The Oort Cloud Explained

[dcarrera]

No. Our "jupiter mass object" blocks the light from 1000's of stars.

By that argument, my thumb can block the entire sky... I expected you to understand that when I say "A Jupiter-mass planet blocks about 1% of the light from a Sun-like star", I am referring to a Jupiter-mass planet that is orbiting said star.

How big does an object have to be to blot out visible stars
if it were in OUR orbit in the Ort cloud?

Just use the formula I posted. Let's put the Oort cloud object at 10,000 AU (as an example) and make the star a Sun-like star at 10 pc. So we want:

R / 10,000 AU = 1 R_Sun / 10pc

That works out to 50% the radius of the Earth. If you put the object at 100,000 AU, then it has to be 5x Earth's radius. So, in principle a gas giant (i.e. Jupiter or Saturn) would be more than enough; provided that you were lucky enough to be looking at the right star when it crossed.

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.

Dude. Did you even read that article? Please, actually read it. It has nothing to do with what you are trying to claim. (1) It does not say anything about "plenty of dwarf planets", it is talking about *ONE* dwarf planet. (2) Dwarf planets are in the Kuiper belt; much closer than the Oort cloud. (3) The actual point of the article is the speculation that there might be an Earth-size icy body somewhere out there.

 

[dad]

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.

No. That would just make it clear to all what you are saying.

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".

At least post the relevant little bit from any big link.

What do you want? Are you asking me to write a book on GR inside a forum comment?

What are you saying that you are unable to think for yourself and divorce the whole package of beliefs from one another to discuss a point??

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,

Predicted in that it was a big creation, so why not have some glow!? You need to show the original prediction that a CMB would be found one day and show the reasons that was claimed and how it fits. In what way must the CMB be only something that fits into a godless universe from a little hot soup model?!
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,

God created the stars. Where is the surprise in having some leftover creation glow?? Creation predicts a big universe and lots of energy. You need a paper for that? Just print this post!

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. .

Actually there is a claim often made that the CMB was specifically predicted as part of the BB. You think you need to post the theory of GR to address the simple issue?

 

[dad]

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. YOU claim distances so you need to prove time exists where the far stars are! Otherwise you CANNOT use your time based distances. Deal with it.

Dude. The percentage of light blocked by a planet has almost nothing to do with the distance to the star.

Oh? So if a star was the size of a football stadium, and a comet that obscured it's view a little was the size of a fiat, that would not affect your claims of the Oort cloud? You need to know what you are talking about in size and distance.

 

[dad]

Not a redirection but a wonderful illustration of the absurdity you must embrace to reject uniformitarianism.

If you claimed to be Buzz Lightyear it might be a wonderful joke to ask you what solar system you were from. In a thread about a comet field, and how we know it actually exists or not, that is off topic nonsense.

You are not where I am and therefore you can't claim to know anything about the nature of the world around me.

When you figure out what planet you are from, get back to us and post something interesting.

 

[dad]

By that argument, my thumb can block the entire sky... I expected you to understand that when I say "A Jupiter-mass planet blocks about 1% of the light from a Sun-like star",

That assumes the star is a certain distance and size. No can do unless time exists there and that you do not know. Memorizing astro doctrine may get one a diploma, but it is no indication of knowing anything about the actual universe.

 

[Foxhole87]

If you claimed to be Buzz Lightyear it might be a wonderful joke to ask you what solar system you were from. In a thread about a comet field, and how we know it actually exists or not, that is off topic nonsense.

When you figure out what planet you are from, get back to us and post something interesting.

Your rejection of uniformitarianism is at the heart of the discussion. In fact, your rejection is simply ridiculous and my argument regarding where I'm posting from points this out.

You aren't answering my question, and I suspect it is out of your dishonesty.

I'll ask again: would you believe that I'm posting from another solar system; why or why not?

 

[dcarrera]

No. That would just make it clear to all what you are saying...

At least post the relevant little bit from any big link.

I did that, and you didn't accept it. I selected the plot that I thought was most relevant, I posted the plot in the forum, and I described what it shows in my own words. You just didn't like my words.

Predicted in that it was a big creation, so why not have some glow!?

So... you are admitting that there is no actual prediction at all then. You just retroactively say to yourself "why not?"; and you cannot actually produce an actual prediction of the actual distribution of blobs in the CMB.

In what way must the CMB be only something that fits into a godless universe from a little hot soup model?!

Most Christians accept science and they simply believe that god created the big bang. In their view, the big bang does not imply a godless universe.

Actually there is a claim often made that the CMB was specifically predicted as part of the BB. You think you need to post the theory of GR to address the simple issue?

If you want a complete answer, yes. Anything else will be a simplification and by necessity it will be missing something. If your intention is to verify whether my writing is complete and there is nothing missing, you have to expect a derivation of the Friedman equations, an derivation of thermodynamics, and some aspects of particle physics.

 

[dcarrera]

False. YOU claim distances so you need to prove time exists where the far stars are! Otherwise you CANNOT use your time based distances. Deal with it.

False. If someone claims that the Oort cloud would be "huge" compared to exoplanets, they have the burden of proof. Deal with it.

Oh? So if a star was the size of a football stadium, and a comet that obscured it's view a little was the size of a fiat, that would not affect your claims of the Oort cloud? You need to know what you are talking about in size and distance.

I said "distance". I said "The percentage of light blocked by a planet has almost nothing to do with the distance to the star." Read that again. Take as long as you need.

 

[dcarrera]

By that argument, my thumb can block the entire sky... I expected you to understand that when I say "A Jupiter-mass planet blocks about 1% of the light from a Sun-like star",

That assumes the star is a certain distance and size.

Do you need help understanding the term "Sun-like"? It means "like the Sun". If a star is not like the Sun, it is not "Sun-like". If a star is like the Sun it is "Sun-like".

 

[dad]

Your rejection of uniformitarianism is at the heart of the discussion.

Your inability to evidence uniformitarianism, yet bizarre insistance on building all models with it is at the heart of the discussion. So there. In fact, your insistance is simply ridiculous and your supposed little other solar syatem argument regarding where you are posting from points this out.

I'll ask again: would you believe that I'm posting from another solar system; why or why not?

Buzz? Is that you?

 

[dad]

I did that, ...

Well since I never noticed, you might consider you did not really do that at all.

So... you are admitting that there is no actual prediction at all then.

Science uses the word predict rather loosely. All things are predicted to be made by Jesus!

You just retroactively say to yourself "why not?"; and you cannot actually produce an actual prediction of the actual distribution of blobs in the CMB.

?? So anything fits?

Most Christians accept science and they simply believe that god created the big bang.

Not if they believe the bible.

In their view, the big bang does not imply a godless universe.

Even worse it implies a dead or lying God.

If you want a complete answer, yes. Anything else will be a simplification and by necessity it will be missing something.

That is foolish talk. One can make a concise point without spamming encyclopedias. For example...'we know there is time where the stars are, because we observe...A,B,C.

You just can't do it! Education doesn't pre program folks for my position. I take people way out of the forest of confusion and conflation, and on into the field of intellectual honest battle. There they must stand or fall alone.

If your intention is to verify whether my writing is complete and there is nothing missing,

Why such lofty diversion? It is pretty simple, you claim here to us a star is so far away, you better know why and be able to post it plainly. Heck I could do that for you! But why should I when you seem lost in space on the core issues?

you have to expect a derivation of the Friedman equations

Be honest, he did not define time or prove it existed in deep space.

, an derivation of thermodynamics,

That is a feature of this present nature on and near earth. Why even bring it up?? You want to claim you can show us it applies to far stars? Get to it!

and some aspects of particle physics.

Particles as we know them exist on and near earth a certain way. None of that can help you.

 

[dad]

False. If someone claims that the Oort cloud would be "huge" compared to exoplanets, they have the burden of proof. Deal with it.

I claim it is a steaming pile of nonsense. At least the way science describes it.

I said "distance". I said "The percentage of light blocked by a planet has almost nothing to do with the distance to the star." Read that again. Take as long as you need.

Oh so you never mentioned we know distances distances distances because of parallax, parallax, parallax?

 

[dad]

Do you need help understanding the term "Sun-like"? It means "like the Sun". If a star is not like the Sun, it is not "Sun-like". If a star is like the Sun it is "Sun-like".

I understand you conceive of stars like a big ol earth sun. No. Sorry. As I said you really do not know how big or far away stars are. Period.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

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?

That is brilliant!

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Do you need help understanding the term "Sun-like"? It means "like the Sun". If a star is not like the Sun, it is not "Sun-like". If a star is like the Sun it is "Sun-like".

I think this is still to complex for "dad" Actually, I think of him as Dada.

 

[Foxhole87]

Your inability to evidence uniformitarianism, yet bizarre insistance on building all models with it is at the heart of the discussion. So there. In fact, your insistance is simply ridiculous and your supposed little other solar syatem argument regarding where you are posting from points this out.

Buzz? Is that you?

Do you take the side of solipsism?

I'll ask again: would you believe that I'm posting from another solar system; why or why not?

 

[dad]

Do you take the side of solipsism?

I'll ask again: would you believe that I'm posting from another solar system; why or why not?

You tell us Buzz.

 

[dad]

I think this is still to complex for "dad" Actually, I think of him as Dada.

Pretty simple for those of us familiar with the cosmic ladder, and the various steps science uses to determine distance.

 

[Foxhole87]

You tell us Buzz.

I asked two questions, and your response doesn't address either of those questions.

Do you take the side of solipsism?

Would you believe that I'm posting from another solar system; why or why not?

 

[dad]

I asked two questions, and your response doesn't address either of those questions.

Do you take the side of solipsism?

Would you believe that I'm posting from another solar system; why or why not?

You thought guess which solar system I am from was a fun game?