Heard Around The Oort Cloud
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 16 Votes - 1.56 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-03-2013, 04:34 PM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2013 07:33 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Heard Around The Oort Cloud
(21-03-2013 07:40 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Oh, he's understanding all right.

But since his only purpose here is trolling, he gains no troll-points for being understanding. But by being deliberately obtuse and refusing to behave like he understands, he gets to keep trolling as long as he wants.

He's not here to discuss, or to learn, or to understand. He's only here to troll.
Pot and kettle, Mr. Bond. I'm on an Atheist forum, maintaining my patience and trying to discuss metaphysics and naturalism with thinkers--and taking a lot of garbage to do so. How much time do you spend on Christian forums? How many of you read the Bible rather than Google "contradiction sites"? Give me a break. Your accusation is because you refuse to engage the syllogisms and evidences I provide. How many times, including the title of this thread, e.g. have I asked about the imaginary Oort Cloud that exists in the imagination to maintain an older solar system for secular astronomers--and without ONE response, ONE?! I'm willing to believe in an older Earth and solar system, etc. but want to discuss it with open-minded thinkers.



How old is the Solar System? That is a question that cuts to the heart of it all. By studying several things, mostly meteorites, and using radioactive dating techniques, specifically looking at daughter isotopes, scientists have determined that the Solar System is 4.6 billion years old. Well, give or take a few million years. That age can be extended to most of the objects and material in the Solar System.

The United States Geological Survey(USGS) website has a lot of indepth material about how the age of the Solar System was determined. The basics of it are that all material radioactively decays into a stable isotope. Some elements decay within nanoseconds while others have projected half-lives of over 100 billion years. The USGS based their study on minerals that naturally occur in rocks and have half-lives of 700 million to 100 billion years. These dating techniques, known as radiometric dating, are firmly grounded in physics and are used to measure the last time that the rock being dated was either melted or disturbed sufficiently to re-homogenize its radioactive elements. This techniques returned an approximate age for meteorites of 4.6 billion years and Earth bound rocks around 4.3 billion years. The USGS admits that they were unable to find any rock that had not been altered by the Earths tectonic plates, so the age of the Earth could be refined in the future.

When the gasses of the early solar nebula began to cool, the first materials to condense into solid particles were rich in calcium and aluminum. Eventually solid particles of different elements clumped together to form the common building blocks of comets, asteroids, and planets. Astronomers have long thought that some of the Solar System’s oldest asteroids should be more enriched in calcium and aluminum, but, none had been identified until recently. The the Allende meteorite of 1969 was the first to show inclusions that were extremely rich in calcium and aluminum. It took 40 years for the spectra of the inclusions to be discovered and then extrapolates to very old asteroids still in orbit around the Sun. Astronomer Jessica Sunshine and colleagues made this discovery with the support of NASA and the National Science Foundation

Additionally, the Universe is thought to have been created about 13.7 billion years ago. Measuring two long-lived radioactive elements in meteorites, uranium-238 and thorium-232, has placed the age of the Milky Way at in the same time frame. From these measurements, it appears that large scale structures like galaxies formed relatively quickly after the Big Bang.

Here’s an article from Universe Today that gives more information about the radioactive dating process of studying meteorites, and another article about how the solar nebula probably lasted about 2 million years.

Here’s a great article from the USGS that explains how the dating process works, and a great series from UC San Diego.

Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/15575/how-o...z2ODTEarwC
http://www.universetoday.com/15575/how-o...ar-system/

The Oort cloud /ˈɔrt/[1] (named after Jan Oort), or Öpik–Oort cloud,[2] is a hypothesized spherical cloud of predominantly icy planetesimals that may lie roughly 50,000 AU, or nearly a light-year, from the Sun.[3] This places the cloud at nearly a quarter of the distance to Proxima Centauri, the nearest star to the Sun. The Kuiper belt and the scattered disc, the other two reservoirs of trans-Neptunian objects, are less than one thousandth of the Oort cloud's distance. The outer limit of the Oort cloud defines the cosmographical boundary of the Solar System and the region of the Sun's gravitational dominance.[4]

The Oort cloud is thought to comprise two separate regions: a spherical outer Oort cloud and a disc-shaped inner Oort cloud, or Hills cloud. Objects in the Oort cloud are largely composed of ices, such as water, ammonia, and methane.

Astronomers believe that the matter composing the Oort cloud formed closer to the Sun and was scattered far out into space by the gravitational effects of the giant planets early in the Solar System's evolution.[3] However, citing the Southwest Research Institute, NASA published a 2010 article that includes the following quotation:

We know that stars form in clusters. The Sun was born within a huge community of other stars that formed in the same gas cloud. In that birth cluster, the stars were close enough together to pull comets away from each other via gravity.[5]

It is therefore speculated that the Oort cloud is, at least partly, the product of an exchange of materials between the Sun and its sister stars as they formed and drifted apart.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud

(21-03-2013 02:46 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(21-03-2013 01:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There are even more that think they speak to Allah 6 times a day. It's called the ad populum fallacy. Try harder SexuallyPleasingJebusTrollJoke.
Like the same ad populum "most scientists believe X" fallacy all over this forum therefore Theory Y is fact? Is that what you mean? And you chose a bad example--saying millions believe Allah exists is firming my case that most people are God-believers and not delusional/in denial.

You're mistaking consensus with Ad Populum, you have heard of peer review?




Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
21-03-2013, 04:43 PM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2013 04:50 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Heard Around The Oort Cloud
(21-03-2013 07:40 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Oh, he's understanding all right.

But since his only purpose here is trolling, he gains no troll-points for being understanding. But by being deliberately obtuse and refusing to behave like he understands, he gets to keep trolling as long as he wants.

He's not here to discuss, or to learn, or to understand. He's only here to troll.
Pot and kettle, Mr. Bond. I'm on an Atheist forum, maintaining my patience and trying to discuss metaphysics and naturalism with thinkers--and taking a lot of garbage to do so. How much time do you spend on Christian forums? How many of you read the Bible rather than Google "contradiction sites"? Give me a break. Your accusation is because you refuse to engage the syllogisms and evidences I provide. How many times, including the title of this thread, e.g. have I asked about the imaginary Oort Cloud that exists in the imagination to maintain an older solar system for secular astronomers--and without ONE response, ONE?! I'm willing to believe in an older Earth and solar system, etc. but want to discuss it with open-minded thinkers.
If you've read my previous post you'd realize the existence of the oort cloud is moot. It could be that just a few meteorites are orbiting, not an entire cloud. Which would still support the older solar system/earth theory.

The reason why argueing from science is not ad populum is that science and truth are not a democracy. Independent researchers and debunkers, work together to try and scrutinize each others work. They will rip apart each others papers with out mercy, and those who survive the review become the ones that are closer to the truth. They call this peer review.






Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2013, 05:20 PM
RE: Heard Around The Oort Cloud
The Ten Questions

1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts.


2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.


3. Arguments from authority carry little weight - "authorities" have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most there are experts.


4. Spin more than one hypothesis - If there is something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of test by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among "multiple working hypotheses," has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.


5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours. It's only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don't others will.


6. Quantify. If whatever it is you're explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you will be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.


7. If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work (including the premise)- not just most of them.


8. Occam's razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.


9. Ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle - an electron, say - in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given that chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

10. The reliance on carefully designed and controlled experiments is key. We will not learn much from mere contemplation. It is tempting to rest content with the first candidate explanation we can think of. One is much better than none. But what happens if we can invent several? How can we decide among them? We don't. We let experiment do it.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2013, 07:19 AM
RE: Heard Around The Oort Cloud
Thank you, everyone, for your thoughtful and careful responses. Peer review for scientists involves more than critical review--and yes, scientists and tenured faculty often behave as though criticism is their gifting--it involves research dollars and tenure and for towing the mainstream line. As for the rest, I am aware of many of the pillars of science that support or suggest and older solar system. The issues I have with the Cloud and Belt are 1) The Kuiper "Belt" has had about 100 objects seen in it--is it conjectured there are tens of thousands but that is all conjecture without empirical evidence. 2) The existence of The Oort Cloud is not moot. But it is pure conjecture without empirical evidence--objects sighted, gravitational anomalies, etc. One or the other is an example of a conjectured MUST that HAS to be there to support an older solar system. Atheists accuse Christians of being delusional and conjecturing a real, living Jesus to support their views on the Bible without empirical evidence. Conversely, Christians rightly accuse secular astronomers of having a Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud without any empirical evidence (otherwise comets demonstrate a relatively young solar system). What are your thoughts on that?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2013, 09:02 AM
RE: Heard Around The Oort Cloud
Quote:Additionally, the Universe is thought to have been created about 13.7 billion years ago.

Nuh-uh! New data from Planck indicates 13.82. That dang science, always changing its mind - can't trust it for anything. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2013, 09:46 AM
RE: Heard Around The Oort Cloud
Quote:Nuh-uh! New data from Planck indicates 13.82. That dang science, always changing its mind - can't trust it for anything.
Wow, first right thing on this thread you've said for a week! No--wait on that. You still said something wrong. 1) We can trust science for MANY, MANY, MANY things. 2) It's a challenge to say with precision the age of the Earth or universe since that is constantly in flux. 3) Science often makes empirical observations to say "what" and only to guess at "why". 4) Certain sciences, like Evolutionary science or anatomy of the brain, currently have as many unanswered questions as answered ones, if not more. 5) Christians are not as a class anti-sciences. They are patrons of the sciences and arts in the same proportion as others. But they find the skeptical bend of some scientists to be rigid, impractical, intolerant and used as a goad against anything biblical or Christian. Thanks!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2013, 09:49 AM
RE: Heard Around The Oort Cloud
(22-03-2013 09:46 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Nuh-uh! New data from Planck indicates 13.82. That dang science, always changing its mind - can't trust it for anything.
Wow, first right thing on this thread you've said for a week! No--wait on that. You still said something wrong. 1) We can trust science for MANY, MANY, MANY things. 2) It's a challenge to say with precision the age of the Earth or universe since that is constantly in flux. 3) Science often makes empirical observations to say "what" and only to guess at "why". 4) Certain sciences, like Evolutionary science or anatomy of the brain, currently have as many unanswered questions as answered ones, if not more. 5) Christians are not as a class anti-sciences. They are patrons of the sciences and arts in the same proportion as others. But they find the skeptical bend of some scientists to be rigid, impractical, intolerant and used as a goad against anything biblical or Christian. Thanks!
Sarcasm, silly. It is the lack of dogma (well, ideally) that makes science useful. "Perfection" is a useless word based upon false assumptions.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
22-03-2013, 10:09 AM
RE: Heard Around The Oort Cloud
(22-03-2013 07:19 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Thank you, everyone, for your thoughtful and careful responses. Peer review for scientists involves more than critical review--and yes, scientists and tenured faculty often behave as though criticism is their gifting--it involves research dollars and tenure and for towing the mainstream line. As for the rest, I am aware of many of the pillars of science that support or suggest and older solar system. The issues I have with the Cloud and Belt are 1) The Kuiper "Belt" has had about 100 objects seen in it--is it conjectured there are tens of thousands but that is all conjecture without empirical evidence. 2) The existence of The Oort Cloud is not moot. But it is pure conjecture without empirical evidence--objects sighted, gravitational anomalies, etc. One or the other is an example of a conjectured MUST that HAS to be there to support an older solar system. Atheists accuse Christians of being delusional and conjecturing a real, living Jesus to support their views on the Bible without empirical evidence. Conversely, Christians rightly accuse secular astronomers of having a Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud without any empirical evidence (otherwise comets demonstrate a relatively young solar system). What are your thoughts on that?

Interesting. I wouldn't say Christians have rightly accused secular scientists anything, however. They have enough evidence to form the hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis is not some bullshit, random idea pulled out of the ass of a unicorn after a night of heavy drinking. Even if it were labeled a theory, Christians might still call out the secular scientists for not having proof. Much like evolution. It's only a theory, like gravity, right?

Keep your rosaries out of my ovaries, and your theology out of my biology.
"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people." --Dr. House
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2013, 11:06 AM
RE: Heard Around The Oort Cloud
Quote:Interesting. I wouldn't say Christians have rightly accused secular scientists anything, however. They have enough evidence to form the hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis is not some bullshit, random idea pulled out of the ass of a unicorn after a night of heavy drinking. Even if it were labeled a theory, Christians might still call out the secular scientists for not having proof. Much like evolution. It's only a theory, like gravity, right?
Another rambling post that is near indecipherable. However, I'll say this--you are overcomplicating things. At root, a hypothesis is an assumption that is observed in nature or reproduced under controlled conditions. We are yet to reproduce macro-Evolution in a lab or observe it anywhere other than in a redacted fossil record. You, however, can disprove your theory that you can fly by jumping off a building. Please don't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2013, 11:55 AM
RE: Heard Around The Oort Cloud
(22-03-2013 11:06 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Interesting. I wouldn't say Christians have rightly accused secular scientists anything, however. They have enough evidence to form the hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis is not some bullshit, random idea pulled out of the ass of a unicorn after a night of heavy drinking. Even if it were labeled a theory, Christians might still call out the secular scientists for not having proof. Much like evolution. It's only a theory, like gravity, right?
Another rambling post that is near indecipherable. However, I'll say this--you are overcomplicating things. At root, a hypothesis is an assumption that is observed in nature or reproduced under controlled conditions. We are yet to reproduce macro-Evolution in a lab or observe it anywhere other than in a redacted fossil record. You, however, can disprove your theory that you can fly by jumping off a building. Please don't.

"Redacted fossil record"? Bullshit.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: