So now you first need to prove the universe is homogeneous! Good luck with that. Your prediction sat on that. Hilarious.

The calculations factored in the same speed of light as we measure today, the same passage of time as we measure today and the same kind of nuclear and quantum interactions that we observe today.

We observe light HERE only. Period. If time does not exist or exist as we know it in deep space, then forget light moving so far in a year! Gong!

I notice also the way they often talk of a blackbody. Like you are in a dark room (or a fishbowl) and a little hole let's light in. You then dissect that light coming in and try to tell what light outside the box, room or fishbowl is like!

The fact that the prediction matched the observed data to such exquisite accuracy tells us that all of these things happened in exactly the same way then (13.7 billion years ago) as they do now.

You forgot to show the original prediction calling for a line like you showed us a pic of. Get to it.

If the nature of any of these important factors had been even slightly different, the observed data wouldn't have agreed with the prediction to such an exact standard.

We shall see.

The excellence of the agreement clearly demonstrates that these scientific models do not fail.

Except you forgot to post that prediction. Stop bragging and get down to the basics.[/quote]

 

[Astrophile]

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.

The distance of the star comes from the measured stellar parallax, not from the light-travel time. The parallax of HR 8799, which is the angle that one astronomical unit (the radius of the Earth's orbit) would subtend as seen from the star, is 0.02538" (seconds of arc). Since the distance of the star (in parsecs) is equal to the reciprocal of the parallax, the distance comes out as 39.4 parsecs. You can look HR 8799 up on the SIMBAD astronomical database, and on Wikipedia, which is where I obtained the information about the parallax, and a great deal else.

By the way, one parsec is 206265 (360×60×60/pi) astronomical units.

The radius of the star follows from the luminosity and the temperature, according to Stefan's law: L = 4pi×r²×T^4. The luminosity is obtained from the apparent brightness and the measured parallax.

 

[Astrophile]

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

What about predictions of when variable stars, such as Mira (omicron Ceti), chi Cygni or delta Cephei, will be at their brightest, or of when eclipsing binary stars, such as Algol (beta Persei), will be faint? What about predictions of the angular separations of the components of binary stars, which change as the stars orbit around each other? Do you regard these predictions as valid?

 

[dad]

The distance of the star comes from the measured stellar parallax, not from the light-travel time.

That means you accept time as existing there and existing the same. The base line for your measure is time and space on and near earth. The other lines from there to the stars extend THAT. So it is not distance unless time exists and exists the same. You do not know the distance or size.

The parallax of HR 8799, which is the angle that one astronomical unit (the radius of the Earth's orbit) would subtend as seen from the star, is 0.02538" (seconds of arc). Since the distance of the star (in parsecs) is equal to the reciprocal of the parallax,

False! That distance as explained is really assuming time.

the distance comes out as 39.4 parsecs. You can look HR 8799 up on the SIMBAD astronomical database, and on Wikipedia, which is where I obtained the information about the parallax, and a great deal else.

Rather than running numbers based on a bogus belief based imaginary line...you need to face the fact that time is used. The distance is no better than the belief that time exists there.

The radius of the star follows from the luminosity and the temperature, according to Stefan's law: L = 4pi×r²×T^4. The luminosity is obtained from the apparent brightness and the measured parallax.[/QUOTE]

Have a gander at this

"..Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time (also known as the black-body radiant exitance or emissive power),

, is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperatureT:"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan–Boltzmann_law

 

[dad]

What about predictions of when variable stars, such as Mira (omicron Ceti), chi Cygni or delta Cephei, will be at their brightest, or of when eclipsing binary stars, such as Algol (beta Persei), will be faint? What about predictions of the angular separations of the components of binary stars, which change as the stars orbit around each other? Do you regard these predictions as valid?

Well, tell us the BASIS of why they claim the times of brightness. Bring it.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Goodbye Dad.

When I read your statement that the prediction in question rested on my proving that the universe is homogeneous, I realized that you were asking physical science to 'prove' things. But such proofs exist in math, not in physics. Physical scientific theories cannot be proved. By definition they are incomplete arguments to the best explanation of the available data and not complete and absolute proofs. So, for as long as you insist on proof where none is possible, I can see that you will remain, 'undefeated'.

I really don't care if you hold to this position out of ignorance or as a deliberate ploy.

Our dialog is at an end and I leave you with my recommendation that you change your appellation to read...

"Dishonestly undefeated"

E.I.

 

[dad]

Goodbye Dad.

When I read your statement that the prediction in question rested on my proving that the universe is homogeneous, I realized that you were asking physical science to 'prove' things.

You couldn't do it. Yet you use that belief to build undodly nonsese on. Now you do so with no covering. Bye bye.

But such proofs exist in math, not in physics. Physical scientific theories cannot be proved. By definition they are incomplete arguments to the best explanation of the available data and not complete and absolute proofs.

By definition the godless grandiose claims of so called science depend on certain things. Those things are beliefs and you cannot evidence them.

"Dishonestly undefeated"

Not me. The truth and honest fact of the matter here is that you have no fact or knowledge and cannot take the heat when your beliefs that you thought of as science get held up for inspection.

Big loud start, but you got KOed in the first round.

I kid you not. Come on over to the very honestly undefeated side. The water is fine.

 

[Foxhole87]

User called "dad", would you believe that I am actually posting from a different solar system? Why or why not?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

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.

 

[Foxhole87]

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.

They are very small chunks. I hope you can discern between seeing something small far away and something smaller even further away.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

They are very small chunks. I hope you can discern between seeing something small far away and something smaller even further away.

Trillions upon trillions of small chunks vs one Pluto, and Pluto goes right up in the Kuiper Belt.

 

[Foxhole87]

Trillions upon trillions of small chunks vs one Pluto, and Pluto goes right up in the Kuiper Belt.

How many of those chunks are within 75% of the size of Pluto?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

How many of those chunks are within 75% of the size of Pluto?

Out of several trillion, there's bound to be a sizable amount. Or did they go through a sifter first?

 

[Foxhole87]

Out of several trillion, there's bound to be a sizable amount. Or did they go through a sifter first?

Why do you say that?

 

[dad]

User called "dad", would you believe that I am actually posting from a different solar system? Why or why not?

User called foxhole...ho hum.

 

[Foxhole87]

User called foxhole...ho hum.

Are you going to answer my question?

 

[dad]

Are you going to answer my question?

Try to ask intelligent questions.