Genesis and Other Creation Myths

[Senethro]

Anyone want to calculate the density of a trillion objects in a 1.5ly sphere?

 

[Arakhor]

Not especially, thanks.

 

[Leoreth]

Why don't the cranks argue with each other instead? I suggest picking an argument with the compressed historians who might disagree that the renaissance astronomers were different people.

Spoiler :

 

[Valka D'Ur]

How did you interpret "the Oort Cloud was invented to explain long term comets" to mean there are no comets or Kuiper Belt?

You keep insisting that the area of the solar system where they come from doesn't exist.

I see, you're actually a charming person in real life and I'm to blame for your internet persona.

My internet persona and RL persona are not very different when confronted by someone who insists that pseudoscientific nonsense is more valid than real science.

I was talking to other people... I couldn't remember your name and it wasn't readily available and I dont have a list of your pre-approved nicknames. You're the only person around here I've encountered who even cares.

As with all of us, my name is in the sidebar beside my posts. Even if you have avatars disabled and are ignoring someone, you can still see the username. Using 'quote' or 'multiquote' will automatically add the username to the text or images you're quoting.

There are some folks here who call me by various nicknames, and I don't mind that. I consider those people to be friends, and trust that if I asked them not to use a particular variation of my name, they would respect my request.

Seneca claimed some of the ancients believed comets resulted from the union of 2 planets. You think Seneca is unqualified to report on what others believed? What are your qualifications? How did this become a competition between Seneca and modern astronomers?

Seneca could claim that someone once told him they'd seen pink and purple bunny rabbits. That doesn't mean that Imperial Rome had pink and purple bunny rabbits.

Instead of using Seneca as your authority, you should be using the people he's referring to. In all the reading I've done about astronomers either past or present, Seneca's name has only ever come up in your posts.

And according to the article, the most popular theory suggests long term comets originated near Jupiter. So are we to believe Jupiter ejected upward of a trillion comets into a vast cloud surrounding us reaching half way to the next star?

If we had a trillion comets surrounding us, why dont we see a bunch all at once? If they become dislodged from the cloud and sent our way by a passing star or galactic tidal bulge, why dont we see thousands at a time, or millions? So far we've found a few thousand total and most of them are local with no apparent connection to the Oort Cloud. How many of these Oort Cloud comets have we seen visit us?

Long-range comets are considered to be those whose orbits exceed 200 years. The really short-term comets are thought to mostly reside in the asteroid belt, or maybe as far out as the distance between Jupiter and Saturn. The longer-term comets have the Kuiper Belt. But the really long-term comets take thousands of years to make one orbit - for example, Hyakutake used to take about 17,000 years for one orbit... but thanks to orbital disturbances from the gas giants, it won't be back for about 70,000 years.

I'm not going to be around to see it in 70,000 years. Unless you're somehow immortal, neither will you. Even Hale-Bopp won't be back for approximately 2500 years. For that matter, I don't expect to live long enough to see the next appearance of Halley's Comet.

So no, we don't see all these comets all the time. They take a really long time to complete one orbit, and sometimes they're not very bright.

 

[classical_hero]

You keep insisting that the area of the solar system where they come from doesn't exist.

Has it been observed? Simple question.

 

[Senethro]

Has it been observed? Simple question.

Since when did you use that standard for anything?

 

[El_Machinae]

You keep insisting that the area of the solar system where they come from doesn't exist.

I don't think he said it doesn't exist. He said that the Oort Cloud is currently an idea.

 

[warpus]

It's a scientific theory, isn't it?

 

[Borachio]

Ah yes. Well, only in theory, then, does it exist.

Theoretically.

Which means "not at all". As we all know.

Spoiler :

I'm joking! In practice, I don't mean a word of it.

 

[Arakhor]

Since when did you use that standard for anything?

Well, it's just a variant on the same old tired chestnut that Ken Ham likes to teach children ("were you there?") to attempt to shut down any conversation that doesn't start and end with the God of Genesis, so I can quite see CH thinking that that's a logical counterpoint in this sort of conversation.

 

[Borachio]

Link to video.

I like this guy.

But would I want him to mend my car? Or cook a meal?

 

[warpus]

I know you're joking Borachio, but let's look at what a scientific theory is anyway:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Note how it says it doesn't need to be necessarily directly observed.

But also note the super high standards of "scientific theory" membership. Much higher than just a "regular theory". It can be said that a scientific theory is basically describing a scientific fact, so they sort of need to be. For example, this particular theory is explaining factual data (comet movements, etc.)

As such the Oort cloud is basically equivalent to "where some types of comets come from and/or hang out" or something similar. The data the theory is based on is solid, so the thing definitely exists. Right? I mean, maybe it's not an actual cloud or anything similar.. I mean, how could it be? It's just a bunch of tiny comets, and not a crazy amazing amount of them either.

So isn't this a case of "The oort cloud exists, but we just haven't figured out everything about it" and not "we have no idea if this thing exists" ?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I don't think he said it doesn't exist. He said that the Oort Cloud is currently an idea.

I'm surprised at you calling a theory "an idea."

Comets don't just pop into existence near the Earth. They had an origin, and they exist. We don't see very many of them here because most of them have orbits that are far longer than a human lifetime. And now most people live in light-polluted cities and aren't likely to be able to see any but the very brightest ones, unless they have a telescope.

So these comets have to exist somewhere. Until someone else comes up with a better theory based on the data we have so far, I don't see anything wrong with the Oort Cloud.

It's a scientific theory, isn't it?

Yes.

Well, it's just a variant on the same old tired chestnut that Ken Ham likes to teach children ("were you there?") to attempt to shut down any conversation that doesn't start and end with the God of Genesis, so I can quite see CH thinking that that's a logical counterpoint in this sort of conversation.

If I were ever to have a chance to ask that idiot anything, it would be "were you there?" when he starts spouting his creationist nonsense.

Fossils and data from radiometric dating are evidence. Some book based on a variety of tales heavily borrowed from the oral traditions of numerous ancient civilizations is not evidence of anything except people making up stories. It's not as if astronomers, geologists, and many others haven't tried to figure out if there's any data to support the Old Testament's claims.

 

[Berzerker]

You keep insisting that the area of the solar system where they come from doesn't exist.

Space exists, I have my doubts about a cloud of a trillion comets

My internet persona and RL persona are not very different when confronted by someone who insists that pseudoscientific nonsense is more valid than real science.

So you're rude in real life, you must be so proud Would you like some examples of your real science? Nobody can see planets beyond Saturn without a telescope. That was your first post, you started off making mistakes and haven't stopped.

Now igneous rocks prove the world could not be covered in water 4.4 bya even though we have igneous rocks forming under water right now. How does that work?

I believe there's a good chance the proto-Earth formed at the asteroid belt and was surrounded by water, it had an ocean far deeper than what we have now. Possibly hundreds of miles deep, kinda like a big Europa.

I also believe the idea Jupiter's gravity prevented the formation of a planet at the asteroid belt is wrong, the snow line of the early solar system was the asteroid belt, not twice as far away. But Jupiter was the primary beneficiary of the collision as vapor and debris collected on and around it.

As with all of us, my name is in the sidebar beside my posts. Even if you have avatars disabled and are ignoring someone, you can still see the username. Using 'quote' or 'multiquote' will automatically add the username to the text or images you're quoting.

I wasn't looking at or quoting your post, I was responding to someone else. I just explained this.

Seneca could claim that someone once told him they'd seen pink and purple bunny rabbits. That doesn't mean that Imperial Rome had pink and purple bunny rabbits.

Seneca was reporting what others believed, if they believed in purple bunny rabbits and thats what he reported, who are to say he lied or was mistaken? And then you claimed modern astronomers are a better authority than Seneca. How would they know any more than you?

Instead of using Seneca as your authority, you should be using the people he's referring to. In all the reading I've done about astronomers either past or present, Seneca's name has only ever come up in your posts.

Seneca was a source for what Democritus and others said and believed. Why does that disqualify him? Are you suggesting the only valid history books were written by the people actually experiencing the history?

So no, we don't see all these comets all the time. They take a really long time to complete one orbit, and sometimes they're not very bright.

I didn't say we see them all the time. I asked if the Oort Cloud was real and comets from it arrive largely due to disturbances from passing stars etc, why dont we see a bunch of them arriving at the same time? Can a passing star dislodge 1 or 2 comets at a time? Why dont passing objects dislodge dozens at a time, or hundreds, thousands, or even millions?

Comets don't just pop into existence near the Earth. They had an origin, and they exist.

Many proponents of the Oort Cloud think the long term comets originated near Jupiter.

So these comets have to exist somewhere. Until someone else comes up with a better theory based on the data we have so far, I don't see anything wrong with the Oort Cloud.

These comets exist in their orbits, you dont need a vast cloud of a trillion comets reaching half way to the next star to explain them.

If I were ever to have a chance to ask that idiot anything, it would be "were you there?" when he starts spouting his creationist nonsense.

Were you there?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Space exists, I have my doubts about a cloud of a trillion comets

Based on what? All I see is you sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la-la-la, I don't believe in more than a few thousand comets, because they should all be coming here and we'd see lots of them!"

So you're rude in real life, you must be so proud Would you like some examples of your real science? Nobody can see planets beyond Saturn without a telescope. That was your first post, you started off making mistakes and haven't stopped.

In my offline life, the only person who consistently kept harping on ancient aliens and Chariots of the Gods garbage was my father. He kept trying to get me to read some stupid tabloid thing or watch a "documentary" about flying saucers. At least after the third or fourth time of "No, I don't want to read/watch that," he shut up and changed the subject. You're like the Energizer Bunny that can't take a hint.

As for Uranus, a link was provided, and I acknowledged it. But the article also said that while people may have seen Uranus, that doesn't mean they knew what they were looking at. And it still wasn't accepted as official until 1781 - well after the invention of the telescope.

Now igneous rocks prove the world could not be covered in water 4.4 bya even though we have igneous rocks forming under water right now. How does that work?

Where's your source for igneous rocks forming underwater?

I believe there's a good chance the proto-Earth formed at the asteroid belt and was surrounded by water, it had an ocean far deeper than what we have now. Possibly hundreds of miles deep, kinda like a big Europa.

"I believe." Source?

I also believe the idea Jupiter's gravity prevented the formation of a planet at the asteroid belt is wrong, the snow line of the early solar system was the asteroid belt, not twice as far away. But Jupiter was the primary beneficiary of the collision as vapor and debris collected on and around it.

More "beliefs." Source, please.

I wasn't looking at or quoting your post, I was responding to someone else. I just explained this.

Regardless of your reasons, could you just understand that you addressed/referenced me by a nickname I don't want you (or anyone else) to use? Instead of getting snide and digging in about it, all that was required from you was some acknowledgment of that request and a promise not to do it again.

Seneca was reporting what others believed, if they believed in purple bunny rabbits and thats what he reported, who are to say he lied or was mistaken? And then you claimed modern astronomers are a better authority than Seneca. How would they know any more than you?

Your use of Seneca as an authority is basically meaningless. He wasn't an astronomer. Let's hear from the people he was talking about. Primary sources, in other words.

I didn't say we see them all the time. I asked if the Oort Cloud was real and comets from it arrive largely due to disturbances from passing stars etc, why dont we see a bunch of them arriving at the same time? Can a passing star dislodge 1 or 2 comets at a time? Why dont passing objects dislodge dozens at a time, or hundreds, thousands, or even millions?

Most astronomers accept that the Oort Cloud exists. Each comet has its own individual orbit, and just because one is disturbed, that doesn't mean another will be, or if it is, that its new orbit will be identical. You do realize that areas like the asteroid belt and other "belt regions" of the solar system aren't crowded like they're portrayed in science fiction movies, right? It's mostly empty space between all these rocks and frozen snowballs. And sometimes we do get more comets than normal, but they're not necessarily visible to the naked eye. I feel very fortunate to have seen two of them so close together. Unless we get cracking on our manned space programs and get people out into the solar system, nobody currently alive on Earth will ever see these comets without a telescope ever again.

These comets exist in their orbits, you dont need a vast cloud of a trillion comets reaching half way to the next star to explain them.

What part of 'that's where their orbits are at aphelion' is so hard to understand? Some comets' orbits are so long-term that it will take tens of thousands of years for them to make one orbit.

Were you there?

Where?

 

[bhavv]

Cease your petty arguing this instant!

For the universe as we know it was created from a lotus flower.

Source - Hinduism.

 

[Berzerker]

For the universe as we know it was created from a lotus flower.

Source - Hinduism.

http://www.read-legends-and-myths.com/hindu-creation-myth.html

The Hindu creation myth says that before this time began, there was no heaven, no earth and no space between. A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges of the night.

A giant Cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu. He was watched over by the mighty serpent. Everything was so silent and peaceful that Vishnu slept undisturbed by dreams motion. From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Ohm. It grew and spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy.

The night had ended, Vishnu awoke. As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu's navel grew a magnificent lotus flower. In the middle of the blossom sat Vishnu's servant, Brahma. he awaited the Lord's command.

Vishnu spoke to his servant: "It's time to begin", Brahma vowed. Vishnu commanded: "Create the world". A wind swept the waters. Vishnu and the serpent vanished.

Brahma remained in the lotus flower, floating and tossing on the sea. He lifted up his arms and calmed the wind and the ocean. Then Brahma split the lotus flower into three. He stretched one part into the heavens. He made another part into the earth. with the third part of the flower he created the skies.

Its the same myth, a dark, water covered world whipped by the wind becomes the stretched out Heaven and the Earth (dry land) with its sky.

 

[Berzerker]

Based on what? All I see is you sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la-la-la, I don't believe in more than a few thousand comets, because they should all be coming here and we'd see lots of them!"

You're using quotes around something I never said. I already explained why, I dont believe a trillion comets could form a vast cloud reaching half way to the next star if they originated near Jupiter.

How do these comets end up in roughly circular orbits way beyond everything else if they were launched out there by Jupiter's gravity? Wouldn't most (or all) end up on highly elliptical orbits returning to the solar system proper or get ejected?

If this cloud exists, we'd see more than a handful of these comets paying us occasional visits - we'd see them in bunches. A star or something significant passing by or thru this cloud would dislodge many, many comets, not 1, or 2...

As for Uranus, a link was provided, and I acknowledged it. But the article also said that while people may have seen Uranus, that doesn't mean they knew what they were looking at. And it still wasn't accepted as official until 1781 - well after the invention of the telescope.

You said 7 referred to the Sun, Moon and 5 planets. There were 8...

Where's your source for igneous rocks forming underwater?

The seafloor is mostly igneous rock

Where Igneous Rocks Are Found

The deep sea floor (the oceanic crust) is made almost entirely of basaltic rocks, with peridotite underneath in the mantle.

http://geology.about.com/cs/basics_roxmin/a/aa011804a.htm

You really shouldn't be mocking people for not knowing the "real science".

"I believe." Source?

I already answered that and provided links in post 135... The short version is: our water came from the asteroid belt. But there are a number of sources ranging from creation myths - like Genesis describing a world covered in water and darkness - to the "real science".

More "beliefs." Source, please.

Observations of the asteroid belt, located between Mars and Jupiter, suggest that the water snow line during formation of Solar System was located within this region. The outer asteroids are icy C-class objects (e.g. Abe et al. 2000; Morbidelli et al. 2000) whereas the inner asteroid belt is largely devoid of water. This implies that when planetesimal formation occurred the snow line was located at around 2.7 AU from the Sun.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frost_line_(astrophysics)

Regardless of your reasons, could you just understand that you addressed/referenced me by a nickname I don't want you (or anyone else) to use? Instead of getting snide and digging in about it, all that was required from you was some acknowledgment of that request and a promise not to do it again.

Now you demand promises? I didn't get snide, I said you demand courtesy as you mock others. You want to be treated with respect while you insult people. Lamenting your hypocrisy is not being snide. So stop your griping or direct it at someone who cares.

Your use of Seneca as an authority is basically meaningless. He wasn't an astronomer. Let's hear from the people he was talking about. Primary sources, in other words.

I'm not using Seneca as an authority on astronomy, just an authority on what others believed. If the primary sources were available I'd use them. Your logic requires us to ignore every book about the past if the authors weren't there recording events as they happened.

What part of 'that's where their orbits are at aphelion' is so hard to understand?

Having an aphelion out that far does not mean there's a trillion comets out there too waiting to be dislodged.

Where?

Looking over Seneca's shoulder as he recorded some of the existing opinions about comets. Or anywhere else, like when the first telescope was used. The question you want to ask the creationist applies to you too.

 

[Arakhor]

If you're going to be snarky, Berzerker, absolutely no one can see planets beyond Saturn, even if people could see something that later turned out to be Uranus.

 

[Senethro]

If you're going to be snarky, Berzerker, absolutely no one can see planets beyond Saturn, even if people could see something that later turned out to be Uranus.

Exactly. They did not see them, therefore, Bronze Age Gravity Detectors.

Its obvious really.