[geocentrism] Re: Integrity in science
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:43:58 +0000 (GMT)
Jack L
I should have known better I suppose. For your personal comfort, please delete
my reference to the Oort Cloud and substitute the greater of the orbit of
Neptune and Pluto.
I am aware of controversy concerning the Oort Cloud and I think also the Kuiper
Belt; but in case you missed it, I was suggesting that it should be possible
(this is NOT a prediction) to determine whether the Earth moves or does not
move without examining the elementary particles present at the time of the big
bang and the history of each and every one of them to the present day or any
other such exhaustive investigation. My feeling is that simple mechanics should
suffice though I acknowledge that loss of access to the stars would be a
distinct handicap. If you could just come to grips with the knowledge that
science does not claim certainty in anything and begin to understand that this
is a greater asset than liability, you might find less need to search out and
pounce gleefully upon every tiny oversight, every minor inaccuracy, every
phenomenon awaiting explanation. It is possible to exist, even to live
joyfully, without every aspect of the universe
accounted for and every responsibility capable of being shifted upwards.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, 20 December, 2007 7:20:24 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Integrity in science
Me in Red Paul
Jack L
Paul Deema wrote:
SNIP
My guess is that if the universe ended at the Oort Cloud, eff would still
equal em-ae and the Earth would still circle the Sun
This from a non-creationist website. I have highlighted the words that show
that the Oort Cloud is pure conjecture but given the status of being a fact (no
maybe about it) in other websites.
In 1950 Jan Oort noticed that
1. no comet has been observed with an orbit that indicates that it came from
interstellar space,
2. there is a strong tendency for aphelia of long period comet orbits to lie
at a distance of about 50,000 AU, and
3. there is no preferential direction from which comets come.
>From this he proposed that comets reside in a vast cloud at the outer reaches
>of the solar system. This has come to be known as the Oort Cloud. The
>statistics imply that it may contain as many as a trillion (1e12) comets.
>Unfortunately, since the individual comets are so small and at such large
>distances, we have no direct evidence about the Oort Cloud.
The Oort Cloud may account for a significant fraction of the mass of the solar
system, perhaps as much or even more than Jupiter. (This is highly speculative,
however; we don't know how many comets there are out there nor how big they
are.)
In 2004, the discovery of an object known as 2003 VB12 "Sedna" was announced.
Its orbit is intermediate between the Kuiper Belt and what was previously
thought to be the inner part of the Oort Cloud. Perhaps this object is the
first of a new class of "inner Oort Cloud" objects.
This is from a creationist website.
Comets are continually being lost through decay, collisions with planets, and
ejections from the solar system. If the solar system were billions of years
old, then all comets would have long ago ceased to exist if they were not
continually being replaced. Thus to sustain long-age thinking, a way is needed
to ‘resupply’ the solar system with comets from time to time.
For years, evolutionary astronomers have believed that long-period comets
(those with orbital periods of more than 200 years) come from the so-called
‘Oort cloud’. The Oort cloud supposedly contains billions of comet nuclei
orbiting the sun thousands of times further from it than the Earth. Astronomers
think that the gravity of an occasional passing star or other object, or
possibly a galactic tide, causes comets from the Oort cloud to fall into the
inner solar system. This mechanism supposedly supplies the influx of comets
needed to overcome the conclusion that the solar system is young.
There are problems with the Oort cloud, the greatest being that there is
absolutely no evidence that it even exists!1 However, a recent study has
revealed a new problem.2 Evolutionary theories of the origin of the solar
system state that comet nuclei came from material left over from the formation
of the planets. According to the theory, this icy material was sent out to the
Oort cloud in the outer reaches of the solar system by the gravity of the newly
formed planets. All of the earlier studies ignored collisions between the comet
nuclei during this process.
This new study has considered these collisions and has found that most of the
comets would have been destroyed by the collisions. Thus, instead of having a
combined mass of perhaps 40 Earths, the Oort cloud should have at most the mass
of about a single Earth. It is doubtful that this is enough mass to account for
the comets that we see. The researchers postulate ‘escape valves’3 that could
supply up to 3.5 Earth masses, but this is still ‘low compared to recent
estimates of the mass of the Oort cloud’. They go on to ‘speculate that a
distant source region for Oort cloud comets’3 could resolve some other problems
[emphasis added].
Of course, if the solar system is much younger than most astronomers think,
then there is no need for the Oort comet cloud. Since it cannot be detected,
the Oort cloud is not a scientific concept. This is not bad science, but
non-science masquerading as science. The existence of comets is good evidence
that the solar system is only a few thousand years old, just as the
recent-creation model suggests.4
orld's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.
www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail
Other related posts:
