Is the Oort cloud real?

[Whirligig Girl]

xxxxxxxxx [Evolution, or if you are weird Spherical Earth or Gravity] is a theory. Not a fact. ... Hmm... Where i've last heard that line ?

Creation "Scientists". But let's not get into religion, I'm pretty sure that's against the rules.

Edited October 22, 2013 by GregroxMun

[Whirligig Girl]

The Oort cloud is not a hypothesis, it's just one of those sad theories that people aren't sure about, unlike gravity and evolution which although are a theory, they can pretty much be considered a fact. Yeah, even theories do sometimes have those layman's like [same-as-hypothesis] definition.

[Runboy]

Im surprised (Very surprised,actually) that nobody has voted "No" as an answer yet...

[fatfluffycat]

Im surprised (Very surprised,actually) that nobody has voted "No" as an answer yet...

I voted the" I don't know what it is" answer, but after I saw that 67 voted Yes, nobody for no, and 5 for the one I picked.

But then I wanted to be the only vote for No( for the lulz), but can't revote no

[JebidiahsBigSister]

The Oort cloud is not a nebula - it is a collection of debris from the formation of the solar system and it is as real and proven as the asteroid belt. There is nothing to believe or disbelieve here - it would be like saying that you disbelieve in Mars.

I strongly agree with the poster who referred you to Google. The first step in gaining knowledge is research (looking something up in a reliable source) rather than posting an opinion of something.

Here is some information about it from NASA

[MBobrik]

Creation "Scientists". But let's not get into religion, I'm pretty sure that's against the rules.

I am pretty sure that the very "X is only a theory, not a fact" line is against the rules. If not the rules of this forum, then certainly against the rules of sound reasoning.

Edited October 22, 2013 by MBobrik

[Wahgineer]

It's a Hypothesis, not a Theory. If it was a Theory, you'd consider it a Fact.

But isn't a Theory really just a Hypothesis with a moderate amount of proof behind it?

If I remember correctly:

Hypothesis= Unproven idea

Theory= Unproven idea with moderate proof behind it, but not enough for it to be considered fact.

[lajoswinkler]

Wow, what a stupid question. Oort cloud is a bunch of leftover debris which is the source of the comets. It might not have the exact qualities as we think it has (number of bodies, density, etc.) but it is out there. It has nothing to do with belief, for god sake.

LOL at some of the "arguments" around here. In the last few months I've seen several instances of people talking trash about Oort cloud. Is that some new crackpot fashion?

But isn't a Theory really just a Hypothesis with a moderate amount of proof behind it?

If I remember correctly:

Hypothesis= Unproven idea

Theory= Unproven idea with moderate proof behind it, but not enough for it to be considered fact.

Not exactly.

Hypothesis is a solid scientific presumption (or idea, if you like to call it that way) about something. It is unproven, but it is not in collision with known and proven things.

Theory is a set of explanations about a phenomenon, consistent with earlier proven things, that has solid foundations in empirical evidence. For example, the atomic theory, which explains how the world is made out of particles. Evolutionary theory, which explains how the life evolved. Tectonic theory, which explains the stuff we see today on the face of Earth by using model of tectonic plates.

Fact is an observational truth. "The world is made of particles". "Life evolved". "There was a landmass we call Pangea a long time ago".

Edited October 22, 2013 by lajoswinkler

[Wahgineer]

Hypothesis is a solid scientific presumption (or idea, if you like to call it that way) about something. It is unproven, but it is not in collision with known and proven things.

Theory is a set of explanations about a phenomenon, consistent with earlier proven things, that has solid foundations in empirical evidence. For example, the atomic theory, which explains how the world is made out of particles. Evolutionary theory, which explains how the life evolved. Tectonic theory, which explains the stuff we see today on the face of Earth by using model of tectonic plates.

Fact is an observational truth. "The world is made of particles". "Life evolved". "There was a landmass we call Pangea a long time ago".

1.(bold text) What was the point of explaining that?

2. Funny how you are stating theories as facts

3. If you ask me, a theory is an opinion with (some) proof to back it, but is still subject to change or even being proven as totally false. Hence why theories are called theories: there just isn't enough evidence for it to be considered a fact.

[SargeRho]

1: Because you are referring to Hypothesis by the name of Theory. Which is incorrect.

2: Because they are facts.

3: You're wrong. You're confusing the colloquial term "Theory" and "Scientific Theory".

"But isn't a Theory really just a Hypothesis with a moderate amount of proof behind it?"

No. A Theory is a hypothesis that has been shown to accurately describe reality. For all intents of purposes, it's proven.

[lajoswinkler]

1.(bold text) What was the point of explaining that?

2. Funny how you are stating theories as facts

3. If you ask me, a theory is an opinion with (some) proof to back it, but is still subject to change or even being proven as totally false. Hence why theories are called theories: there just isn't enough evidence for it to be considered a fact.

Sorry, but you don't know what theories are. Theories are not opinions. That would be a gross misinterpretation of the definition.

I had to explain what hypothesis is in order to proceed further.

[jwenting]

those comets don't care about whether we believe in them or not, so why bother?

[PakledHostage]

Wow, what a stupid question.

We're being trolled... It was a stupid question to begin with, then Deviation's first ever post conjured it up from the dead yesterday.

[Wahgineer]

1: Because you are referring to Hypothesis by the name of Theory. Which is incorrect.

2: Because they are facts.

3: You're wrong. You're confusing the colloquial term "Theory" and "Scientific Theory".

"But isn't a Theory really just a Hypothesis with a moderate amount of proof behind it?"

No. A Theory is a hypothesis that has been shown to accurately describe reality. For all intents of purposes, it's proven.

There is a lot of stuff I could dredge up to disprove the theory of evolution.

[PakledHostage]

There is a lot of stuff I could dredge up to disprove the theory of evolution.

I see your troll and raise you one. Please go on?

Edited October 22, 2013 by PakledHostage

[SargeRho]

No, you couldn't. Also that'd warrant an extra thread. We're talking about star formation and the oort cloud, not Evolution in this thread. I think, anyway, I recall something like that in the first post.

[MBobrik]

But isn't a Theory really just a Hypothesis with a moderate amount of proof behind it?

If I remember correctly:

Hypothesis= Unproven idea

Theory= Unproven idea with moderate proof behind it, but not enough for it to be considered fact.

yeah like the germ theory of disease, gravity or spherical earth

FIY science is not in the business of proving stuff. that is either mathematics or the prosecutor

Science only proposes hypotheses, tests them against empirical data and estimates the probability of the hypotheses according to the results.

You can not provide absolute proof from empirical data because there is always a non-zero probability of error or another hypothesis giving indistinguishable results for all previous tests.

Edited October 22, 2013 by MBobrik

[lajoswinkler]

oh god not this **** again

[MBobrik]

3. If you ask me, a theory is an opinion with (some) proof to back it, but is still subject to change or even being proven as totally false.

each and every human empirical knowledge is like that. absolute proofs happen only in the realm of mathematics

.

@lajoswinkler don't worry. this thread will last only as long as moderator's nap

Edited October 22, 2013 by MBobrik

[Holo]

Would it be possible or feasible to mine the Oort cloud?

[czokletmuss]

Poll: Do you believe in the Oort cloud?

Oort cloud? BLASPHEMY! There are no clouds in space!

Seriously though - according to what we know about solar formation it should exist. But we may be wrong, of course.

[Rjhere]

Those long period comets have to come from somewhere, the Oort cloud seems the best candidate as a source for them and objects like Sedna. Haven't we observed Oort clouds around other stars?

They come from the Kupier belt, which is approximately where Pluto-Charon is at it's farthest point in orbit.

[Ralathon]

They come from the Kupier belt, which is approximately where Pluto-Charon is at it's farthest point in orbit.

Those are short period comets. With an orbital period of 200 or less years. They're all in rougly the same orbital plane suggesting they come from the kuiper belt.

I was talking about long period comets. Those have highly inclined orbits and have huge periods lasting tens of thousands of years. This suggests that they came from a lot further out and from a spherical cloud instead of a ring. In other words, the Oort cloud.

[jwenting]

Would it be possible or feasible to mine the Oort cloud?

it's bloody far away, and probably not very densely populated. As such, it'd not be very economical.

But apart from that, if and when we can create engines that are efficient enough to get there and back, I see no reason it'd not be possible. But read above, it'd probably not be economically viable.

[Rjhere]

Those are short period comets. With an orbital period of 200 or less years. They're all in rougly the same orbital plane suggesting they come from the kuiper belt.

I was talking about long period comets. Those have highly inclined orbits and have huge periods lasting tens of thousands of years. This suggests that they came from a lot further out and from a spherical cloud instead of a ring. In other words, the Oort cloud.

Yea those are either interstellar comets, or they are Oort cloud objects orbiting the sun.