Talk:Oort cloud/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Diagram.

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0308/08comets/oortcloud.jpg

Milky way/solar system.

"In 1932 Ernst Öpik, an Estonian astronomer, proposed that comets originate in an orbiting cloud situated at the outermost edge of the Milky Way."

Shouldn't that be "solar system?"

Fixed.

Sedna.

I brought this over from the Kuiper belt table, since it's actually a member of the Oort cloud:

Sedna (2003 VB16)

<1800, >1250

~67

2004

Mike Brown, Chad Trujillo, David Rabinowitz

thermal

A member, I should note, of the exciting new just-discovered inner Oort cloud. :) More details here: [1] but I don't have time to work them into the article right now. I'll do it in about six hours if nobody beats me to it. Bryan 01:33, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

EDIT Great job Brian-- I updated the table to reflect the discovery date of 2003, not 2004 (since it was only announced in 2004). I forgot to put a summary though for my edit, which is why I'm commenting here.

--Celerityfm 20:10, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oort cloud formation

"The most widely-accepted theory of its formation is that the Oort cloud's objects initially formed much closer to the Sun as part of the same process that formed the planets and asteroids, but that gravitational interaction with young gas giants such as Jupiter ejected them into extremely long parabolic orbits. This process also served to scatter the objects out of the ecliptic plane, explaining the cloud's spherical distribution. While on the distant outer regions of these orbits, gravitational interaction with nearby stars further modified their orbits to make them more circular."

I think something is being confused here. Is this perhaps talking about the inner oort cloud? Do you have a link? Anthony DiPierro 14:33, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"This has been proposed as possible evidence that the Sun initially formed as part of a dense cluster of stars; with closer neighbors during Oort cloud formation, objects ejected by gas giants would have their orbits circularized closer to the Sun than was predicted for situations with more distant neighbors."

I'm going to add this part back, but a cite would still be nice. Anthony DiPierro 14:33, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I first read it at http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/sedna/ under the section "What is the Oort cloud and what is its relationship to Sedna?": "Early in the history of the solar system many many small icy bodies were orbiting the sun and getting sling-shot out by close encounters with planets. As they were travelling further and further from the sun, the orbits of these bodies were affected by distant stars, causing them to slow down and stay attached to the sun. Sedna probably suffered a similar fate, except the stars which affected it must have been much much closer than previously expected. We believe that this is evidence that the sun formed in a tight-knit group along with many other stars." Bryan 15:39, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK. This looks good as at least "a theory". I'll restore it as was and look into some other links. Thanks. Anthony DiPierro 15:55, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think that something is mildly wrong here. There is talk about the "inner Oort Cloud" being something that is "newly-discovered", and therefore we need new theories to explain it (as is cited in the article). However, I am positive that the inner Oort Cloud was theorized at least as early as 1996, if not earlier. It was clearly marked on this common graphic from 1996 or earlier (the copy on that server was last modified in 1996, and I haven't found any older copies). I also have read some papers that theorized that the Kuiper Belt was connected directly to the Oort Cloud, a theory that is very closely related the inner Oort Cloud. Ctachme 03:46, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Elliptical orbits?

gravitational interaction with young gas giants such as Jupiter ejected them into extremely long elliptical or parabolic orbits... While on the distant outer regions of these orbits, gravitational interaction with nearby stars further modified their orbits to make them more circular.

The recent addition of "elliptical" orbits make me wonder. I think the term "nearly parabolic" might be better in this context, since no real orbit is exactly parabolic. But calling an orbit way far out an "ellipse" seems wrong since if it is that far out it is affected enough by nearby stars that it is really an n-body orbit that isn't even conic. Similarly, when objects are ejected in strongly hyperbolic orbits I'm guessing that the nearby stars can't stop it and it cruses on like voyager I and II. Of course, checking references would be the best approach, but I suspect that the word eliptical is inappropriate here. I suspect that applies to the inner oort cloud described later on also, but the case for "elliptical" may be a bit stronger there NealMcB 00:42, 2004 May 16 (UTC)

As the one who added elliptical, I think "nearly parabolic" is indeed probably better. That includes both highly elongated elliptical orbits (at least in terms of simplistic orbital element analysis, discounting the n-body caveat you mention) and not-very-extreme hyperbolic ones, both of which I imagine would be common for this process. Bryan 00:56, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Inner cloud disc.

What does this mean? "The Oort cloud would have its inner disk at the ecliptic from the Kuiper belt." That sentence doesn't parse for me. How can a sphere have an "inner disk"? Also, does the Kuiper belt lie exactly in the ecliptic? Molinari 21:49, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See this Southwest Research Institute image. — Jeandré, 2004-10-30t20:12z

image great; sentence poor. I actually came to the talk page for three reasons - one, they're often more entertaiing than the articles, two, the "factual accuracy" tag (which seems pretty justified, more in later comment), and three, that sentence. It's only clear if you know what it means already. I suggest fixing the sentence, if not simply killing it and describing the "shape" of the cloud better. And perhaps finding a PD version of that image to clarify? human 03:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comets.

Oort Clouds are mainly 'clouds' that 'spit out' comets into space, as comets are actually (dirty) snowballs, and the Oort cloud is an area that has a very low temperature. I am amazed by this 'formation'! -- An 11 year-old named Tan Shao Yun of Singapore.

Oort Clouds have funny names, like 90377 Sedna and something else. I wish to bring up a special question: If the Oort Cloud sends a comet crashing onto Halley's comet, would that affect research? And also: If the Oort Cloud sends out too many comets, won't the Solar system be chaotic? -- Asked by Tan Shao Jie, Brother of Tan Shao Yun.

First off, the Oort Cloud has no volition, so the anthropomorphisation above is a bit much. Random gravitational disturbances, typically due to passing nearby stars (and hence occurring millions of years apart), are what trigger the occasional comet to zip by the inner solar system. As for two comets hitting each other, the odds of that ever happening are very, very small, because comets are so small and space so big. Astronomers would love to observe such an event, however!

Urhixidur 11:49, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

Discussion about the facts, not about the factual accuracy

I haven't found the correct warning template yet, but the presence of the following annoyingly long discussion about the existence of the Oort cloud, is pretty deviant from what this talk page should contain. It also disturbes the maintenance of the Oort cloud article. For now I'm just going to restructure it: if you wanna shout, go shout at my talk page! Twirling his moustaches, does: Rursus 21:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Young earth?

I read in this astronomy textbook for young earth creationist home-schoolers about how scientists have invented the Oort cloud to explain away the existence of these comets, which should have been vaporized long ago (if the universe/solar system is actually more than several thousand years old!), and I at first thought it was just some fundamentalist BS. But here I find Oort cloud on Wikipedia, and it turns out they were right! Well, at least in that there's no evidence for an Oort cloud, and that these comets shouldn't still be flying around after billions of years. Just thought it was kind of funny. Tix 20:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I have one such (junior high level?) science textbook I found at a swap shop, I bring it out at Halloween to scare friends who never knew such horrors existed. Seriously. Reading the book's passages over the phone has actually prompted at least two people to claim I was making them up. human 03:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, from what I can tell, the evidence for the Oort cloud is the following: We still have comets, even though they only last a few thousand years in the inner solar-system, and if the orbits of the comets are traced backwards, a lot of them seem to come from the same region. Or so I am told.--ASL 21:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps befor putting forward statments arguing with the artical you should read the sorces and sitations in full. The artical is not a point of fact to argue over. The theory itself is. Wikipida is full of articals giving a bit of infomation on a theory without the evidence (which is VERY dry and boring). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.232.65.170 (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Oort Cloud skepticism?

Barwick 15:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Tix: you're absolutely right. It IS funny. The oort cloud is absolutely hilarious.

The sad thing is, it is based on presupposition after presupposition after presupposition.

• One scientist comes up with a theory that says everything evolved over a long time.
• Another scientist says "wow, the time it takes something's genes to change might take a really really long time, so this evolution thing must have happened over millions of years".
• Another scientist comes along and says "no, it probably took BILLIONS of years..."
• Then we look at fossils in layered strata and say "wow, these fossils were buried slowly in sediment over millions of years, look at that three feet of sediment, that took about umpteen million years to develop, and that 1/512th inch of that sediment must have taken tens of thousands of years to slowly precipitate into something like that..." and so they begin to date fossils based on their presuppositions that those rocks are millions of years old.
• THEN, someone comes along and finds a [Coelacanth] alive and well living in present day. So what you say? Well, the Coelacanth is what is know as an "Index Fossil" because according to scientists, these suckers went extinct over 70,000,000 years ago. Therefore, every time they find a Coelacanth sitting in a rock somewhere, they KNEW that that rock was 70,000,000 years old.
• THEN, someone notices that "hey, these comets should have been torn to pieces or thrown from our solar system if they existed for billions of years, so there must be some mysterious cloud that formed 'a long time ago in a distance far far away' that throws comets our way every once in a while"

It would be perfectly reasonable for a sane human being to believe one of two things at this point: 1) The universe IS billions of years old, and comets came from another source, perhaps earth or another planet in our solar system with a large quantity of water. 2) The universe is NOT billions of years old, and comets are either collections of water that was in the solar system, or comets came from another source, perhaps earth or another planet in our solar system with a large quantity of water.

There is ample science that presents Earth as the source of comets, and the age of the solar system as "not billions of years old", but nobody wants to hear about that because it blows a giant hole in evolution and what they conjecture about the formation of the universe.

I believe that skeptic points about the Oort Cloud NEED to be presented in this article. I'm not sure what form they'd take yet, but they need to be there.

Earth is the source of comets? Is it even worth my time discussing this? And the solar system not being billions of years old? Don't they teach science where you live? Maver1ck 16:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Barwick 20:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC) What? A round earth?!? Do I even have to explain to you why the earth is flat? Why would I waste my time... *rolls eyes*

The more appropriate question is, do they teach YOU science where YOU live? Or do they just indoctrinate you with "we have no evidence, but.." {wait, scratch that part...} "the earth is billions of years old, and this happened, trust us".

No, my science teachers knew that there is evidence for a solar system about 4.5 billion years old. Why would they lie by saying that there's no evidence? That makes no sense, as we all know already. Scientists in the various related fields of science knows this too. Why would they too lie and say there's no evidence? Maver1ck 21:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

If you cared to not be ignorant on the topic and actually study it, you'd realize that there's theories out there that explain comets, the formations we see on the earth, cosmic microwave background, concentrated, rotating bodies, the major lack of antiparticles in our universe, etc...

“There shouldn’t be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn’t be grouped together the way they are.” James Trefil, The Dark Side of the Universe (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1988), p. 3.

Who is he, and why is he saying that nature shouldn't be the way it is? Obviously the galaxies are the way they are. Maver1ck 21:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

“Galaxy rotation and how it got started is one of the great mysteries of astrophysics. In a Big Bang universe, linear motions are easy to explain: They result from the bang. But what started the rotary motions?” William R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos: A Catalog of Astronomical Anomalies (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project, 1987), p. 177.

Do you have the entire article, or just this quote? Maver1ck 21:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

“It is a fundamental rule of modern physics [actually, the big bang theory] that for every type of particle in nature there is a corresponding ‘antiparticle’.” Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes (New York: Bantam Books, Inc., 1977), p. 76.

“If the universe began in the big bang as a huge burst of energy, it should have evolved into equal parts matter and antimatter. But instead the stars and nebulae are made of protons, neutrons and electrons and not their antiparticles (their antimatter equivalents).” Kane, pp. 73–74.

“But to balance the cosmic energy books—and to avoid violating the most fundamental laws of physics—matter and antimatter should have been created [in a big bang] in exactly equal amounts. And then they should have promptly wiped each other out. Yet here we are.” Tim Folger, “Antimatter,” Discover, August 2004, p. 68.

It's one of those things scientists not yet fully and completely understands. What's the point of these quotes? Maver1ck 21:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

“The big bang made no quantitative prediction that the ‘background’ radiation would have a temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin (in fact its initial prediction [by George Gamow in 1946] was 30 degrees Kelvin); whereas Eddington in 1926 had already calculated that the ‘temperature of space’ produced by the radiation of starlight would be found to be 3 degrees Kelvin.” Tom Van Flandern, “Did the Universe Have a Beginning?” Meta Research Bulletin, Vol. 3, No. 3, 15 September 1994, p. 33.

“Despite the widespread acceptance of the big bang theory as a working model for interpreting new findings, not a single important prediction of the theory has yet been confirmed, and substantial evidence has accumulated against it.” Ibid., p. 25.

“History also shows that some BB [big bang] cosmologists’ ‘predictions’ of MBR [microwave background radiation] temperature have been ‘adjusted’ after-the-fact to agree with observed temperatures.” William C. Mitchell, “Big Bang Theory Under Fire,” Physics Essays, Vol. 10, No. 2, June 1997, pp. 370–379.

So, yes... they do teach me science where I'm from, but I had to learn the above by myself, heaven forbid they teach us something besides the usual "follow the rest of the lemmings... we're all a random chance happening and our existence has no meaning..."

They do teach mainstream science, and the basics of it, I guess. That's good on elementary and high school level. But what is it with the quote mining? I can't get to the entire articles, so I don't know what they're really saying. These short quotes are supposed to be the evidence? Evidence for what? That the Earth is a few thousand years old? That the Oort cloud does not exist? And what's with the emotional appeal? I don't see what your opinion about how life has no value has any... well, value. Maver1ck 21:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The oort cloud isn't mysterious at all. It makes sense that debris closer to the sun that wasn't captured by planets burned up quickly in the past. But at some distance heat from the sun would be so faint the comets would not melt; and since they are so far away they wouldn't be close enough to each other to form a planet. You can conduct an experiment of your own to confirm this. In snow put a reliable heat source in the middle and you notice snow only melts a certain distance away from the heat source. Same principle with the oort cloud; eventually all the material inside the solar system would be melted, but outside would remain cold and you would get a cloud of comets/asteroids surrounding the solar system. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Barwick 20:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Debris closer to the sun "burned up"? I'm presuming you mean evaporate. You DO know what comets are made up of don't you? You studied the results of Deep Impact? And planets are not formed out of comets (nor are they made up of meteors, but that's another story).

Here's what deep impact found (detailed in Dr. Brown's Book):

• crystalline silicates that could not have formed in frigid (about -450°F) outer space unless the temperature reached 1,300°F and then slowly cooled under some pressure
• silicates, which constitute about 95% of the Earth’s crust and contain considerable oxygen (Oxygen is extremely rare in space.)
• minerals, such as calcium carbonates (limestone) and clays, that form only in liquid water
• organic material of unknown origin
• sodium, which is seldom seen in space
• very fine dirt—like talcum powder—that was “tens of meters deep” on the comet’s surface

Comet Tempel 1 is fluffy and extremely porous. It contains about 60% empty space, giving it “the strength of lemon meringue.” What can explain these observations?

Dr. Brown had predicted exactly what they would find within a comet before the Deep Impact experiment, because (I believe) his theory on the origin of comets is correct.

I know comets aren't just made of ice. Burned up works too; focus on more important matters. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Barwick 21:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Does the above text I just gave you (the results of Deep Impact) have ANYTHING peculiar about them? Like the remarkably similar characteristics you'd expect of something that originated from earth, and ended up in outer space by some large event?

Earth is composed of planetesimals (comets/asteroids) it makes sense they are similar in some ways; indeed a growing number of scientists believe comets brought life to Earth. As to your specific points; I'm unsure how any of this is a problem given very hot liquid water would routinely be present in the comet when it is in proximity to the Sun. Saying its frigid (-450F) is simply wrong given its position relative to the Sun. A Temperature Map of Tempel 1 That is important in understanding how it contains "60% empty space". - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

1) So in the vacuum of space, in a comet with the consistency of "lemon meringue", water and these materials are going to heat up to 1300 degrees farenheit, then SLOWLY cool, all while under *pressure* in the *vacuum* of space. 2) Also, limestone-like materials and clays formed in *liquid* water in the *vacuum* of space? You do know what happens when liquid water is put in a vacuum, don't you? Scientists admit they did not expect this one. Do you know which scientist DID expect this? Dr. Walt Brown.

Need I go on? And you're trying to tell me that the organic compounds found in this comet were there from BILLIONS of years ago, and for some reason haven't completely degraded? I don't know the rate of degradation for organic materials, but I'm pretty sure they're similar to DNA and anything else organic in that they naturally break down over time. DNA does not last forever when it forms (“We know from chemical experiments that it [DNA] degrades and how fast it degrades. After 25 million years, there shouldn’t be any DNA left at all.” Rebecca L. Cann, as quoted by Morell, p. 1862.), and although I don't have any hard data on other organic compounds, I'm pretty sure they don't just last forever either.

"Organic materials" does not mean it was DNA, nor any other material which would degrade over time. Don't jump to conclusions. I know what happens to water in vacuum, and I know water trapped in the interior of the comet wasn't in a vacuum. Put water in a container and launch it into space. The sun would heat the container and the container would heat the water; and for a time it creates a small micro-environment; until the container breaks and the water leaks out into space. Scientists not expecting it does not mean there is no scientific explanation. Don't jump to conclusions. And yes trapped pockets of liquid water can cool slowly, as the asteroid turns and/or moves away from the Sun... *slowly* (it has a long orbit when compared to Earth), and the water not exposed to *vacuum* as it is in the interior protected by dust and ice on the *exterior* (which are very good insulators by the way). Don't jump to conclusions. Anything else? Furthermore this does not even begin to take into account the conditions the comet was made. Which, to my knowledge scientists are trying to figure out/refine with the data they acquired. If they think it came from Earth, they'll let us know. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Barwick 14:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC) Mainstream scientists are so closed minded that they'll never even listen to the argument that comets came from Earth. It would make them look foolish because everything they've ever said about comets would be found to be untrue. Not to mention the account of the event that created comets is found in the Bible, and heaven forbid they use the Bible as a historical account, even though it's pointed out all kinds of history, events, and facts about the earth/universe that we never knew. Cities were recorded in the Bible that scientists ridiculed, saying "it's just a myth, that city never existed", then they find it, and they shut up. Events recorded in the Bible that they ridicule as "just a myth, that never happened", then they find evidence around the world for a massive global flood. And if we go back far enough, we see the Bible (NOT the Church) talking about the fact that the earth is round, when common conception was that the earth is flat.

The same can be applied to the account of the Genesis flood, which if you read [Dr. Brown's book, freely available online], you would understand his theory on exactly how meteors and comets formed. AND, coincidentally, his theory doesn't have to be constantly adapted like evolution and the old-universe theories do. It just matches up to exactly what we say, based on what the Bible says about the Genesis flood.

Given many scientists believe pieces of Mars have landed on Earth, the idea that fragments from a planet are floating in space isn't rejected out of hand by scientists. The reason this particular argument is rejected is because of the straightforward explanations I just gave you; I've responded to your points and discussion of the Bible is off topic, but suffice it to say if the Bible clearly stated Earth was a sphere (not just round, since things can be round and flat); belief in a flat Earth wouldn't have been so widespread in the Church/Christendom. Reinterpreting the Bible after the fact isn't compelling evidence for Biblical inerrancy. Nearly every piece of scientific evidence you just presented required clarification and/or context; take that as an indication you need more background in the subjects you speak of/criticize. If you find Dr. Brown's book compelling, fine, people more familiar with science don't. Perhaps its because their biased, or knowledgable... or both.

And it hasn't been my experience that scientists have "shut up" about evidence supporting the flood; as some have gone into great detail as to why it is pseudoscientific. It may appear to you they have shut up, but if you don't look for it, I guess you won't find it. I looked and found plenty on the subject. If you'd like to continue on this subject, I suggest you head over to Talk:Flood geology. BTW, theories which don't/can't adapt to new evidence aren't very good to begin with; that in it self is reason enough to reject it. Thanks. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Theories that don't adapt to new evidence aren't very good to begin with? How is that? Minor aspects of theories can be modified, but major changes should not take place, or the entire theory is invalid. Dr. Brown, after further research and thinking on the subject, has changed part of his explanation for tablemounts when his first inclination on the topic was incorrect. But that is one small part of a part of his theory for the global flood. The fact that he hasn't had to modify his theory when new evidence arose is actually a rather convincing point for the validity of his theory. And like I said, his theory easily explains the formation of comets and meteors. I think something needs to be said that there are alternative theories to the existence of the Oort Cloud. Saying that the Oort Cloud IS (a statement of fact) the source of comets, without presenting the fact that there are other theories (and linking to those same theories) is very biased.

Barwick 20:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

By far the best post I've read by you; way to get back on track! I agree a theory which accurately (and specifically) predicts results shows promise, but if its foundation is anchored in something like creationism... it won't merit serious consideration no matter how good an idea it is by itself; not because there is a scientific conspiracy against creationism, but rather every field of science has overwhelming amounts of evidence which is at odds with Biblical creationism. (and no, that evidence "as a whole, meaning there are smaller debates/disputes all over science, helps make it interesting and progressive" is only considered suspect by people with a pre-existing Biblical POV) To call Dr. Brown's hypothesis a scientific theory and a meaningful alternative to the Oort cloud would require two things.

• Solid scientific evidence supporting it; and nothing to contradict it (which I doubt it has, but I base that opinion on what you presented) and...
• That there is a problem with the Oort cloud hypothesis. (I haven't seen one yet)

So even if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt on the first one; which I can at this point because I haven't read the book – there is no reason at this point to think there is a problem with the oort cloud hypothesis. (I'm actually unsure whether to call it a theory or hypothesis, since it is supported by scientific evidence, but not yet well supported) However, because of your excellent post I hope and will encourage those more involved in this article to consider the merits of the alternative you presented. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

So one day during a giant flood, earth threw millions of Lemon meringue pies into space? Show me some articals on this, because thats far out. Isn't 90377 Sedna proof of the Oort cloud? It's only a matter of time before they discover more objects beyond Puto, and Sedna wich orbit the sun. Wait doesn't the sun orbit the earth wich is the center of the universe? I like that midieval way of thinking! -Chris 12/02/05

I believe the above discussion shouldn't be here. As far as I can deem, the Oort Cloud theory is a theory that have no reasonable alternative, explaining the comet frequency. Browsing amongst Distant EKO:s issues, gives Oort Cloud hits in 80% of the issues. I've read about the Oort Cloud in many-many scientific texts, and I prefer listening to scientists before quasi-scientific creationists, who reject anything but a reference to the bible about the existence of anything. Twirling his moustaches, does: Rursus 20:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Inserting Brown into the article?

To get the ball rolling I found the following links:

• Meteorites are never found in deeper strata
• Planets and several moons revolve backwards
• The Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud have never been observed

Hopefully that clarifies to Barwick why it isn't in the article. Although perhaps it should still be mentioned as the creationist position? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to start using this section for replies instead of the previous one. I would try here to summarize Dr. Brown's theory, but it's best to get it straight from the source, complete with references and reasoning. I'll try to summarize the background to understand his theory here: There are historical references from multiple sources (not just the Bible) of a massive, global flood thousands of years ago. These references record certain events happening during the flood (water coming from below the earth in extremely large volumes is one of them). Based on these observations, he makes an assumption (reasoning and documentation are included elsewhere in his book) that interconnected subterranean chambers of water existed below the surface of the earth (he estimates approximately an average of 10 miles of rock with varying thicknesses, then an approximate average of 1/2 mile of water of varying thickness, then below that basalt and the moho, etc.), under great pressure. During the flood, the water in these connected chambers escaped from below the surface of the earth under great pressure, with higher bursts of pressure due to known effects like water hammers and gas expansion.

Read Dr. Brown's theory on Comet Formation to understand his alternative theory on comet formation (and his analysis of other theories including the original Oort Cloud theory, the revised Oort Cloud theory, Exploded Planet, Volcanic Eruption from giant planets theory, Meteor Streams theory, and Interstellar Dust and Gas Clouds theory). Barwick 16:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

This will be my last post on these matters; I hope someone more knowledgable than I can augment my answer if it becomes necessary. The flood isn't supported by scientific evidence, period. Stories of global floods are exactly that stories. It takes little imagination to believe a large local flood, flooding everything a group of people considered "their whole world" would be translated into a global flood. Either because that's how they felt, or for dramatic effect.

As to Dr. Brown's theory, I read until I came across something verifiably wrong, or in this case completely misleading:

How Jupiter collected its large family of comets presents major problems, because comets falling toward the Sun from the outer solar system would be traveling too fast as they zip inside Jupiter’s orbit. To slow them down so they could join Jupiter’s family would require such great deceleration forces that the comets must pass very near planets. But those near passes could easily tear apart comets or eject them from the solar system.25 Also, comets in Jupiter’s family run an increased risk of colliding with planets in the inner solar system, especially Jupiter, or being expelled from the solar system by Jupiter’s gigantic gravity. Therefore, they have a life expectancy of only about 12,000 years.26 Jupiter’s family must either be resupplied rapidly, by unknown, unseen processes, or the family must have formed less than 12,000 years ago. If 24,000 years were available, about twice as many comets would have been in Jupiter’s family, but that doubles the collection problem.

The source, Fred L. Whipple The Mystery of Comets (1985, written before the Hubble Space Telescope was launched in 1990) is specifically talking about comets coming from outside the solar system. (as I already mentioned above they would likely fly through the solar system) How comets are resupplied is known, they come from within the solar system thanks to the Kuiper belt (which was observed in quantity since 1992); hence there is no reason to think they would be "traveling too fast". Dr. Brown is being willfully ignorant/disingenuous with his out of date reference(s). While I am glad you refocused this discussion, there is nothing further to discuss on this matter. If you want to make your case for the flood, do it at Talk:Flood geology. But I can promise your evidence will be verifiably rejected; quite simply Dr. Brown (despite his impressive credentials) is speaking on matters outside his expertise, and it shows. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do me a favor and quit claiming "there is nothing left to discuss" as if I'm not going to have a reply to claims being made.

The Kuiper belt is not comprised only of comets, correct? How do they claim that the Kuiper belt is the source of short-period comets? I've seen zero evidence as to how a comet comes from outside the Kuiper Belt (from what, the Oort cloud? outside the solar sytem? where?) and then gets into and stays in the Kuiper belt. Then how a comet that somehow made its way into the Kuiper belt goes from being perturbed by an object (a planet, another large belt object, something) and what its chances are to become a short-period comet from that point. Let alone the complete lack of proof that enough Kuiper belt objects exist to be the source of short-period comets.

I suggest you continue reading the rest of the theory and see its merits, including the problems associated with all theories on comet formation.

Barwick 19:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You're absolutely right and I apologize, I should have said: I will not discuss this matter further. I have given you the link elaborating on the Kuiper belt, and if you don't understand how comets are brought into the inner solar system I suggest you continue reading, not I. Telling me to read in order for me to understand the "theory"; and then asking me rudimentary questions about comets is absurd. Dr. Brown's comet theories are based on an outdated God of Gaps, as your repetitive requests for "proof" and "lack" of evidence demonstrates. I have already provided the evidence; that is why I feel further discussion is not required. What you've written above doesn't change that. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on the Kuiper belt doesn't explain crap, to be honest. It makes no mention of comets, and especially makes no mention on how the Kuiper belt receives comets from the Oort Cloud and then those comets are perturbed out of the Kuiper belt somehow, then further purturbed by the inner solar system and turned into short period comets. I've read other articles on the Kuiper belt and still haven't seen anything that answers those questions.

Barwick 05:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Because you made the effort, try Comet#Orbital_characteristics... and I don't understand why you think comets need to transition from the Oort cloud to the Kuiper belt. They can come directly from the Oort cloud to become long-period comets, whereas short-period comets come from the Kuiper belt. Here is an image to give you a sense of Kuiper belt object positions (found thusfar) relative to the inner solar system; and I think it helps a great deal in understanding how trully difficult it is to find smaller objects in the depths of space. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Short period comets cannot (well, they can, but it would be extremely difficult) come from the Oort Cloud (if the Oort Cloud even exists). Do you understand the amount of energy a comet would have after coming in from the distance the Oort Cloud is supposed to exist at, all the while being aimed directly at the inner solar system (because if it's going to become a short period comet, it's got to get close enough to Jupiter or another inner solar system object, so that the comet's orbit is perturbed enough by that object to force it into a short-period orbit). It might as well have come from outside the solar system, the chances of an Oort Cloud object becoming a short-period comet is (I haven't looked for any references on this yet) likely to be about the same as the chances of an object entering from outside the solar system becoming a short-period comet, NEITHER of which have ever been observed, and with the estimated 12,000 year life span (Harold F. Levison and Martin J. Duncan, “From the Kuiper Belt to Jupiter-Family Comets,” Icarus, Vol. 127, May 1999, p. 31.) of the known 200 short period comets in existence, we should have seen at least 100 or more in the last few millenia we've been watching the sky).

Barwick 15:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, they are unlikely to come from the Oort cloud; hence that is why I specifically said "whereas short-period comets come from the Kuiper belt." I should have inserted likely in there somewhere. The rest you wrote therefore is of little consequence, and for the record Brown's ability to honestly interpret real scientists is nil in my books. (you do understand I demonstrated above Brown used the low probability of outside objects becoming comets to give the impression a scientist thought new comets were unlikely to appear, that's called selective evidence; and his website is out of date as Kuiper belt objects are being found in abundance) Using further references selected by him is entirely unpersuasive; as is statistical guesswork and "but... but, we haven't SEEN it yet" arguments. Oh yeah, and objects coming from the Oort cloud are significantly different from outside objects which have much faster relative speeds. (both to cross interstellar space, and to have escaped wherever they came from, don't forget our solar system is moving at a good clip... and the oort cloud tagging along) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

If they don't come from the Oort Cloud, then how do comets appear in the Kuiper belt, and why are they still there? The Oort Cloud was developed as a band-aid to explain why comets still exist if the universe is billions of years old, and the reason they put it out so far is because in theory, comets wouldn't be destroyed over the supposed billions of years they say the universe has been around. So, then, if they didn't come from the Oort Cloud, then how did the comets in the Kuiper belt get there, and why are they still there when they should have been destroyed long ago? I have read multiple topics on the Kuiper belt and the Oort Cloud, and STILL have not seen a single shred of evidence to show that this is what happened. I haven't even seen a theory on how it happened, just "we think short period comets came from the Kuiper belt" Barwick 18:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The link I just gave you (with the image) shows they are in relative dead zones, where planets do not sweep them up or fling them around (easily). I'd really love to go into how oblivious you are regarding astrophysics and cosmology/cosmogony, but its a waste of my time. Suffice it to say there are explanations if you bother to look them up; and the research you've done thusfar is truly pitiful. Remember, just because you can't find an answer right away, it doesn't mean an answer doesn't exist. Finally for whatever reason(s) you think they should have been destroyed; you're wrong and you don't know what you're talking about. How many times do I have to correct you in order for you to clue in that you're a scientific neophyte! Learn some science, then we'll talk. *plonk, for this subject* - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

This is getting old. I tell you I've read your supposed "answers" and point out that they do not answer these problems, and you simply say "you are a neophyte, I am a genius, a-ha!!!"

I'm about done dealing with you, if you're so dead-set against putting an "Oort Cloud skepticism" section in there, then fine, don't report the fact that there are completely valid, opposing theories out there to the Oort Cloud's existence.

Barwick 03:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it is, that's why I said above there is nothing left to discuss. I just spent hours out of my Wikitime demonstrating quite clearly and with references how Brown's premise (and references) fall flat on their face under scientifically literate scrutiny. If you can't find the answers to your questions, guess WHAT, look elsewhere! The "problems" (actually they are questions from a novice) stem from your lack of knowledge in these areas. If you bothered to read this link:

• The Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud have never been observed

It explicitly points out if new comets weren't coming into the solar system they would all be similar ages, but there is a variety of ages for comets... some young and vibrant, others old gravel heaps. This flies in the face of Brown's hypothesis (a theory requires a valid scientific basis). Your "problems" can be dealt with by anyone with a background in science. Direct your questions to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science. The primary reason I responded was because I didn't give you a link to get your questions answered – now I have. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Notability and science articles

For every article on mainstream science you can find opposing opinions or those outside the mainstream. Walt Brown's creationist ideas fall into this category. That his ideas have the occasional supporter like our friend User:Barwick means that the encyclopedia can have a place for them. The place that the encyclopedia has is a place called Walt Brown. That is, if User:Barwick wants to put in documented descriptions of Brown's ideas about the Oort cloud, the appropriate place to do it is in the article about the person who is pushing the idea. It isn't appropriate to include every "skeptic" or "outside the mainstream" view in a mainstream article becacuse notability with respect to the article is important. I imagine Gene Ray would have a thing or two to say about the existence of the Oort Cloud. This does not mean his ramblings on the subject should be reported on this page. Rather, keep the against the mainstream folks to their own articles. This should settle the matter. Joshuaschroeder 06:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Statistical evidence

I am pretty sure, that the original statistical analysis by Oort shows clear evidence that most known comets come from two source in the solar system: The Kuiper belt (short periods, within the ecliptic) and the space we now call Oort cloud (long period, random orientation). I think it is bad POV to describe only that this second source is pure speculation to plug a supposed "hole" in current scientific understanding of the evolution of the solar system! See this overview, for example. Awolf002 20:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Revert made by Jyril

Today Jyril reverted a section that I added to the site, and simply said "creationism has no place in this article". This is not adequate explanation for a full revert and such being the case Jyril should explain how and why my added section violated Wikipedia's guidelines (NPOV, Notability, etc.). I have reverted the article back.

There is already a small-scale discussion on this going on at my talk page.

In my defense, I would point out that the AiG article was made in agreement with and in reference to a Nature article which calculated how many fatal collisions would occur in a hypothetical Oort cloud. A group of widely accredited scientists noting a secular source and how it supports their claims is hardly non-notable or POV.

standonbible 23:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're right in that the Oort cloud is is still theoretical (meaning no true Oort cloud members have been discovered there, as Sedna is hardly a good example of an Oort cloud object, and very long period comets are not in true Oort cloud orbits). That could and should be mentioned in the article. However, if someone tries to "prove" that Earth is young using the alleged instability of the Oort cloud as a piece of evidence, that's against current scientific understanding.

Sure, sure whatever. But my section on "Detractors" is not trying to "prove" that, as you said, "Earth is young using the alleged instability of the Oort cloud." The AiG scientists are generally more open to finding gaping holes in astronomical and other scientific theories. My section just quoted them concerning what they think about certain problems with the Oort cloud, not about what they think on the supernatural origin of the Earth. standonbible 13:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The article you provided [2] -- sure, there are still unsolved problems with the birth of the Moon, Population III stars, and the Oort cloud itself. So what? Science advances by small increments. If something is not yet figured out, it eventually will. The article uses our lack of complete knowledge as a mean to claim that basically everything we know about astronomy is plain wrong and what the Bible says is right. If you call that NPOV, I don't want to know what you mean by POV. If we include the creationist viewpoint to the Oort cloud article, should it also be included in almost every article concerning astronomy, physics, geology, biology and so on? Then what about non-Christian creationism?--Jyril 06:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously some of the content in the article that the link can lead to is POV. But that is not the view of WP, that is the view of Answers in Genesis! Just because an article that points out certain problems with the Oort cloud theory has an explanation of these problems that reflects a personal point of view does not mean that it is automatically worthless. A large group of scientists, secular and non-secular alike, young-age and long-age alike, find problems with the Oort cloud theory. This page needs a reference to the problems with the Oort cloud, but it doesn't need an argument that God must exist as a conclusion. My Detractors section explains certain problems but still keeps a perfectly NPOV. standonbible 13:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I already mentioned that the Oort Cloud hasn't been directly observed yet, and the theory has some problems. Mentioning this in the article is OK and should be done. But AiG is not honest on this. Its whole reason for existence is to get people believe that creationistic view is the correct over the scientific one. It is that I'm against. Plus, the article is ridden with typical AiG misinterpretations and selective quoting.--Jyril 13:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with the way that AiG presents certain information on its website and the conclusions that it comes to does not mean that information about disbelief in the Oort cloud must be hidden from Wikipedia readers. AiG is a comprehensive source of very real, very accepted problems with the Oort cloud and as such it is fine to reference it as a source. My Detractors section keeps a perfectly Neutral Point of View by simply stating that: a minority of scientists find the problems with the Oort cloud too great to consider it to be a valid scientific entity. This statement is NPOV and just because you disagree with certain conclusions of certain people in this minority of scientists doesn't mean that their list of problems with the Oort cloud theory should not be linked to! standonbible 15:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I read the Nature article you mentioned. Main point of it was that the Oort cloud should be considerably less massive (~0.6 – 2 M_Earth instead of conventional estimates, 10 – 40 M_Earth), if the conventional theory of slingshotting was true, because cometary nuclei would have collided between each other before the slingshotting could occur. Therefore another means are needed to deliver the required amount of mass (if the Cloud is as massive as it is conventionally believed to be). A few possibilities are mentioned in the article, for example larger amount of material around the orbit of Neptune. I can't see how this disproves the existence of the Oort cloud, it just means the formation was more complicated than previously thought. Usually things are not as simple as they originally seem to be.--Jyril 06:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Quote: "I can't see how this disproves the existence of the Oort cloud." You cannot disprove the existence of anything. However, the only reason that the Oort cloud is supposed to exist is because many scientists think it is responsible for creating the comets we observe in our solar system. Several of the scientists at AiG point out that an Oort cloud with only ~0.6 - 2 M_Earth would not be capable of producing as many comets as we see. If secular science shows that any Oort cloud would be too small to produce comets, don't you think this should be noted in a WP article about the Oort cloud?!?!?! In Him, standonbible 15:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

User from IP# 65.64.69.2 removed the Detractors section and simply said "I agree with Jyril". I reverted this change as there was no contribution from this user on the discussion page and there have been no replies to my last defense. However, I did make the concession of adding a small (albeit rather uncited) paragraph mentioning a very general mainstream defense to creationist views. In Him, standonbible 02:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A reference to the Nature article and objections/problems it may report would be fine, but the creationist link and such has no place here. Vsmith 03:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Vsmith, you stated your opinion but you did not give any reasons why. The Detractors section I created is an NPOV section that is perfectly notable and does not violate any WP rules. Not only did you remove an entire section without any consensus on the Talk page, but you also marked the removal as "minor". The WP help page Minor Edit states that "any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it involves one word." It also says, "Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette, especially if the change involves the deletion of some text. Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances. When the status of a page is disputed, and particularly if an edit war is brewing, then it is better not to mark any edit as minor." standonbible 22:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I hate to point out that the views of one objecting editor are not the consensus views...but there is still somehow a revert war. We might need RfC. Ardric47 23:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed again (sorry 'bout the minor edit bit. POV pushing by one editor against consensus (I count three or four who disagree with you) is no excuse for waging a revert war. It is obvious that the consensus is against your blatantly POV addition. As I said a ref to the Nature article is fine, but without the irrelevant AIG bit. Vsmith 01:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I am not trying to wage a revert war. Nor do I want to ignore what you have to say. How about leaving the "Detractors" section open until this page comes to an agreement??? Feel free to edit the section as much as you want, but do leave it open for discussion, will you?

Vsmith stated that it was a "blatantly POV addition." However, no one has given the slightest inclination of why the section is POV! Stating that a reliable source like Nature has found possible problems with the Oort cloud theory and referencing accredited scientists with additional explanatory information is totally NPOV. WP has a "Assume Good Faith" policy that means that an editor's contributions are assumed to be NPOV until it is shown that they are not. Until you show that my contributions were NPOV then they cannot be deleted. 72.147.18.79 02:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Merely referencing AiG is a POV addition. But even if it were not, I think that your blog lays to rest any doubt, particularly the posting entitled "What I Believe". Ardric47 04:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Ardric, please tell me you are joking! As if an editor's personal views automatically make any of his contributions POV!

Ardric, by definition each and every one of us is inherently POV. However, our contributions to WP need not be. Do stop making ad hominem attacks and judge by what was written, not by what I believe. "Merely referencing AiG is a POV addition"? Please. I seem to remember that WP has an entire article devoted to people who, in opposition to the majority of scientists and historians, dispute the existence of Jesus. Be consistent! standonbible 11:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The Oort cloud is a postulated explanation for observations in astronomy - a source for the comet problem. It remains a testable hypothesis. The Nature article (which I haven't read) is a part of that ongoing testing and scientific work. Any peer reviewed work on the Oort cloud is acceptible as a reference to some detractors section - although the possible section header should be more neutral such as further research.

Now, as to assuming good faith, there is a problem. When your choice of a username screams POV coupled with the reference to the highly POV and quite unscientific AIG website - how can you expect us to not assume a POV. So, we'll leave your detractors section hmm.. -open and out of the article. Vsmith 12:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguity in the Range of Mass

From the third paragraph of the first section:

"It is believed that if the Oort cloud exists and supplies comets, in order for it to supply the necessary volume of comets, the total mass of comets in the Oort cloud must be many times that of Earth. Estimates range between five and one hundred (100) Earth masses."

I think that this is saying "between 5 and 100 Earth masses" and not "500 and 100 Earth masses." But I could be wrong. In any case, the ambiguity could be cleared up by adding a "(5)" after the "five," if that is indeed what is supposed to be conveyed here.

Mass reference collection

Hereby I declare my search for references about the Mass of the Oort Cloud. I don't know if it's important – I just wish a Oort Cloud mass survey. Anyone finding a value, or criticizing those I've found can participate. Now:

1: Paul Weissman/JPL answers reader question in SciAm: 10¹² comets, 5 to 50 M_earth:s, best guess 15 M_earth:s. Rursus 18:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

2: In (meteorobs) Excerpts from "CCNet 19/2001 - 2 February 2001" Lubos Neslusan/University of London lists an older estimate: Dr. Paul Weismann and Dr. Alan Stern, reported in CCNet (18/2001) 34 M_earth - this recension interestingly enough reflects between the competing theories, that:

a. the comets were present already in the protosolar nebula before the protosun and proplyd formation, (also refd by this Encycl. Britannica article),

b. the comets developed as planetesimals in the outer proplyd disc,

3: the formation of the Oort cloud says:

a. the comets were initially formed within 100 AU and then ejected by interaction from giant planets,

b. there's a problem with Outer Oort mass being = ~7 M_earth, implying the original disk was mass being = ~270 M_earth according to simulations,

c. simulations of Jovian migration instead implies original disk mass of = 35-50 M_earth

4: Oort Cloud Formation and Dynamics says that Weissman &al 1996 estimated tot mass to 38 M_earth...

(PS: creationists can go elsewhere – I'll refuse to discuss anything with anyone believing they can criticize theories without need to defend their own magical explanations. Rursus 18:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC) DS.)

Not sure where the "factual accuracy" tag came from, I expected to see discussion of it here. Why have the young earthers not yet created a tag that they put on every article that posits a date before, say, 6000 BCE, as being in contradiction with known facts, and footnote the bible? Maybe this is all due to the mention of the Oort Cloud in one of their "science texts"? The Oort Cloud's "factual accuracy" consists in that it is a part of mainstream cosmology/astronomy, and the article clearly states that it is still largely theoretical. It will also be incredibly difficult to observe, due to the immense spatial distances and small size of the objects involved. I must leave now, Dino needs some fresh Archeopteryx meat for dinner... human 03:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hills cloud

Should there be something in this article about the Hills cloud and its relation to the Oort Cloud? -- Eroica 14:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

How widely supported is it in the scientific community? I just put together a stub on the subject since I had no idea what it was at first and I worked from just one source so I don't know whether it's fringe or not. Bryan 19:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oort Cloud objects

The table in the section looks too much like original research. Please provide a paper (not just a Sedna press release) that names the listed objects as potential Oort Cloud objects.--JyriL ^talk 20:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)