Many astronomers claim there is an Oort Cloud which supposedly injects new comets into our Solar System while the comets orbiting in the Solar System burn up, but there is no evidence of this Oort Cloud, so is this not just a necessitated imaginary construction which enables astronomers to say that the Solar System can be billions of years old, since "the Oort Cloud exists?"

We have to wait for better telescopes to come online to give the final prove or falsification of the Oort Cloud.

I could be wrong, but somehow your screen name suggests to me that you would like to prepare the stage for a Planet X / Nemesis discussion ?

"Final prove?" There is no evidence at all that the Oort cloud exists, just wishful thinking by astronomers who feel compelled to insist that the Solar System is billions of years old.

Fortunately, there is no wishful thinking in science. We don't just come up with ideas and say, wow I like that... i guess its right! There are theoretical calculations that suggest that there is a halo of icy debris way far out there. Given the history of comets, their orbits, the sun's gravitational field, etc., one can propose its existence.

No, its not difinitvely proven. But neither is gravity. Do you doubt gravity?

I can't see why this would prove that the solar system isn't billion of years old. The oort cloud explain a couple of things indirectly that the sol system is of certain age, but thats proven by so many other facts. It would however rise the quistion of where all those comets keep coming from but from...

Fortunately, there is no wishful thinking in science.

Yeah, right.

It is the orbits of comets that provide the evidence for the existence of the Oort cloud.

I do agree that "The Oort cloud" often is taken for granted or presented in literature as fact rather than a reasonable working theory based upon circumstantial evidence.

Anyway, I surely hope better telescopes will allow us to see what is really out there, for all I know there could be brown dwarfs or something.

But until the final look and see, I personally think the Oort cloud theory is one of the more attractive theories...

There is no Oort cloud; comets are from god and the angels having snowball fights.

..wich allows astromers to say that the solarsystem could be billiones of years old since the angels have been snowballing us from the very start.

All roads seem to lead to an old solarsystem ;-)

Yeah, right.

Oh really? And what would you be refering to?

Aids

So those planetoids they've been finding - Sedna, et al, - aren't where they say they are, or aren't part of a " cloud", or what?

Orbits get calculated pretty precisely, these days. Kind of odd that something would muck up the comet orbits in just the right way to make it look as though they came from the Oort Cloud distance,when they didn't.

Oh really? And what would you be refering to?

You can look it up on Wikipedia.

So those planetoids they've been finding - Sedna, et al, - aren't where they say they are, or aren't part of a " cloud", or what?

Orbits get calculated pretty precisely, these days. Kind of odd that something would muck up the comet orbits in just the right way to make it look as though they came from the Oort Cloud distance,when they didn't.

The least credible hypothesis to me is the idea that comets somehow just drop out of the "Oort Cloud." To have any chance at all of knocking a chunk of ice and rock down into the solar system, something has to have a gravity well that is a lot wider than that of another comet. After that, you still don't have a way to explain short term comets.

You are correct IceAge. There is no evidence for an 'Oort cloud'. Even if there were an 'Oort cloud', what would cause it to suddenly eject comets into the solar system? If the comets are pulled in by the Sun, wouldn't they just fall straight into the sun? Why would they go into orbit around the Sun instead of just falling straight into it?

Many astronomers claim there is an Oort Cloud which supposedly injects new comets into our Solar System while the comets orbiting in the Solar System burn up, but there is no evidence of this Oort Cloud, so is this not just a necessitated imaginary construction which enables astronomers to say that the Solar System can be billions of years old, since "the Oort Cloud exists?"

You are trolling yet again. Why invoke a conjectured and as yet unobserved Oort Cloud to prove the age of the solar system when there is plenty of direct evidence? Real scientists don't do that.

So those planetoids they've been finding - Sedna, et al, - aren't where they say they are, or aren't part of a " cloud", or what?

These planetoids are Kuiper Belt objects. We do not yet have the resolution power to see Oort Cloud objects.

Even if there were an 'Oort cloud', what would cause it to suddenly eject comets into the solar system? If the comets are pulled in by the Sun, wouldn't they just fall straight into the sun? Why would they go into orbit around the Sun instead of just falling straight into it?

Oort Cloud objects, if they exist, are already in orbit around Sun. Something such as another star perturbs these orbits, sending them into the inner solar system. The gas giants then perturb the orbits further. It would be very, very hard to make these objects hit the Sun.

...Something such as another star perturbs these orbits, sending them into the inner solar system. ...Thanks for the stimulation / additional support for my idea that there are many small black holes in the universe. I had not thought of this argument for their existence.

For more about my original reason for this POV see:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1364764&postcount=3
and the links there.

Many astronomers claim there is an Oort Cloud which supposedly injects new comets into our Solar System while the comets orbiting in the Solar System burn up, but there is no evidence of this Oort Cloud, so is this not just a necessitated imaginary construction which enables astronomers to say that the Solar System can be billions of years old, since "the Oort Cloud exists?"


Such is the out-of-sight, out-of-mind intellectual approach which purveyors of this fiction much project in order to avoid the clear implications of their hallucinations.

You can look it up on Wikipedia.

What? Look what up on Wikipedia? Wishful thinking? Ummm, ok....


"Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence or rationality.

Studies have consistently shown that holding all else equal, subjects will predict positive outcomes to be more likely than negative outcomes. See positive outcome bias.

Prominent examples of wishful thinking include:

* Economist Irving Fisher said that "stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau" a few weeks before Stock Market Crash of 1929, which was followed by the Great Depression.
* British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain informed the public that the 1938 Munich Agreement guaranteed "peace in our time".
* Operation Barbarossa, Hitler's plan for the invasion of the Soviet Union.
* President John F. Kennedy believed that, if overpowered by Cuban forces, the CIA-backed rebels could "escape destruction by melting into the countryside" in the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
"

Many astronomers claim there is an Oort Cloud which supposedly injects new comets into our Solar System while the comets orbiting in the Solar System burn up, but there is no evidence of this Oort Cloud,
Comets that enter the inner solar system are comparatively shortlived (on an geological timescale) as active bodies. On each approach to the sun they loose significant mass in the form of dust and volatiles generated by solar heating. Yet there are always new comets appearing to replace the old. They must come from somewhere.
Some comets come in on trajectories that then take them permanently out of the solar system. They must come from somewhere.
When we analyse the trajectories of many comets we find that their paths are consistent with their having originated distant from the sun, but within its field of gravitational influence; and not being restricted to the plane of the ecliptic - hence a cloud rather than a belt.
This is a sketch pad summary of the evidence which you claim does not exist.
For those who wish something a little more detailed here are some examples:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1987AJ.....94.1330D&data_type=PDF_H IGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982come.coll..637W
Or many of the 395 papers turned up by the Smithsonian/NASA ADS for a search on comet orbit and Oort cloud.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-basic_connect?qsearch=comet+orbit+%22oort+cloud%22&version=1

Face it ICA, your mind is not large enough to appreciate the Glory of the Universe. You have my pity.

I certainly don't need nor ask for your pity, but thanks a bunch anyway.

These planetoids are Kuiper Belt objects. We do not yet have the resolution power to see Oort Cloud objects. OK. I just keep running into press descriptions of them as inhabiting "the inner Oort Cloud" , and assumed there was some official source or nomenclature behind that.

How do they supposedly know an "inner Oort Cloud" from an "outer" one when they can't even demonstrate that there is any Oort Cloud?

How do they supposedly know an "inner Oort Cloud" from an "outer" one when they can't even demonstrate that there is any Oort Cloud?
I notice you have completely avoided dealing with the evidence for the Oort Cloud offered in my previous post. Again, you seem incapable of dealing with facts that contradict your thoughtless prejudices. This is a science forum, not a place for the brain dead. Participate in a logical, systematic manner, or piss off. Either approach is acceptable.

What "evidence?"

There is no real evidence of the "Oort Cloud," just alot of wishful thinking, so don't give me your brain dead crap, time to get busy Ophi, you've failed, but don't feel bad, nobody else has shown that it supposedly exists either.

I do not believe that their is any direct proof discovered yet for the oort cloud. However this can be explained by current detection capabilities and the tiny size and large distance to the sun of the objects. However the theory is based on the visual facts (like comets) therefore disproving the oort cloud would not change the fact that their are still comets so ...?

Since the comets obviously do not come from the imaginery Oort Cloud, the comets are only debris from the exploded planet between the orbits and Jupiter and Mars, the orbits of the comets indicate that was the position of the now exploded planet.

And the comets should have all burned up within about 10,000 years, so that is why mainstreamers are shittin' bricks about this, just look at Ophi.

There is no evidence, from orbital dynamics or direct observation, to indicate that comets orignate from the gap between Mars and Jupiter. There is abundant evidence that comets originate much further out. A studied (do you now the meaning of the word, IAC?) consideration of the data strongly indicates the presence of the Oort Cloud. No alternative explanation even comes close to matching observational data.
As in almost every other item you post IAC there is a singular lack of sense, logic, awarenesse, intellect, or discernment. Do all of us a favour and piss off.

"Strongly indicate," what bullshit, no evidence, no Oort Cloud, Oily, the orbits indicate their origin between the orbits of Jupiter and Mars, your head-in-the-sand attitude is typical of many uniformitarian simpletons, what a nutter.

Very well, produce the evidence that the orbits originate between Mars and Jupiter. We wait with a sense of wonder and anticipation. If you can't produce the evidence, then piss off.

"Dark Matter, Missing Planets, and New Comets," Tom Van Flandern, North Atlantic Books, Berkley.

And what does Tom Van Flandern say?

That there was a planet between the orbits of Jupiter and Mars, the orbits of the comets being the indication thereof.

In what way? How do the orbits indicate Jupiter/Mars gap origin?

The centers of their orbits cluster between Mars and Jupiter.

I can't see why this would prove that the solar system isn't billion of years old. The oort cloud explain a couple of things indirectly that the sol system is of certain age, but thats proven by so many other facts. It would however rise the quistion of where all those comets keep coming from but from...

You are biased as your name is similar to that of the oort cloud :L orcot = oort

"Dark Matter, Missing Planets, and New Comets," Tom Van Flandern, North Atlantic Books, Berkley.No. Summarise the evidence. Too save time, just let us have the math. Forego the flowery descriptions.

The centers of their orbits cluster between Mars and Jupiter.No they don't. Provide one scintilla of evidence to support this nonsense.

Ophi, it's your problem that you don't have the book, aren't you well learnt?

I am well educated - which is different from well learnt - whatever that is. Summarise the evidence or piss off. Just give us the math. Should be simple for you. You have the book.

Great book, you oughta pick it up, since you're allegedly well educated.

Stop prevaricating. Summarise the evidence. Oh, wait a moment. There is no math in it! Am I right? A book on orbital mechanics of comets, with no math. Rather like an autobiography about nobody. (When will yours be done by the way.)
Now provide the evidence, or piss off.

Piss off, go buy the book, you are so lazy.

And see if you can come up with something better as a "comet manufacturer" than your lame and tired Oort Cloud imagination.

"Final prove?" There is no evidence at all that the Oort cloud exists, just wishful thinking by astronomers who feel compelled to insist that the Solar System is billions of years old.

Well, given that geological and biological evidence points to an Earth that is somewhere between 4 and 5 billion years old, it's not a great cognitive leap to assume that the cloud of dust and debris along with the star at its center is at least that old and probably older is it?

:shrug:

Or perhaps the Devil created the Grand Canyon just to fool us sinners into spending an eternity in the fires of Hell.

The Grand Canyon is about 50 times too wide for the current Colorado River flow, does that give you a hint?

Yes, "current river flow". What do you think happend, that the river was the same for the past milions years? It has cut its way down the rock for aeons, changing size, flow you name it. Then a bit of erosion from rain fall and voila, it is wider than the current river. It does not take a scientist to understand that.

The Grand Canyon is about 50 times too wide for the current Colorado River flow, does that give you a hint?Making statements without providing evidence to support them is at best contentious, at worst just dumb.
You statement is meaningless. If the flow continues for an indefinite time natural erosive processs will lead to the canyon progresively widening.
Thus, the width is dependent upon two things: the flow rate and the time for which it operates.
You continue to display a consistent ignorance of any of the topics you pontificate upon. A charming failure, but what is your object? Do you actually think anyone, casual observer, or forum regular, finds any of your nonsense convincing?

He just needs to convince himself, I reckon.

Just checked the autor of the book he mentions. Check this resume (highlights of his carreer:

Sept. 1990 - Present: Founder and President, Meta Research, Inc., whose goal is to do astronomy research wherever promising avenues of advancement are blocked by funding authorities solely because the research results might conflict with an accepted paradigm.

June 2001: Appeared in televised video by Grizzly Adams Productions titled “Martian Civilizations – What’s Really on Mars”. This was aired as an episode of “Encounters with the Unexplained” on the PAX-TV network.

May 2001: Principal scientist at New Yorker Hotel press conference, “Artificial Structures on Mars”, in New York City. Conference was videotaped by Bill Cody under the title “Life on Mars? New Scientific Evidence”, which is sold nationally.



Says it all really.

Here is exactly what happened:

Mr. IceAgeCivilizations has a passing interest in the workings of outer space, with his interest piqued by the more incredible (and incredulous) claims. IceAge finds the idea of Mars as a dead world with ancient, monolithic structures as exciting--far more exciting that the truth. The same applies to the very sexy idea that our solar system is missing a planet.

And that is where he gets this idea. He read a book that probably does nothing more than say "Because the orbits of these comets is between Mars and Jupiter, they are fragments of the Lost Planet". But that was enough to hook him. Rather than Mr. Fancypants Authorman providing one ounce of mathematical evidence to support his claim, he simply makes these sensational claims, because he that is what will hook his readers! Do you think IceAge cares one bit for evidence? If he did, he surely would have provided something to back up the claim made by his demigod author.

Arguing him is kind of fun, but ultimately fruitless. He'll never offer up one scrap of legitimate evidence to support anything he says, and will always respond to anything you offer with something to the effect of "Nice try, but wrong."

So, go about it as you like, but I'm not going to bother. At some point, his total lack of understanding, and complete unwillingness to learn even when it means dashing the fantastic dreams he's had, will become annoying. I'd rather avoid that, thanks.

None of your diatribe demonstrates that any Oort Cloud exists, so you're still back at square one JDawg, "Fancypants?"

IAC is just being consistent. Denying facts that are accepted by the scientific community is standard practice for him. Don't make the mistake of taking him seriously. That's not what he's here for.

Much of the scientific community questions what you call "facts" James R, there is nothing close to the consensus which you disingenuously proclaim, so folks, don't take James R seriously, he's a company man, and he's here to try to indoctrinate you with Darwinian dogma, so when he speaks, consider his agenda.

Hey James R, do you have any proof that the supposed Oort Cloud exists?

You have been told repeatedly that in science proof never truly exists. [This should have been covered in your degree course in geology from a reputable univsersity.]
You have been provided with a summary of the evidence that supports the existence of the Oort cloud as the most likley explanation for observations.
You have failed to deliver a single piece of evidence to support you contention that the orbit of comets orginates between Jupiter and Mars. [I mean this is so silly, it just amazes me that you can be so gullible/cynical/deceitful/ dumb as to proffer this as an explanation.]

If your object is to piss people off with your congenital stupidity, congratulations - I am course to apoplectic with your gross ignorance and feeling moderately homicidal.

"In science proof never exists." Yeh, in your kind of science.

Many astronomers claim there is an Oort Cloud which supposedly injects new comets into our Solar System while the comets orbiting in the Solar System burn up, but there is no evidence of this Oort Cloud, so is this not just a necessitated imaginary construction which enables astronomers to say that the Solar System can be billions of years old, since "the Oort Cloud exists?"


You're kidding...there is no proof of the Oort Cloud...I'm stunned...

"In science proof never exists." Yeh, in your kind of science.
http://www.aare.edu.au/01pap/Image107.gif

Ice age could you show where your problem lay's?

It is true that at the moment we don't have the ability to measure the actual objects. But I believe that we've reached a point here where the most simple explenation is the most likely one. If you believe that this is verry unscientific that please take in acount that you do not propose a better theory that explains current events in our soloar system

Hey James R, do you have any proof that the supposed Oort Cloud exists?
oh yes on that even if you asked it to someone else enjoy (http://arxiv.org/find/grp_q-bio,grp_cs,grp_physics,grp_math,grp_nlin/1/all:+AND+cloud+oort/0/1/0/all/0/1)

As Tom Van Flandern notes in the book which I referenced, and as anyone can easily confirm, the comets' centers of their respective orbits are between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, so that is from where the comet debris came, apparently by explosion, the logical source of the comets, right?

So why would scientists want to event an Oort Cloud, and why do they insist it exists when there's no evidence that it does?

As Tom Van Flandern notes in the book which I referenced, and as anyone can easily confirm,

And this is your problem...did Mr. Van Falndern provide evidence for this (i.e. mathematical equations) or did he simply say that the centers of the orbits of these comets lay between these planets? See, it is very easy to say anything; I could say that this entire conversation is pointless, because I am the cause of the comets. But can I provide evidence? Unless you consider these rugged man-paws and this hunk of twisted steel that is my body as evidence...no, I can't. :D

A question...have you tried to "easily confirm" this author's claim? Or are you just taking him at his word?

"In science proof never exists." Yeh, in your kind of science.

What is it about science that upsets you? Is it the matter-of-fact nature of the scientist? Is it that every explanation they have seems mundane when compared to the "Missing Planet" and "Martian Civilization" stories?

I find it funny that people like you are so against the notion that the best explanation is the most simple, and that the government must be hiding something, because you are blind to another simple fact: People like your beloved Van Flandern spout these fantastic claims for the sole purpose of making money! It's that simple! They have studied the market, and know exactly what people are going to buy. And most people don't buy books that say Mars is dead, or that comets come from a thing as plain and simple as the Oort Cloud...they buy books that say the exact opposite. Conspiracy theories sell, my friend, because controversy sells.

What is more fun for the average person to talk about: Outer space as an empty vacuum, or outer space as a hoppin' frat house filled with drunk aliens that our government lies to us about?

The centers of the comets' orbits are between the orbits of Jupiter and Mars, deal with it.

IAC:

You're confusing comets with asteroids.

Again, no evidence. Just talk.

centers of their respective orbits are between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, so that is from where the comet debris came
The centre of an object orbit has nothing to do with its origin.

The Centre of the earths orbit is in or near the sun. The centre of the moons orbit is in the earth.

Objects with highly excentric orbits around the sun, such as comets will have centres away from the sun.


It is clear that you have absolutely no knowledge of orbital dynamics.

Well...technically, the Earth came from the sun, and the leading theory is that the Moon came from the Earth...so...

wouldn't it be possible that when a oort cloud object get's pertrubed and plunges to the sun, that this happens in slow motion and that there is a large change that it performs a planetary flyby that either ejects it out of the solar system or places it in a lower orbit however in only a small number of cases because the rest only got pertrubed ones so they go near the sun only ones in ... don't now maybe 10 000 years (the oort cloud is a far away point)

Well...technically, the Earth came from the sun, and the leading theory is that the Moon came from the Earth...so...Well, technically, you are wrong. The sun and the Earth came from the same collapsing giant gas/dust cloud. The moon came from materiall ejected from the collision of a Mars sized planetesimal and the proto-Earth.

Good call, Ophi.