[ Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ]
4336
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: existence of "Oort Cloud" one issue raised by "electric comet" video
|
the wikipedia "Oort cloud" website shows "An ARTIST'S RENDERING [emphasis added] of the Oort cloud ..." but not the actual "Oort cloud" itself the "Oort cloud" is described as "... a HYPOTHESIZED [empasis added] spherical cloud of predominantly icy planetesimals that MAY LIE [emphasis added] roughly 50,000 AU, or nearly a light-year, from the Sun." the "Oort cloud" is "... THOUGHT TO [emphasis added] comprise two separate regions ..." and though the wikipedia website flatly states that "... no confirmed direct observations of the Oort cloud have been made ..." it goes on to assert that "... astronomers argue that it is the source of all long-period and Halley-type comets entering the inner Solar System ..." so ... when the "weasel words" of "MAY LIE" and "THOUGHT TO" are added up ... it turns out that this HYPOTHESIZED "cloud" might not exist at all and not produce "ice planetesimals" or anything at all even if it did exist because ... as it turns out ... comets that have been closely approached were not ... counter to existing theory ... like "dirty snowballs" at all but had ... rather ... dry exterior surfaces |
4378
From: horst graben, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: "geologic features" on Tempel 1 finish "dirty snowball" theory
| and the entire "Oort Cloud" fantasy |
Responses:
None
4337
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: existence of "Oort Cloud" one issue raised by...
|
Hi HG, I'm sure after dealing with pseudoscience it seems a bit odd to deal with "weasel words". After all people with no clue claiming they have the answers and are absolutely sure they are right is quite different from a scientific approach of proposing a hypothesis and then looking for evidence to either confirm or refute that hypotheses. The Oort Cloud is a good example of a hypothesis and while the evidence supports that hypothesis it is in fact unproven as indicated by those "weasel words". > because ... as it turns out ... comets that have been closely approached were not ... counter to > existing theory ... like "dirty snowballs" at all > but had ... rather ... dry exterior surfaces Were you under the impression that current comet theories expected something other that dry exterior surfaces? If you wish to criticize such you should at least understand the position of the men and women of science who dedicate their lives to studying comets. Comets are dry on the surface because the volatiles sublimate far from the Sun. Any comet in the solar system and exposed to the Sun, even beyond Jupiter's orbit will have lost their surface ices/gases. However as comets approach the Sun the warmed surface heats frozen gases below and that is expelled. A good example is comet 9P/Tempel 1 and the Deep Impact mission. This is a short period comet that has made many approaches to the Sun. Outside it's very dry looking somewhat like an asteroid. The Deep Impact probe caused it to expel 11 million pounds of water and 22-55 million pounds of dust. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
[4339]
4339
From: jeffersonzuma, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: existence of "Oort Cloud" one issue raised by...
| hydroxl- proton combinations from these charged ionizations is thought to add to the "water". |
Responses:
None
[ Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ]