Houston, we are not alone..

[Zkribbler]

We need to check if these Aliens are Muslims or Mexicans !

Don't forget, if they're Haitians, they have AIDS.

Moderator Action: Just a wee bit tasteless, don't you think? Please stay on topic or don't post at all.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Don't forget, if they're Haitians, they have AIDS.

Oh! Geez! I don't wanna get the Aids Fellas!

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It'd be really really really really really weird if the only life in the universe was on Earth and that's it.

Not really. I get how it could feel that way though.

In any case, the statement in question is not a hypothesis because it isn't testable. What differentiates "hypotheses" from the larger set of "propositions" is whether the proposition entails specific conditions to test for that could give us a result that definitely disproves the proposition. Some propositions (e.g, "the universe was intelligently designed") are unfalsifiable in principle, while others are only unfalsifiable given our current level of technology, theoretical understanding, etc.

But I thought you argued with me when I said it wasn't really a hypothesis?!?! What exactly is it that I said that you are disagreeing with then?

Oddly enough, its testability isn't really my objection to it because it could, at least in theory (oh god now I said theory), be tested. Look for life elsewhere.

 

[warpus]

It'd be really really really really weird because it means that a whole bunch of incredibly unlikely situations all happened over and over and over

Almost like it was scripted, you know? And that's weird because as far as we know the universe has no cause and no creator

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I think comets are primarily chunks of a water rich planet (crust and upper mantle) blasted into space during impacts. Imagine what the Earth was like during the late heavy bombardment 4 bya, objects several hundred kms wide slamming into the ocean. That should have produced a bunch of smaller rocks surrounded by ice flying around...and thats what we see. I dont believe the Oort Cloud is real, I think it was invented to explain comets.

Please let's not have this degenerate into more Babylonian fantasy. The long-term comets have to be somewhere while they're away from the inner regions of the Solar System. You do realize that the asteroid belt and Oort Cloud aren't like the science fiction movies, right? They're spread out over quite a large volume of space, but there are enough of them that it's not unreasonable to use the terms "belt" and "cloud".

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I think comets are primarily chunks of a water rich planet (crust and upper mantle) blasted into space during impacts. Imagine what the Earth was like during the late heavy bombardment 4 bya, objects several hundred kms wide slamming into the ocean. That should have produced a bunch of smaller rocks surrounded by ice flying around...and thats what we see. I dont believe the Oort Cloud is real, I think it was invented to explain comets.

Ice doesn't have to come from a source planet. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and Oxygen is high up the list as well. The reaction that yields water from those two is very favorable as well. This in turn means water is one of the most abundant chemical elements in the universe. It's everywhere and in huge quantities although typically is it not biologically available (it's locked inside minerals, for example).

You should trust the scientific consensus on whether or not the Oort cloud is real.

Ever see Europa Report? I can't vouch for the science, but it tried to present at least a plausible facade of realistic technology, before it descended into predictable (melo)drama. I thought it was pretty fun, on the whole.

It's okay on the science front once you get over the major concept - Europa is a frying pan of radiation. It was a big topic in the movie but they underplayed the severity of the problem to a mind boggling extent. For humans to get into its orbit they would have required a significantly larger spaceship to provide adequate shielding.

And they wouldn't have had to jettison the astronaut with NTO/Hydrazine on his suit. That mostly would have boiled off into space and while a dangerous situation, they would have protocols to deal this or would have figured something out on the fly. Spacesuits are tough, they could have cut off the top layer and been done with it in an hour or less.

 

[Broken_Erika]

I'm wondering how long until someone builds a ring station.. I suppose one of the main obstacles would be rocket payload(getting all the parts into orbit and assembled)

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'd venture a guess that any company or entity that is advanced enough (and funded enough) to build a ring station would have access to either really cheap launches or asteroidal materials for construction.

 

[Berzerker]

Please let's not have this degenerate into more Babylonian fantasy. The long-term comets have to be somewhere while they're away from the inner regions of the Solar System. You do realize that the asteroid belt and Oort Cloud aren't like the science fiction movies, right? They're spread out over quite a large volume of space, but there are enough of them that it's not unreasonable to use the terms "belt" and "cloud".

You do realize you're the one who keeps bringing them into other threads while blaming me? The Oort Cloud's alleged existence is irrelevant to Sitchin and Genesis - neither depend on it. Btw, I'm trying to have a discussion with the guy who runs Sitchiniswrong... He wont explain why VA 243 cant represent our solar system (well, other than his argument the star in it cant be the sun because he found a different symbol for the sun). See, now I'm degenerating the thread.

That 'somewhere' doesn't need to be a vast spherical cloud of trillions of comets out there following (I assume) much more circular orbits until some disturbance launches one into an extremely elliptical orbit.

Ice doesn't have to come from a source planet. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and Oxygen is high up the list as well. The reaction that yields water from those two is very favorable as well. This in turn means water is one of the most abundant chemical elements in the universe. It's everywhere and in huge quantities although typically is it not biologically available (it's locked inside minerals, for example).

I understand that, doesn't change my opinion on where comets come from. I read an article recently claiming the sun produces water vapor (steam) and may be responsible for water/ice/gas on the surfaces of planets and our Moon. So apparently the sun's temperature/pressure gradients allow for h2o (gas) to form and blow outward with the solar wind. Now at what point does water vapor leaving the sun form ice in our solar system? Seems like that point should have formed a planet, right? That point is the asteroid belt.

You should trust the scientific consensus on whether or not the Oort cloud is real.

It was invented to explain long term comets

From wiki:

Oort noted that the number of returning comets was far less than his model predicted, and this issue, known as "cometary fading", has yet to be resolved. No dynamical process are known to explain the smaller number of observed comets than Oort estimated.

Now thats a problem, wouldn't you agree?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The problem is that you are parroting scientific conjecture as if you have more than an inch deep understanding of what you are talking about.

Then you add a teaspoon of 'gotcha' condescension and voila, conversation over!

 

[hobbsyoyo]

This is the exact reason I asked if you really wanted to know more about this subject. I am not interested in talking to a hot air balloon.

 

[Broken_Erika]

This is the exact reason I asked if you really wanted to know more about this subject. I am not interested in talking to a hot air balloon.

So, in other words you don't want a hot air balloon ride?

 

[Berzerker]

The problem is that you are parroting scientific conjecture as if you have more than an inch deep understanding of what you are talking about.

Then you add a teaspoon of 'gotcha' condescension and voila, conversation over!

This is the exact reason I asked if you really wanted to know more about this subject. I am not interested in talking to a hot air balloon.

You should trust the scientific consensus on whether or not the Oort cloud is real.

Yeah, no condescension there... What exactly did I say to deserve all that?

Condescension - patronizing attitude or behavior. scoffing condescension by the "we know better than you" people.

Thats basically your entire argument...

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm not debating you.

Yes you are and you're wrong!

I just wish I could stop being a sheeple long enough to to see the light.

 

[Berzerker]

Can you quote me? I still dont understand why you're so upset.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You do realize you're the one who keeps bringing them into other threads while blaming me? The Oort Cloud's alleged existence is irrelevant to Sitchin and Genesis - neither depend on it. Btw, I'm trying to have a discussion with the guy who runs Sitchiniswrong... He wont explain why VA 243 cant represent our solar system (well, other than his argument the star in it cant be the sun because he found a different symbol for the sun). See, now I'm degenerating the thread.

I knew that would happen, since it's happened so many times before.

That 'somewhere' doesn't need to be a vast spherical cloud of trillions of comets out there following (I assume) much more circular orbits until some disturbance launches one into an extremely elliptical orbit.

There are many scientific facts that don't need to be the way they are. That doesn't stop them from being true, or very likely to be true (of course if we discover otherwise, the information will be corrected, disseminated to the public, and the scientific method will once more have worked as it's supposed to work).

I understand that, doesn't change my opinion on where comets come from. I read an article recently claiming the sun produces water vapor (steam) and may be responsible for water/ice/gas on the surfaces of planets and our Moon. So apparently the sun's temperature/pressure gradients allow for h2o (gas) to form and blow outward with the solar wind. Now at what point does water vapor leaving the sun form ice in our solar system? Seems like that point should have formed a planet, right? That point is the asteroid belt.

Oh, that's a new one. So now water forms on the Sun, gets blown out to the asteroid belt, and it makes comets? How about a link to this article?

I gave you the links for specific long-term comets months ago. These are comets whose orbits are tens of thousands of years long. I saw two of them when they swung by the inner solar system in the 1990s, and I know I wasn't imagining them. I was taking astronomy in college the year I saw Hale-Bopp. I don't use the word "awesome" very often... but seeing those comets, knowing what they were and how long they'd traveled to get to the inner Solar System and that they wouldn't return for tens of thousands of years... was awesome.

It was invented to explain long term comets

From wiki:



Now thats a problem, wouldn't you agree?

It was hypothesized to explain long-term comets. As I said, they have to come from somewhere. If there are not as many as hypothesized, that's something to investigate, not a reason to throw up one's hands and say, well, they were obviously lying about the existence of the Oort Cloud; it's a made-up fantasy and those comets that Valka says she saw in the 1990s weren't real.

Yeah, no condescension there... What exactly did I say to deserve all that?

Condescension - patronizing attitude or behavior. scoffing condescension by the "we know better than you" people.

Thats basically your entire argument...

Hobbsyoyo detailed it quite nicely where you're being condescending. You do realize that you're having an argument with a real rocket scientist, right? (Hobbsyoyo, not me; I make no claims about being a rocket scientist).

 

[Berzerker]

I knew that would happen, since it's happened so many times before.

I offered an opinion about the Oort Cloud and you started talking about the Babylonians again, not me. When was the last time we debated them? Years? Long time ago, I think that was the "In the Beginning" thread. While I wouldn't consider them off topic for this thread, I'm more interested in what we're finding in our solar system.

Oh, that's a new one. So now water forms on the Sun, gets blown out to the asteroid belt, and it makes comets? How about a link to this article?

I said comets were (could be) the crustal/upper mantle pieces of a water bearing planet(s) released during impacts - the late heavy bombardment would have sent plenty of water-rich debris into orbit around the sun. In exchange for losing some water and crust/mantle we got an influx of heavy radioactive material, plate tectonics and life. Something(s) sheared off most of our crust and much of our water about 4 bya. Thats why we have so little evidence of terrestrial rock before that period.

I didn't say water vapor comes off the sun (thats new research to me) to form comets, I said we should find a planet at the point in the solar system where the water vapor coming off the sun freezes/condenses. Instead we find an asteroid belt, one that is literally divided into a dry inner half and wet outer half. Thats fascinating... And our own sun may have supplied much of the water we do find. That would mean many stars are out there seeding their own systems with water.

I gave you the links for specific long-term comets months ago. These are comets whose orbits are tens of thousands of years long. I saw two of them when they swung by the inner solar system in the 1990s, and I know I wasn't imagining them. I was taking astronomy in college the year I saw Hale-Bopp. I don't use the word "awesome" very often... but seeing those comets, knowing what they were and how long they'd traveled to get to the inner Solar System and that they wouldn't return for tens of thousands of years... was awesome.

I understand there are long period comets, I just believe a more likely explanation is they were flung out there by events closer to the sun. I'd buy that before believing a vast spherical cloud of trillions of comets surround us.

It was hypothesized to explain long-term comets. As I said, they have to come from somewhere. If there are not as many as hypothesized, that's something to investigate, not a reason to throw up one's hands and say, well, they were obviously lying about the existence of the Oort Cloud; it's a made-up fantasy and those comets that Valka says she saw in the 1990s weren't real.

Lying? I think they're wrong. And didn't Oort originally suggest comets had a closer origin and were flung outward by Jupiter? I'd say his model has a problem, wouldn't you? I dont know how many comets he figured we should be seeing, but we aint seeing them.

Hobbsyoyo detailed it quite nicely where you're being condescending. You do realize that you're having an argument with a real rocket scientist, right? (Hobbsyoyo, not me; I make no claims about being a rocket scientist).

Where? He's telling me to just accept what the consensus says while accusing me of condescension? Thats the epitome of condescension. And now you're doing it... He's a rocket scientist, just accept what he says. No thanks, I'll think for myself.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm not an expert in comet formation and the Oort cloud but I know when someone's just having fun wasting everyone's time over a pointless argument they don't care to understand.

 

[Berzerker]

Your argument is pointless?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I offered an opinion about the Oort Cloud and you started talking about the Babylonians again, not me. When was the last time we debated them? Years? Long time ago, I think that was the "In the Beginning" thread. While I wouldn't consider them off topic for this thread, I'm more interested in what we're finding in our solar system.

Years? Try MONTHS. Not that many months, either.

I didn't say water vapor comes off the sun (thats new research to me) to form comets, I said we should find a planet at the point in the solar system where the water vapor coming off the sun freezes/condenses. Instead we find an asteroid belt, one that is literally divided into a dry inner half and wet outer half. Thats fascinating... And our own sun may have supplied much of the water we do find. That would mean many stars are out there seeding their own systems with water.

I concede that there are moons orbiting the gas giants that have liquid, but keep in mind that some of those liquids aren't water. There's lots of ice out there.

I understand there are long period comets, I just believe a more likely explanation is they were flung out there by events closer to the sun. I'd buy that before believing a vast spherical cloud of trillions of comets surround us.

Anything that is "flung out" will do one of three things:

1. It will keep going right out of the solar system;
2. It will crash into something (planet or moon or asteroid);
3. It will take up an orbit around the Sun.

The third option is what these long-term comets are doing. They're orbiting the Sun, and sometimes they get close enough for us to have a good look at them either through telescopes or by just looking up.

I have to ask why you find it so difficult to believe that the Oort Cloud is a possibility. You believe in the asteroid belt, and the Oort Cloud is essentially the same thing, only farther out. Both are basically debris fields where the Solar System's leftover material tends to orbit, and some of that debris periodically pays a visit to the inner solar system.

Lying? I think they're wrong. And didn't Oort originally suggest comets had a closer origin and were flung outward by Jupiter? I'd say his model has a problem, wouldn't you? I dont know how many comets he figured we should be seeing, but we aint seeing them.

Your attitude during all the time we've argued about this has suggested that you think the Oort Cloud is something that was made up - that it's not real. That puts you in disagreement with many scientists who are in a better position to understand this and figure out any discrepancies than you are.

Where? He's telling me to just accept what the consensus says while accusing me of condescension? Thats the epitome of condescension. And now you're doing it... He's a rocket scientist, just accept what he says. No thanks, I'll think for myself.

He's pointing out how you've been condescending, to me and to other people. I'm pointing out that he has more knowledge on matters related to our solar system and some of the ways we have of exploring and finding out answers. I'm not saying to take his word as gospel (doing one's own research is not a bad thing), but I am saying that in case of a disagreement, he's more likely to be right than he is wrong.

Your argument is pointless?

Of course he's not saying his own argument is pointless.