The last twenty-four hours has brought yet more reports either supporting the notion of a super-Jovian trans-Neptunian gas giant, reviving the old Nemesis theory in a different form, or merely suggesting that such a planet might still be possible, however doubtful the proposition might appear.
To recap: John Matese and Daniel Whitmire, of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, submitted this paper, ten months ago, to ICARUS, suggesting that a super-Jovian object might be causing certain near-parabolic comets to enter the solar system at high angles of inclination. (This blog entry at Time.com incorrectly says that Matese and Whitmire are "writing in ICARUS." They won't be "writing in ICARUS" unless and until ICARUS actually publishes their submission.) A number of other astronomers have expressed doubt about their find, and pointed out that they are merely inferring this object from a number of deviating comets, and an average magnitude of deviation, that might not even be statistically significant.
That has not stopped the speculation, as these submissions from AccuWeather.com, Time.com, PC Magazine, and Universe Today indicate. But Mike Wall at Space.com has reported on a new twist on the old Nemesis theory (about a brown-dwarf star in orbit around the Sun and having a 26-million-year period, corresponding allegedly with "extinction-level events" in the fossil column). According to John Bochanski of Pennsylvania State University, the real Nemesis might not a brown dwarf in orbit around the Sun, but an M-type red dwarf passing close by the Sun. (The late Isaac Asimov used that premise in one of his novels in the 1980s.) Wall quotes Bochanski:
The probability of an M dwarf running into the sun is essentially zero. But if one just came close, it could still cause comet showers.
And according to Bochanski, out of 40,000 nearby M-type stars, 18 are in orbits that could in theory bring them close enough to earth, within a billion years, to dislodge a "shower" of comets from the hypothetical Oort cloud and send them falling toward the earth.
The real issue, as Peter Pachal of PC Magazine acknowledges, is that the Oort cloud cannot explain the behavior of every observed long-period comet in the solar system. Classic Oort cloud theory says that "galactic tides" cause comets to leave the Oort cloud and fall toward earth. Matese and Whitmire noticed several comets behaving in an unpredicated manner: they are falling in at the wrong time for "galactic tides," and they are falling in at high angles of inclination that "galactic tides" would not produce.
But, as usual with conventional astronomers, they are not thinking out of the "box" that the conventional narrative sets up for all astronomers to work in. Nor do they reckon with many flaws in classic Oort cloud theory that even a new planet, or a red-dwarf passer-by, cannot explain:
- Near-parabolic comets always observed for the first time only, never the second or third time.
- Comet perihelions are random in direction. Therefore, they can't all come from the one place in the sky where Planet Tyche, or a star called Nemesis, ought to be.)
- No comet has ever come in on a hyperbolic trajectory.
- The perihelions are far too precise for a Tyche or a Nemesis to have produced them. A "shower of comets" would be much more likely to swing wide of the mark.
Add to it that no conventional astronomer has yet proposed a satisfactory model for comet formation, and that the Oort cloud cannot explain "Jupiter's family" or other "short period" comets (like Comet Halley, with its orbital period of 76 years). Granted, most astronomers would prefer to invoke the Kuiper Belt as a source of short-period comets. But the Oort cloud cannot even explain the long-period comets satisfactorily.
Once again: the simplest explanation is that all comets, of whatever period, formed from rock, mud and water ejected from earth in the breakout phase of the Global Flood. Neither Tyche nor Nemesis is necessary.
Like this article? Want to be notified of more? Click Subscribe, above.
Comments
thanks for this, your final paragraph was HIlarious, and I enjoy a good out loud laugh. Clearly the simplest explanation is your wild speculation, from one book, that my ancestors the desert nomads wrote. It couldn't be undiscovered features of our solar system. I mean, we live on Earth, it is tough to get solid info on the entire Heliosphere with just a short time of observation (yea, I'm calling the last 5-600 years a short period of time, especially b/c we have only had decently powered telescopes for the last few decades). Keep up the good work, I'm sure you'll win lots of coverts with your evidence free claims. Or is your point to provide cover to people who are looking to ignore better information? Would never claim astronomers can explain all features of the world or universe, only religion makes such outlandish & hubristic claims
“The real issue, as Peter Pachal of PC Magazine acknowledges, is that the Oort cloud cannot explain the behavior of every observed long-period comet in the solar system.”
PC Magazine? As in "Personal Computing?" Does that make the comet behavior enigma a hardware or a software problem? It's always good to hear from an expert on these matters.
(continued) Good ol' Peter Pachal. I loved his recent article "Sony PlayStation Suite Enables Gaming on Android Phones".
In my internets voyages of the past few days this is the only place I have seen discussing the planet 'hoopla'.
I subscribe to NASA news briefs and there hasn't been a hint.
Terry wrote: "Once again: the simplest explanation is that all comets, of whatever period, formed from rock, mud and water ejected from earth in the breakout phase of the Global Flood."
This is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh, bro.
---"the simplest explanation is that all comets, of whatever period, formed from rock, mud and water ejected from earth in the breakout phase of the Global Flood."
Except since that's utterly contradictory with reality, and has been pointed out numerous times over, the "simplest explanation" you proposed is a total waste of time. However we can even go one better: Goddidit with magic.
Holy Macaroni! You non-believers will try any convoluted and twisted "theory" you can devise to deny the simple reality: "comets" are nothing but meatballs that the FSM left in the freezer too long and have become frost-burned - so in his Noodley Goodness, he tosses them toward the sun to that and recook.
It's all so OBVIOUS!!!!
I had never heard this before.
Yeah, and there's a very good reason for that.
As always, a bit over my head.. but giving you a page view.
COMETS came from ROCKS, ejected by the FLOOD. I was educated in christian schools, and it is stuff like this that opened by eyes to the real truth of our world. So thanks Terry, hopefully some other christians out there are starting to go "huh?" and really investigate our universe with some discernment, and not the ridiculous stuff you say to support your belief in the bible.I know christians can't be wrong about this stuff because it will shake the fundamental belief on which your entire life is based but until you really face the evidence staring you in the face, and REALLY try to answer the questions that seem to refute the creation theory, you are not being honest with yourself. examine the evidence for the evidence, and stop trying to warp it fit your biblical view of the universe, let it speak for itself... what are you afraid of?
It is about 1 light year away from the Sun, and we don't know that it exists. There is no direct evidence that it exists.
Oort is something made up to explain the existance of comets in our solar system. Comets only last so long, well under a million years as I remember. New comets forming have never been observed, and, as far as the evidence indicates, can only form when the solar system is formed. If the solar system is billions of years old there shouldn't be any comets left, so the oort cloud, real or not, was an academic necessity to explain the presence of comets today.
EVERY BIT of evidence for the existence of the Oort Cloud is contained in the following statements:
"The solar system is 4.5 billion years old. A comet can only survive a limited number of close approaches to the Sun before hitting a planet, or the Sun, or disintegrating. However, there are still comets! Therefore, there must be some vast reservoir of comet-like objects somewhere and some mechanism that causes these objects to fall into the inner solar system.
Astronomer Jan Oort assumed that the reservoir of comet-like objects waiting in deep space is probably far beyond the orbit of Pluto. In his honor, the area of unborn comets is called the Oort Cloud."
There is no direct evidence for the Oort Clouds existance.
---"If the solar system is billions of years old there shouldn't be any comets left"
Okay, so that's not the stupidest thing I've ever heard, but still pretty stupid.
So let's skip all the coy banter and let's just openly admit that you're a Young Earther who rejects science in favour of Goddidit with magic. In which case God created everything and everything has a purpose. But does that really explain comets? What was the mechanism behind all this? What is the purpose of each and every one of these comets and planets and asteroids? And the rest of the universe for that matter? For that matter can you provide any evidence? Or is it just your favourite book is true because it says so and science is wrong so therefore Goddidit?
interesting theories thank you
Great opinions Terry... Everybody's got one ;)
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!