Oort Cloud

[OriginalMe]

Following is a paper written on the Oort Cloud. I would like to know how you would refute this paper. What evidence is there for the Oort Cloud? The author was not able to find any conclusive evidence, and therefore decided to deny its existence. How would you attempt to prove it?

 

I have not plagiarized this paper. It is used with permission. The author wishes to remain annonymous at this time.

 

The Wart Cloud

 

Science is like a fashion model. Though she goes through phases and styles and wears certain brands for certain lengths of time, she remains the same being. Yet every so often, her appearance is marred by a blemish—say, a wart. Today, I will talk about on of the less known warts on Science’s face: the Oort Cloud.

 

This essay will answer three questions concerning the Oort Cloud: First, what is the Oort Cloud? Second, why do scientists insist that it exists? Third, is this supposed cloud really needed to explain the existence of comets in our solar system? By writing this essay, I hope to answer these three questions and give you a greater understanding of the facts surrounding the Oort Cloud.

 

The Oort Cloud hypothesis was birthed by Dutch astronomer Jan Oort in 1950. (1) He believed that a vast, spherical envelope of icy objects surround our solar system. Occasionally, a change in gravity caused by other astronomical events nudges a comet into the solar system. (2) Simply put, the Oort Cloud is said to be a vast reservoir of comets, bound weekly to the Sun’s gravitational field.

 

Why do scientists have need of this hypothesis? The solar system is said to be about 4.6 billion years old. (3) It is generally agreed that a comet will melt after orbiting the sun about 40 times. (4) If the universe is truly as old as most scientists say it is, then comets would no longer exist. Thus, scientists are forced to believe in the existence of the Oort Cloud—even though they have no evidence for it whatsoever except for the comets themselves! (5)

 

Is the Oort Cloud really needed? Genesis 1:14 says, “Then God said, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years.’” Creationists believe that the universe and everything in it were created in six days about 6,000-10,000 years ago. If the solar system really is that young, then there is no need for an Oort Cloud.

 

That sums up my essay on the Oort Cloud. First, I told you that it is a supposed vast reservoir of comets enveloping our solar system. Second, I laid out that scientists who believe that the universe is 4.6 billion years old are forced to believe in the cloud’s existence because there would not be any comets surviving this long. Third, I showed that creationists do not need an Oort Cloud since they believe the universe is young enough. I hope I have given you a greater understanding of one of science’s little “warts”.

 

Bibliography:

 

1. Oort Cloud. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud>

 

2. The Oort Cloud. 2. Spaceguard Foundation.

<http://spaceguard.esa.int/NScience/neo/neo-what/com-oort.htm>.

3. HubbleSite - FAQs: How old is the solar system?

<http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=3&cat=solarsystem>

 

4. DeYoung, Donald B. Astronomy and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1989

 

5. Idem

[Buffy]

Following is a paper written on the Oort Cloud. I would like to know how you would refute this paper.

I hate to argue with a German when I'm tired, but I'll try anyway.

What evidence is there for the Oort Cloud? The author was not able to find any conclusive evidence, and therefore decided to deny its existence. How would you attempt to prove it?

Even Hubble has problems resolving objects of comet size beyond the orbit of Jupiter, so there's not alot of optical evidence. According to the NinePlanets web site (http://www.nineplanets.org/kboc.html, lotso good facts to be found on that page) there are nine objects that have been resolved optically, but some would argue that nine comets hardly constitutes a "cloud." There's supposed to be a trillion-odd objects in the Oort Cloud, but the sphere shell represented by it is so big that it would hardly be cloud-like anyway. I believe that some people have confirmed that gravitational purturbances of the outermost planets can be explained by the existence of some combination of the Oort Cloud and the Kuiper Belt. There is a possibility that some of the cometary objects that are trapped by the Sun are interstellar, but most of these would have relative velocities so large that they would be unlikely to be slowed enough to actually go into orbit, thus a cloud of comets is the only reasonable source for them.

I have not plagiarized this paper. It is used with permission. The author wishes to remain annonymous at this time.

Understandably... :)

Science is like a fashion model. Though she goes through phases and styles and wears certain brands for certain lengths of time, she remains the same being. Yet every so often, her appearance is marred by a blemish—say, a wart. Today, I will talk about on of the less known warts on Science’s face: the Oort Cloud.

I actually like this analogy! "Without warts, science itself would be impossible..."

Why do scientists have need of this hypothesis?

Uh, they gotta come from somewhere!

It is generally agreed that a comet will melt after orbiting the sun about 40 times. (ref. DeYoung, Donald B. Astronomy and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1989) If the universe is truly as old as most scientists say it is, then comets would no longer exist Thus, scientists are forced to believe in the existence of the Oort Cloud—even though they have no evidence for it whatsoever except for the comets themselves!.

The cited reference is creationist blather. No comment should be required, but really, we've been to all these Jovian and Saturnian moons and they sure are frozen: we got pictures and thermometer readings. Why not objects twice as far away from the sun? Thus the author's conclusions are a priori false.

Is the Oort Cloud really needed? Genesis 1:14 says, “Then God said, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years.’” Creationists believe that the universe and everything in it were created in six days about 6,000-10,000 years ago. If the solar system really is that young, then there is no need for an Oort Cloud.

Wull, duh! Now you're going all creationy on me. If the universe is only 6000 years old, then every observation is probably altered in real time by our friend the Intelligent Designer and we can't trust anything we see/hear/feel/smell or otherwise perceive (so much for being an existentialist). BTW: If you tell a creationist that the creation (they don't like the word "universe") is more than 6,000-6,300 years old, you are liable to be called apostate, so watch it with that 10,000 year figure.

 

Now apropos to all of this, there actually are some interesting astrophysical issues (okay, "warts") to be argued here. The Oort Cloud is postulated to be spherical to explain the fact that most comets thrown in from the Oort cloud do not orbit in the main planetary plane of the solar system. However it does not explain why the angular momentum of the mass of the solar system did not flatten it into a disk like the Kuiper Belt did. Of course now there's evidence of a similar spherical cloud of matter around the galaxy, so this effect probably does have some explanation that I haven't stumbled upon in my travels. Explanations anyone?

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[maddog]

Following is a paper written on the Oort Cloud. I would like to know how you would refute this paper. What evidence is there for the Oort Cloud? The author was not able to find any conclusive evidence, and therefore decided to deny its existence. How would you attempt to prove it?

 

I have not plagiarized this paper. It is used with permission. The author wishes to remain annonymous at this time.

 

I will answer this, once I stop ROTFLMAO!!!

 

First thing of note is using a fallacious arguement to incorrectly disprove the hypothesis! :)

 

From predicate logic, let's call the hypothesis of an Oort Cloud (p) and the evidence of

"age of the solar system to be 4.6 billion years to be (q) and the goal is to refute

 

p => q

 

You do not suppose

 

~q => ~p (where ~p or ~q is the negation of either condition).

 

This is an invalid arguement. A Creation can no more support (prove) the Earth (the

planets are irrelevant to them) to be only 6000 years or so old (the old Bishop Usher

hypothesis) any more than to prove that I am an alien stand-up comedian from the

future who tells bad jokes! Since Creationist don't use evidence; they misuse it to have

something mean anything.

 

So to refute his arguement, it would have had to be an arguement to begin with. :)

 

However, the notion that Earth is 4.6 billion years has a lot evidence, all the radioactive

dating in the rocks all subscribe to this. The ratio of Helium/Hydrogen in our solar system

actually is an indication that the Sun is fairly new addition to the galaxy (some Creationists

ignore there is a galaxy as this was never meantioned in the bible). Current models have

the sun turned on about 6.52 billion years ago. Now as I have said elsewhere here, using

the theory borrowed from the Scopes trial that to God a day is a billion years would put

where we are at Saturday night. :) I like that as it mean he ain't restin' yet.

 

Now for the Oort cloud itself: not all comets who fall in do not nessecarily get close enough

to melt. Forty passes would likely create a condition (statisical average) whereby a comet

would probably break up. We saw a spectacular example of that with Shoemaker-Levy

comet hitting Jupiter or did this Creationist miss that event. It is thought that our

atmosphere is likely to have been fueled by comets as well as outgassing from the mantle.

 

I am also curious of the current thinking about the Kuiper belt. Does this creationist think

that such a belt of cold icy asteroids not exist either (not mentioned in the bible) ? Then

what about Sedna being found at about 78 AU from the Sun (in a highly eliptical orbit) ?

BTW, Pluto discovered in 1930 has an inclination of 7 degrees to the ecliptic. Most comets

have inclination averaging 20-35 degrees or so (+/-) This would give credence to a cloud

in origin. I got more evidence of an Oorts cloud than I have that your anonymous person

has no reasoning capacity. :) :P

 

5. Idem

 

What is this ? :)

 

Maddog

[pgrmdave]

I am curious, do we know how many comets, on average, are destroyed in a given time period, and do we know how soon the Oort cloud would've formed, and do we know whether or not the Oort cloud can be refilled, and do we know how much of the cloud would have broken out or orbit away from the sun? Does the Oort cloud have a lifespan?

[Tormod]

The oort cloud's lifespan is the same as that of the entire solar system.

 

Gee, this must be the least scientific "paper" anyone has ever published around here.

[Stargazer]

Following is a paper written on the Oort Cloud. I would like to know how you would refute this paper. What evidence is there for the Oort Cloud? The author was not able to find any conclusive evidence, and therefore decided to deny its existence.

The author does not seem to have looked for it.

 

Is the Oort Cloud really needed? Genesis 1:14 says, “Then God said, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years.’” Creationists believe that the universe and everything in it were created in six days about 6,000-10,000 years ago. If the solar system really is that young, then there is no need for an Oort Cloud.

Oh, good. First complain about the flaws on the face of the supermodel Science, and then propose something so antiscientific as religious mythology.

 

That sums up my essay on the Oort Cloud. First, I told you that it is a supposed vast reservoir of comets enveloping our solar system. Second, I laid out that scientists who believe that the universe is 4.6 billion years old are forced to believe in the cloud’s existence because there would not be any comets surviving this long.

Not at all. No scientist would say that the universe is 4.6 billion years old. Also, it's the orbits of some comets that suggest an Oort cloud - something you would know if you even cared to read your own sources.

 

Third, I showed that creationists do not need an Oort Cloud since they believe the universe is young enough.

Other things that creationists don't seem to have a need for includes basic understanding of contemporary science, the scientific method, or evidence for anything.

 

I hope I have given you a greater understanding of one of science’s little “warts”.

I would like to say that creationism and religion are among these warts, but then again they don't belong in science in the first place.

[paultrr]

One thing of note here before I even address the creationist garbage would be the fact that observationally we have some evidence now for the oort cloud itself. We've found one or more of those extra solar bodies(Some of this was in the news about a year ago).

 

Now as to the age of the earth, the creationist viewpoint given in this reply isn't even the age for the earth that creation science research itself accepts now. The old idea of a 6000 year old earth was based upon a lot of of BS, to put it simply. For one, and even the Bible college people admit this now, there are large gaps in the timeline as far as generations go in the Bible. There is also the fact, that even if you take the creation story literally, there is no mention of how long Adam & Eve where in the garden before the fall. For the old 6000 year timeline to work all of these problems would require correction. This was part of the reason even Creation Science Research abandoned that timeline. Granted they still subscribe to a yonger earth than any honest scientific research would suggest. I'm not certain where the author of that article got his training or background. However, the article isn't even worthy of note from any real research perspective.

[OriginalMe]

The author is only a highschool student looking for constructive criticism :)

 

I would like to thank you all for the kind help you have provided (especially you, buffy)! Please continue with your replies.

[Buffy]

Now as to the age of the earth, the creationist viewpoint given in this reply isn't even the age for the earth that creation science research itself accepts now. The old idea of a 6000 year old earth was based upon a lot of of BS, to put it simply. For one, and even the Bible college people admit this now, there are large gaps in the timeline as far as generations go in the Bible. There is also the fact, that even if you take the creation story literally, there is no mention of how long Adam & Eve where in the garden before the fall. For the old 6000 year timeline to work all of these problems would require correction. This was part of the reason even Creation Science Research abandoned that timeline.

 

There's definitely been a theological schism on the "creationist" answer to the age of creation. Realize that the main motivation for this at all is the Fundamentalist view that the Bible is the actual, true Word of God, and is not open to interpretation, and that's where the 6,000-odd year number comes from: a literal counting of the years that can be directly or indirectly determined by the ages/generations in the Bible. In the Jewish calendar, this is the year 5765, and various people starting with St. Bede and then Bishop Ussher came up with the magical date of Sept 12, 4004BC. There are various adjustments that have been made based on further "facts" (movement of the equinox, fixing of synchronizing dates mentioned in the Bible) and some have tried to come up with closer approximations based on finding possible error ranges (this site is a fun example: http://home1.gte.net/bridavis/timeline.htm).

 

On the other hand, those who have become obsessed with making a "science" out of this belief system have increasingly had to move away from the 6000-odd number in order to make it square with other dates (Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Chinese historical artifacts can build time lines that keep going further and further back past 4004BC), and the Intelligent Design folks don't want to speak a date at all, because they know any date less than hundreds of millions of years is easily disprovable using accepted scientific methods. BUT, all this gets further and further away from the Fundamentalist dogma that the Bible is the absolute and sole source of truth, and thus any talk about a date beyond 6000 to 6500 years is indeed heresy for most Fundamentalists, although for now they seem to keep these debates silent because they don't want to attack their own. You will see absolute statements though that the six days of creation "must" be accepted as being the same length as our current days, and references to Adam being 130 years old when Seth was born which doesn't allow for a flexible "pre-expulsion" timeline. Any other statements are revisionist interpretation: not allowed!

 

Whee this is fun to watch! When will their heads explode? When they do, I'm sure the debris will resemble the Oort Cloud. Does that have any scientific significance? :)

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Buffy]

The author is only a highschool student looking for constructive criticism :)

 

I would like to thank you all for the kind help you have provided (especially you, buffy)! Please continue with your replies.

You're welcome, OriginalMe!

 

Be careful though, you would not believe the havoc that can be wrought by "just a highschool student." Take some responsibility for not spreading lies, untruths and inter-human divisiveness and hatred. The Bad Karma can kill you....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Thelonious]

What is this ? :)

 

Idem is used in citations as "ditto."

[maddog]

Not at all. No scientist would say that the universe is 4.6 billion years old. Also, it's the orbits of some comets that suggest an Oort cloud - something you would know if you even cared to read your own sources.

This would require that the author would have to understand what was read. This would

require that author could think about that in some logical fashion. :)

 

Other things that creationists don't seem to have a need for includes basic understanding of contemporary science, the scientific method, or evidence for anything.

Idem. :)

 

Maddog

[maddog]

The author is only a highschool student looking for constructive criticism :)

 

I would like to thank you all for the kind help you have provided (especially you, buffy)! Please continue with your replies.

 

That would explain a lot. You didn't mention that at first. I was infering this was some

college level lack of logic logical thinking. It is a sad fact that critical thinking really taught

any more in American high schools (Person was from US, right). Then I can be more

sympathetic. Myself, I was raised in a backward hillbilly high school in Indiana.

 

I apologize if I have offended any Creationist. I just go bezerk when I hear/read how the

principles of logic and deductive reasoning is so bastardized to be meaningless. :|

 

Maddog

[maddog]

Idem is used in citations as "ditto."

 

Ditto of what ? I'm a bit rusty in my Latin. :)

 

Maddog

[Buffy]

Ditto of what ? I'm a bit rusty in my Latin. :)

It means that it comes from the same source as the immediately preceding footnote (in this case, another reference to that idiotic creationist screed (Amazon has it with the "inside-the-book" feature so you can read some of it if you want to go through the agony)). Here in the US you'd use "Ibid" for that purpose. I'm not really sure of the etymology of "Idem" though.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Stargazer]

This would require that the author would have to understand what was read. This would

require that author could think about that in some logical fashion. :)

That someone doesn't know everything in science, nothing wrong with that, however in some cases it seems they don't want to know, especially if it's something uncomfortable.