Reply #7 to this thread by "D H":
See also reply #6 by "cesiumfrog":
Parlyne writes:
Did you read any of the previous few posts in order to understand what we are talking about before you decided to chime in Parlyne?
Let's go over this again... Cesiumfrog believes:
"their (a comet's)...
Jim Ostrowski wrote:
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 known dynamical process can explain this undercount of observed comets.
Well ? Cat got everybody's tongue...
Are we boring you?
It sounds like you are alleging that this article contradicts something I or CF said...?
The assertion that all known comets orbit the sun is indeed based on observation and Newtonian physics. The idea that they exist for long periods of time in areas far beyond the orbit...
Indeed yes. On that same page it also says:
What if the real origin of comets was not the hypothesized cloud, because if that were true it would be difficult to account for their volatile compositions and the above mentioned undercount, but rather more likely they were originally launched...
Cesiumfrog wrote:
What argument is there that circular orbits for comets are their "natural" state if there are so few (or maybe none) of them which can be observed and checked for orbital characteristics out there in the spherical cloud to begin with?
Well, that's my point exactly D. H. Very elliptical orbits I might add.
So then why is it necessary to believe in the idea that they all exist in a spherical shell called the Oort Cloud when the observed situation is that all known comets are in highly elliptical orbits around the sun...
Last week there was a documentary program on Nat Geo I believe having to do with the composition and origins of comets. The narrative seemed to imply that comets originate within & are rather randomly dislodged from a spherical shell around the Solar System called the Oort cloud. This...