The Oort Cloud Explained

[dad]

1) How often an Oort cloud object would cross the path of a star.

That only has merit if a star is as big and far as you think.

2) The duration of the crossing.

This involves time. That means time as we experience it here on earth. To make that equal to time experienced where the star is there would have to be time there. Can you prove there is?

3) The amount of light blocked during the crossing.

I think that we can say some objects are in space and do have effects on star light and etc. You only have how many actual observed such objects in the area you claim the Oort cloud is? How many do you regularly see crossing the light of a star for example?

Let's take the last one for example. A Jupiter-mass planet blocks about 1% of the light from a Sun-like star.

False. The distance is not known to stars (that depends on time existing there and you can't prove it does) therefore you cannot say how big they are. They could be moon sized for all you know. At least from what I have seen of science and the basis for distances so far...

The most photometrically precise instrument we have today is the Kepler spacecraft which can detect Earth-size planets, which block about 0.01% of the light from a Sun-like star.

Nope. If the star was smaller than our moon, what crosses it would be very much smaller still! You DO NOT KNOW. All that planet nonsense is tommyrot.

 

[dad]

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.

Nothing you said seems hard to understand...as far as weird beliefs go.

 

[dad]

We know the distance to nearby stars and comets from basic geometry.

False. You just thought you did. If you are unable or unwilling to see that time is involved in the base line, you do not understand the nuances or crux of parallax.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Tbe Oort cloud, another scientific reality that is not accepted by creationists..

.. How will our space agencies cope with this crushing news?

 

[Foxhole87]

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

Why can't you grant me that?

Also, LOL at the creepy patriarchal condescension.

 

[SkyWriting]

Did you actually do a calculation to support this claim?

I find posts like this very depressing because you have just imagined something that makes some vague kind of intuitive sense to you and you asserted that it must be true without really making an effort to check it. To make this claim, you need to at least compute three things:

1) How often an Oort cloud object would cross the path of a star.
2) The duration of the crossing.
3) The amount of light blocked during the crossing.

Let's take the last one for example. A Jupiter-mass planet blocks about 1% of the light from a Sun-like star.

No. Our "jupiter mass object" blocks the light from 1000's of stars.
The stars being much farther away take up a much smaller segment of the sky.
If I'd done the math, I'd have presented it. One on my goals is to bring the
crazies out of hiding. How big does an object have to be to blot out visible stars
if it were in OUR orbit in the Ort cloud?

But lets answer another question, are such objects directly visible? Yup
Plenty of dwarf planets hide out beyond Pluto, perhaps steered by something much bigger.
So all the poo poo math goes in the toilet anyway.

 

[dad]

Tbe Oort cloud, another scientific reality that is not accepted by creationists..

.. How will our space agencies cope with this crushing news?

Who cares? If they were some harbinger of truths beyond the cereal box, it might even matter.

 

[dad]

Why can't you grant me that?

Also, LOL at the creepy patriarchal condescension.

No man has been out of the solar system, so how would you expect to be granted that? Just because you may believe in an Oort cloud doesn't mean you get to be Buzz Lightyear.

 

[Foxhole87]

No man has been out of the solar system, so how would you expect to be granted that? Just because you may believe in an Oort cloud doesn't mean you get to be Buzz Lightyear.

How do you know that?

 

[pat34lee]

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..'

That isn't my theory. Why do you think they created the Oort cloud
in the first place? Look up comets and Oort (the man) for yourself, if you can.

 

[dad]

How do you know that?

Lucky guess.

 

[dad]

That isn't my theory. Why do you think they created the Oort cloud
in the first place? Look up comets and Oort (the man) for yourself, if you can.

Probably they created it from because they needed it to be there for the universe to be the ungodly mess of a fluke festival with no creation and nothing else ever at work except the present nature on earth. Why else?

 

[Foxhole87]

Lucky guess.

It isn't lucky, and it answers my question: you are straight up clueless and are posting from between your thighs.

 

[Foxhole87]

Probably they created it from because they needed it to be there for the universe to be the ungodly mess of a fluke festival with no creation and nothing else ever at work except the present nature on earth. Why else?

Did they create the germ theory of disease in order to make the world one where there actually aren't evil spirits making people ill?

 

[dad]

Did they create the germ theory of disease in order to make the world one where there actually aren't evil spirits making people ill?

There are. The medical profession does it's share of that too.

 

[dad]

It isn't lucky, and it answers my question: you are straight up clueless and are posting from between your thighs.

Not redirecting a thread to talk about you and what space quadrant you are from may not sit well with you. We get it.

 

[dcarrera]

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

Honestly, I don't think you want to engage in a legitimate discussion. If I give a concise layman's explanation you will complain that it is missing something. If I give you a reference to the actual research paper and a book on GR, you will say that it doesn't fit your personal standard of "in your own words". What do you want? Are you asking me to write a book on GR inside a forum comment? Would you even bother to read it if I did? I have done way more than my fair share because you are the one who made the claim that the CMB is also predicted by the creation model, but you have put in absolutely zero effort into trying to support your assertion. You want to make grandiose claims in a web forum, but you have shown that you have no intention to back up your claims with any substance. At some point you have you either admit that you were making things up when you said that the CMB is also predicted by creation, or you have to actually post a link to the actual research article that uses creation to make a prediction of the structure of the CMB that has at least similar depth and accuracy as the research article that I already posted. It is absurd that you even think that because you make an unwarranted claim, that somehow means that I have to derive GR inside a forum post. You made the claim that the CMB is predicted by creation; you prove it.

 

[dcarrera]

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.

I am quickly giving up on "dad". Some people simply do not want to have a legitimate discussion, and will refuse to even read the other person's comments. I just don't know how to deal with people like this. Should I just ignore them?

 

[dcarrera]

That only has merit if a star is as big and far as you think... This involves time. That means time as we experience it here on earth. To make that equal to time experienced where the star is there would have to be time there. Can you prove there is? ...

Do you even realize that this is a reversal of the burden of proof? The OP made a specific claim that the effect of the Oort cloud would be "huge", but he did not make any effort to prove it.

False. The distance is not known to stars (that depends on time existing there and you can't prove it does) therefore you cannot say how big they are.

Dude. The percentage of light blocked by a planet has almost nothing to do with the distance to the star. You are reflexively rejecting every fact you don't like without even trying to think about whether your imaginings about funky time and distance is even relevant.

 

[Foxhole87]

Not redirecting a thread to talk about you and what space quadrant you are from may not sit well with you. We get it.

Not a redirection but a wonderful illustration of the absurdity you must embrace to reject uniformitarianism. You are not where I am and therefore you can't claim to know anything about the nature of the world around me.