Real Science Friday: Comets

[Stripe]

Otherwise, we'd have to conclude everything Kepler and Newton showed us is wrong. You see, by looking at the paths of long-term comets, we can see where they go, and if you add up all the perhelia of such comets, we end up with a cloud of dots far out beyond Neptune. So the cloud exists, merely by observing long-term comets.

:squint: If that is all the Oort cloud is then it's nothing more than what we have now. And what we have now might have started on Earth.

Why not simply take the evidence as it is?

Uh .. OK ...

The mass of all comets is much greater than the mass of all the water on the Earth.

You're asserting your assumptions as facts. There are only around 3600 known comets .. they would contain nowhere near enough water to fill even one small sea on Earth.

How, exactly did all that water and dust get lifted off the earth and moved out up to a light year from the sun?

How did water get into space by your reckoning?

Show us your numbers, Stipe.

3

I actually own a copy of In The Beginning. Not only that, but I suspect he's used comments I made on one of the sections in the book to edit a later edition.

Excellent! Then you won't have any problem providing some substance to your future posts. Drive by derision is so ... granitic. :yawn:

In 2003, I wrote up and posted detailed annotations on the appallingly bad section he wrote on Out of Place fossils, calling out the shamefully poor scholarship that he hid in the technical footnotes (Pravda as a source to prove dino/human coexistence in a "scientific" book? - no, that's quality stuff). It could be coincidence, but those criticisms were largely reflected in later editions of the book (and Walt is known for editing his creationscience.com site on the fly based on criticisms from forums that he inexplicably says he won't debate in). If that's what happened, I don't mind acting as one of his unpaid editors, as the bowdlerized chapter is now pretty thin, and is hardly convincing evidence for creation. You'd think that if YEC was true there'd actually be more evidence in this section as time goes on, not less.

Good for you. :BRAVO:

Got anything relevant to say?

I also summarized my main issues with the Hydroplate idiocy earlier in the thread, if you'd bothered to read that far back. I will summarize my main issue again. To quote Walt: ...[a] global flood whose waters erupted from interconnected, worldwide subterranean chambers with an energy release exceeding the explosion of 300 trillion hydrogen bombs. Get real. Seriously. Here's the description of the effects from a 'mere' 250 million megaton meteor impact, courtesy of the University of Virginia: Never mind the additional energy caused by the galloping continents that Walt proposes, or his handwaving explanations of why their movement wouldn't reliquify the earth, this 300 trillion megaton explosion would eliminate all life on the planet. The flood would be superfluous. The final catastrophe of the impact of additional hundreds of millions of megatons through all the meteor impacts that we know about is just gravy. It's childish in the extreme to believe that any life bigger than bacteria would live through these events. And none of this deals with any of the other major problems associated with YEC (age of the earth disparities, failure to adequately explain geological column or fossil record,, repopulating the earth, biogeography, etc).

So there's no way the comets could have originated on Earth?

 

[Flipper]

Excellent! Then you won't have any problem providing some substance to your future posts. Drive by derision is so ... granitic. :yawn:

Good for you. :BRAVO:

Got anything relevant to say?

You were the person suggesting that I hadn't read more than a paragraph of Walt Brown's material. By the way, derision is a perfectly reasonable reaction if you spend any time considering the hydroplate theory and actually looking at the objections to it.

Also, you think a guy who uses a news story from Pravda as evidence that dinosaurs and horses lived together is a source of credible scientific data? Why isn't derision appropriate here?

If Walt needs the energy of three hundred trillion h-bombs to pull off what he's proposing while still expecting anyone to survive through it, then, just maybe, hydroplate theory is completely untenable. Never mind the continents whizzing all over the place before crashing into each other while massive asteroids smash into the earth.

By the way, it wasn't always 300 trillion h-bombs. He started with 10 trillion, then twenty, and went up from there as different critics demonstrated inaccuracies in his calculations. That doesn't really speak volumes to his background understanding of the physics involved, does it?

So there's no way the comets could have originated on Earth?

Not that I know of.

 

[Flipper]

BTW, didn't you go over a lot of this in 2008? Did you forget or something?

 

[The Barbarian]

Scattered disc objects such as Eris are KBO-like bodies with extremely large orbits that take them as far as 100 AU from the Sun. Their dynamic orbits occasionally force them into the inner Solar System, becoming first centaurs, and then short-period comets.

Barbarian observes:
Otherwise, we'd have to conclude everything Kepler and Newton showed us is wrong. You see, by looking at the paths of long-term comets, we can see where they go, and if you add up all the perhelia of such comets, we end up with a cloud of dots far out beyond Neptune. So the cloud exists, merely by observing long-term comets.

If that is all the Oort cloud is then it's nothing more than what we have now.

But, of course, we only see the ones that currently have disturbed orbits. There would have to be many, many more out there, to produce the number of long-period comets we see.

And what we have now might have started on Earth.

Sounds interesting. How do you get chunks of ice and dust up to maybe a few hundred kilometers across out of Earth's gravity, and up to a light year from the sun? Let's see some numbers here.

Barbarian observes:
The mass of all comets is much greater than the mass of all the water on the Earth.

You're asserting your assumptions as facts. There are only around 3600 known comets .. they would contain nowhere near enough water to fill even one small sea on Earth.

Actually, no, the evidence shows there are a lot more out there, and they get replenished from a large source. But...

Scattered disc objects such as Eris are KBO-like bodies with extremely large orbits that take them as far as 100 AU from the Sun. Their dynamic orbits occasionally force them into the inner Solar System, becoming first centaurs, and then short-period comets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt

Eris is about 25,000 km in diameter, mostly water ice, with dust and rock.

Barbarian asks:
How, exactly did all that water and dust get lifted off the earth and moved out up to a light year from the sun?
How did water get into space by your reckoning?

Show us your numbers, Stipe.

(Stipe chokes)

In fact, you haven't a clue about the forces that would be required, or the consequences for the Earth, have you?

So there's no way the comets could have originated on Earth?

Can't think of any. If you can, now is the time to show us.

 

[Stripe]

Scattered disc objects such as Eris are KBO-like bodies with extremely large orbits that take them as far as 100 AU from the Sun. Their dynamic orbits occasionally force them into the inner Solar System, becoming first centaurs, and then short-period comets.

And this is exactly the idea that is rejected and this rejection led to the prediction spoken of. But then if you'd bothered to read what you're so eager to deny you'd already know that.

But, of course, we only see the ones that currently have disturbed orbits. There would have to be many, many more out there, to produce the number of long-period comets we see.

Or perhaps your assumption is wrong. :idunno:

Sounds interesting. How do you get chunks of ice and dust up to maybe a few hundred kilometers across out of Earth's gravity, and up to a light year from the sun? Let's see some numbers here.

Dunno. How do you propose comets got where they are?

Actually, no, the evidence shows there are a lot more out there, and they get replenished from a large source. But...

Evidence? The evidence is the number of comets we have counted in the solar system (= not enough). Your assumption is that there are a lot more. Your assumption is not evidence. :nono:

Scattered disc objects such as Eris are KBO-like bodies with extremely large orbits that take them as far as 100 AU from the Sun. Their dynamic orbits occasionally force them into the inner Solar System, becoming first centaurs, and then short-period comets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt

And such an event has never been recorded .. only assumed .. because a source is required. Much simpler to just stick with what we have and the known source.

In fact, you haven't a clue about the forces that would be required, or the consequences for the Earth, have you?

The forces required would be well above and beyond anything we see in operation today. The consequences for life on earth would be catastrophic. I have thought the consequences through. All my studies are based on the assumption of a global cataclysm in ancient times.

Can't think of any. If you can, now is the time to show us.

Actually it's time you showed some understanding of what has been presented. All you've done is googled links to post and posted responses to questions that are already answered.

If you want to talk about the nature of Noah's flood, start a thread and I'll eagerly join in. For the time being though, let's stay on topic. :up:

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian cites:
Scattered disc objects such as Eris are KBO-like bodies with extremely large orbits that take them as far as 100 AU from the Sun. Their dynamic orbits occasionally force them into the inner Solar System, becoming first centaurs, and then short-period comets.

And this is exactly the idea that is rejected and this rejection led to the prediction spoken of.

It comes down to evidence. Tough game, but it works. Sorry about that.

Barbarian observes:
But, of course, we only see the ones that currently have disturbed orbits. There would have to be many, many more out there, to produce the number of long-period comets we see.

Or perhaps your assumption is wrong.

Evidence again. The aphelia of all observed long-term comets support that conclusion.

Barbarian suggests Stipe provide some evidence:
Sounds interesting. How do you get chunks of ice and dust up to maybe a few hundred kilometers across out of Earth's gravity, and up to a light year from the sun? Let's see some numbers here.

Dunno.

As usual.

How do you propose comets got where they are?

Accretion disk, gravitational interactions between matter in the disk. We can now watch this process in developing stars elsewhere.

Barbarian observes:
Actually, no, the evidence shows there are a lot more out there, and they get replenished from a large source. But...

Scattered disc objects such as Eris are KBO-like bodies with extremely large orbits that take them as far as 100 AU from the Sun. Their dynamic orbits occasionally force them into the inner Solar System, becoming first centaurs, and then short-period comets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt

Eris is about 25,000 km in diameter, mostly water ice, with dust and rock.

Evidence?

That's a lot of ice out there, um?

Barbarian observes:
In fact, you haven't a clue about the forces that would be required, or the consequences for the Earth, have you?

The forces required would be well above and beyond anything we see in operation today.

Ya think? In fact, I'd be please to hear any way to get that much water off the planet without killing everything on it. Show us how that happened.

The consequences for life on earth would be catastrophic. I have thought the consequences through.

Great. Let's be radically conservative and count only the directly observed amounts of water ice out there not on planets or moons. Comes to tens of thousands of cubic kilometers of ice. Tell us about the way it got off the Earth, and the energy involved. Then we'll take a look.

All my studies are based on the assumption of a global cataclysm in ancient times.

Now would be the time to show us your numbers.

Stipe asks:
So there's no way the comets could have originated on Earth?

Barbarian suggests:
Can't think of any. If you can, now is the time to show us.

Actually it's time you showed ...

Don't have anything, do you?

All you've done is googled links to post

Ah, the dreaded "E" word. Evidence. Offensive as it might be to you, that's how scientific issues are settled.

If you want to talk about the nature of Noah's flood, start a thread and I'll eagerly join in.

Right now, I'd be happy if you at least made an attempt to support your claim about comets.

 

[Jukia]

What is the escape velocity from the earth? What is the escape velocity from the solar system?

Hint: the escape velocity from the earth is about 25,000 miles per hour.

Which means, when we want something to reach escape velocity we apply some means of acceleration to the rocket ship over some period of time.
Per Walt Brown, that speed is there from the start, correct???
Anyone, anyone??

 

[Flipper]

...Hence 300 trillion hydrogen bombs worth of energy. I don't know whether Walt's estimation has a fudge factor as only a proportion of that will be converted into kinetic energy.

Interestingly, I used the impact calculator to figure out what the effects of an iron-cored meteor hitting the earth with the force of 300 trillion H-bombs would be like.

The comparison is not apples-to-apples, because the mechanism (impact vs eruption) is quite different, and the meteor's impact would release the energy in a single burst.

On the other hand, it's only a 900 mile diameter asteroid.

But, for the record, an observer standing 5,000 miles away from the impact site would have been totally incinerated by the fireball while being subject to an earthquake that is bigger than any other in recorded history.

 

[Stripe]

Back to GSweet's request for more information - this paper seems to think the search for extrasolar comets is worthwhile. I don't see any way that material can travel between stars. However it seems searches for incoming material is going on.

Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan say in their book, Comet, that no hyperbolic comets have been found. That was 1997.

 

[Stripe]

A comet is an aggregation of dust particles and ice. For these small parts to combine they need to have been travelling in the same direction at the same speed. Earth is a ready source of all comet materials and there are mechanisms that can launch those things into the sky. All one needs to allow for is a larger event to have expelled material into space. Whatever the problems are with the idea that comets started life on Earth, it is a far more testable assumption than guessing what might have happened in unseen areas of space millions of years ago.

 

[Jukia]

A comet is an aggregation of dust particles and ice. For these small parts to combine they need to have been travelling in the same direction at the same speed. Earth is a ready source of all comet materials and there are mechanisms that can launch those things into the sky. All one needs to allow for is a larger event to have expelled material into space. Whatever the problems are with the idea that comets started life on Earth, it is a far more testable assumption than guessing what might have happened in unseen areas of space millions of years ago.

And those mechanisms are what??

 

[Flipper]

Back to GSweet's request for more information - this paper seems to think the search for extrasolar comets is worthwhile. I don't see any way that material can travel between stars. However it seems searches for incoming material is going on.

You don't think stars can interact with each other gravitationally? Interesting.

 

[Stripe]

You don't think stars can interact with each other gravitationally? Interesting.

:squint:

You're weird.

 

[Jukia]

Stripe: An answer to my question in Post #91, thanks

 

[Stripe]

You're welcome.

 

[Jukia]

You're welcome.

No real answer, huh? Color me surprised again.

 

[Stripe]

No real answer, huh? Color me surprised again.

No, I have an answer and you well know what that answer is. I'm wondering if anyone else is interested in the actual topic...

 

[Jukia]

No, I have an answer and you well know what that answer is. I'm wondering if anyone else is interested in the actual topic...

And the answer is? Indulge me.

 

[Stripe]

And the answer is? Indulge me.

Start a thread and I'll happily jump in. :up:

 

[Jukia]

Start a thread and I'll happily jump in. :up:

No, you mentioned the mechanism in this thread dealing with comets. Just provide me with the mechanism.