The Oort Cloud Explained

[Foxhole87]

Try to ask intelligent questions.

Considering the participants, that's clearly a matter of perspective.

So, would you believe that I am actually posting from a different solar system? Why or why not?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Why do you say that?

Because why shouldn't there be. The odds of trillions of chunks of matter only being as large as comets are a lot lower then otherwise.

 

[Foxhole87]

Because why shouldn't there be. The odds of trillions of chunks of matter only being as large as comets are a lot lower then otherwise.

The size of the objects certainly could be "filtered" to the point where an object around the size of Pluto would be massive enough to be distinct objects not normally visible.

Also, regarding the bold: how do you figure?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

The size of the objects certainly could be "filtered" to the point where an object around the size of Pluto would be massive enough to be distinct objects not normally visible.

Also, regarding the bold: how do you figure?

I care about as much about the existence/nonexistence of the Oort Cloud as much as I do a floating rock orbiting Antares.
I'm just making a point that it's convenient to just make up something to fit a scientific explanation. Sort of like dark matter/energy. Maybe scientists just have something fundamentally wrong, and don't want to admit it after having forced their theories down everyone's throats.

 

[Foxhole87]

I care about as much about the existence/nonexistence of the Oort Cloud as much as I do a floating rock orbiting Antares.
I'm just making a point that it's convenient to just make up something to fit a scientific explanation. Sort of like dark matter/energy. Maybe scientists just have something fundamentally wrong, and don't want to admit it after having forced their theories down everyone's throats.

I don't think you understand the function or intent of the scientific method in the slightest. The fact of the matter is that there are long-term comets, and the existence of the Oort cloud provides an explanation which doesn't violate any other observations. When there exists a problem with the model, it will be amended or abandoned. Objections like yours (and others) are what happens when an uninformed layperson decides they have a problem with a technical subject.

 

[dad]

Considering the participants, that's clearly a matter of perspective.

So, would you believe that I am actually posting from a different solar system? Why or why not?

How is life in the Oort cloud?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

I don't think you understand the function or intent of the scientific method in the slightest. The fact of the matter is that there are long-term comets, and the existence of the Oort cloud provides an explanation which doesn't violate any other observations. When there exists a problem with the model, it will be amended or abandoned. Objections like yours (and others) are what happens when an uninformed layperson decides they have a problem with a technical subject.

So I don't understand the scientific method because i challenge something that has not been proven to exist? Tell me more about how you resist God.

Also, being an 'atheist' does not make you an 'informed scientist'. I've seen a whole lot of 'layperson' being flung around here. If you don't have a PhD, you are a layperson in my book.

 

[Foxhole87]

So I don't understand the scientific method because i challenge something that has not been proven to exist? Tell me more about how you resist God.

Also, being an 'atheist' does not make you an 'informed scientist'. I've seen a whole lot of 'layperson' being flung around here. If you don't have a PhD, you are a layperson in my book.

The existence of the Oort cloud is the consensus of the relevant experts; they are that it is the best current explanation for observed phenomena.

I side with what the overwhelming majority of relevant experts say on anything I don't have experience with. You, however, reject their consensus outright and impose conspiracy theories of organized intentional ignorance. My being an atheist is coincidental to all of that, but it is clearly a virtue you don't bother cashing in on.

 

[Foxhole87]

How is life in the Oort cloud?

You haven't answered my question. Do I need to ask it again?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

The existence of the Oort cloud is the consensus of the relevant experts; they are that it is the best current explanation for observed phenomena.

I side with what the overwhelming majority of relevant experts say on anything I don't have experience with. You, however, reject their consensus outright and impose conspiracy theories of organized intentional ignorance. My being an atheist is coincidental to all of that, but it is clearly a virtue you don't bother cashing in on.

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.

It's funny how 'freethinkers' all think exactly alike. 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.

 

[dad]

You haven't answered my question. Do I need to ask it again?

Now that the Oort cloud was explained, you regress into mind games. Get it together man.

 

[dad]

The existence of the Oort cloud is the consensus of the relevant experts; they are that it is the best current explanation for observed phenomena..

So..blind faith in man.. not much of a defense.

 

[Astrophile]

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

Mira (omicron Ceti), chi Cygni and delta Cephei vary in brightness because they are pulsating; the star expands and contracts on a more or less regular cycle. The predicted times of maximum are based on the periods of the light variation derived from observations of the stars. Also, theoretically, the period is proportional to the inverse square root of the density of the star; the larger and less dense the star, the longer its photometric period.

Eclipsing binary stars like Algol (beta Persei) vary because the stars occult each other as they orbit round each other; it is the same as the occultations and transits of Jupiter's satellites. The predictions of the times of minima are based on the period derived from observed minima, and also from spectroscopic measurements of the orbital period.

 

[Astrophile]

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

There are also Eris (2300 km in diameter), Makemake (about 1500 km), Haumea (about 1900 by 1000 km), 2007 OR10 (about 1300 km), Quaoar (1110 km), and Orcus (about 920 km).

Sedna, with a diameter of about 1000 km, may be a member of the inner Oort cloud, and it is probably not even the largest object of its kind.

You might as well describe the asteroid belt as 'Millions upon millions of small chunks vs. one Ceres.'

 

[Oafman]

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

 

[Astrophile]

Also, being an 'atheist' does not make you an 'informed scientist'. I've seen a whole lot of 'layperson' being flung around here.

Why do we keep dragging religion and atheism into this? Johann Kepler, Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell and Lord Kelvin were all Christians, but I don't reject their science because of that. Why do you reject a person's science on the grounds that they are an atheist? For my own part, I was a Christian, and a regular church-goer, when I got my B.Sc. degree (1973), and for several years afterwards.

Also I became familiar with the hypothesis of the Oort cloud during the 1960s (again, when I was a Christian), although for some time I preferred Lyttleton's hypothesis that comets accreted in the wake of the Sun as it travelled through the interstellar medium.

If you don't have a PhD, you are a layperson in my book.

Fair enough. I haven't got a Ph.D., but I have been studying astronomy for nearly 60 years. I think that that makes me qualified to express some opinions on the subject.

 

[Astrophile]

So I don't understand the scientific method because i challenge something that has not been proven to exist?

So how do you explain the observations of long-period comets? Some of them have orbital semi-major axes of 20,000 AU, and that implies orbital periods of about 3 million years. How can you have these long-period comets entering the inner solar system every few years without there being at least millions of them at distances of about 20,000 AU?

 

[Foxhole87]

How is life in the Oort cloud?

So, would you believe that I am actually posting from a different solar system? Why or why not?

 

[Foxhole87]

So..blind faith in man.. not much of a defense.

Not blind faith, seeing as how man is the one that brought us vaccinations, computers, cars, plumbing, electricity grids, etc.

 

[Foxhole87]

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.

It's funny how 'freethinkers' all think exactly alike. 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.

Until someone has a better model that explains long-term comets, the Oort cloud remains the best explanation, and thus the overwhelming majority agrees that it is the best current explanation for the long-term comets.

Dark matter and dark energy are models that explain observed phenomena. The scientists are ready to amend their positions based on new evidence; the "glory" of science comes from presenting new evidence to overturn previous models.

Einstein made observations, which were verified and accepted by others because the data matched his model.

Scientists don't just sit around scheming up complex theories and forming cabals to run out anyone who disagrees. They perform observations, draft, revise, abandon (if need be), and constantly hope to find something that is unusual or different.