Starship Asterisk*

I noticed recently a discrepancy in Wikipedia concerning the distribution of postulated Oort Cloud objects. The first illustration shows a homeogeneous spherical distribution beyond the Kuiper belt with a disk concentration called the Hill Cloud. A second illustration indicates a spherical shell with some thickness at 1 ly radius. Which distribution is currently favored or is this distribution just a total guess ? Or is scientific thinking moving toward a combination of both ideas ?

Doug

dougettinger wrote:I noticed recently a discrepancy in Wikipedia concerning the distribution of postulated Oort Cloud objects. The first illustration shows a homeogeneous spherical distribution beyond the Kuiper belt with a disk concentration called the Hill Cloud. A second illustration indicates a spherical shell with some thickness at 1 ly radius. Which distribution is currently favored or is this distribution just a total guess ? Or is scientific thinking moving toward a combination of both ideas ?

There is no discrepancy. Read the section on structure again. The Oort cloud is divided into inner and outer regions based on differences in structure. The Hills cloud is the toroidal inner part; the outer part is spherical (not really a shell, although the very central portion has been cleared by the presence of the planets- if it's a shell, its walls are nearly as thick as its radius).

Chris Peterson wrote:

dougettinger wrote:I noticed recently a discrepancy in Wikipedia concerning the distribution of postulated Oort Cloud objects. The first illustration shows a homeogeneous spherical distribution beyond the Kuiper belt with a disk concentration called the Hill Cloud. A second illustration indicates a spherical shell with some thickness at 1 ly radius. Which distribution is currently favored or is this distribution just a total guess ? Or is scientific thinking moving toward a combination of both ideas ?

There is no discrepancy. Read the section on structure again. The Oort cloud is divided into inner and outer regions based on differences in structure. The Hills cloud is the toroidal inner part; the outer part is spherical (not really a shell, although the very central portion has been cleared by the presence of the planets- if it's a shell, its walls are nearly as thick as its radius).

Hello Chris and other Oort Cloud officionos,

I read Wikipedia because it helps me quickly stay current with present popular theories or ideas. The Wikipedia's article for the Oort cloud now uses as its first illustration a cloud represented by a homeogeneous distribution except for the planetary region. I, in fact, can accept this version of an Oort Cloud because it agrees with my own version of solar system formation.

However, the 2nd illustration is very mis-leading. The illustration shows a distinct spherical shell very far from Sedna's orbit at the center. I also quote Wikipedia's version of the Oort cloud's structure. "The region can be sub-divided into a spherical outer Oort cloud of 20,000 - 50,000 AU and a donut-shaped inner Oort cloud of 2000 - 20,000 AU."

So, I am confused. What is the most popular, accepted version of structure for the Oort cloud ? One represented by the first or the second illustration ?

Maybe I can believe in the Oort cloud,
Doug

dougettinger wrote:I read Wikipedia because it helps me quickly stay current with present popular theories or ideas. The Wikipedia's article for the Oort cloud now uses as its first illustration a cloud represented by a homeogeneous distribution except for the planetary region. I, in fact, can accept this version of an Oort Cloud because it agrees with my own version of solar system formation.

However, the 2nd illustration is very mis-leading. The illustration shows a distinct spherical shell very far from Sedna's orbit at the center. I also quote Wikipedia's version of the Oort cloud's structure. "The region can be sub-divided into a spherical outer Oort cloud of 20,000 - 50,000 AU and a donut-shaped inner Oort cloud of 2000 - 20,000 AU."

So, I am confused. What is the most popular, accepted version of structure for the Oort cloud ? One represented by the first or the second illustration ?

I'm afraid I fail to understand why you think there are two competing structures being considered here. The two illustrations are not mutually exclusive. The text is quite clear that the Oort cloud is seen as a spherical structure with material distributed non-isotropically.

The first illustration shows the proposed structure. The second is simply providing scale.

Thanks, Chris. Now, I am the happy recepient of the true meaning of these two illustrations. I was truly mis-lead by the 2nd illustration. Wikipedia says, "Oort noted that there was a peak in the numbers of nearly isotropic comets with aphelia - their farthest distances from the Sun - of roughly 20,000 AU, which suggested a reservoir at that distance with a spherical, isotropic distribution." This statement is rather clear, except that the 2nd illustration next to the text can cause the reader to think that the "peak" is the median distribution of the spherical shell shown and the isotropic distribution is in regards to the shell.

I am now truly updated regarding the Oort cloud. Thanks, again.

Doug

dougettinger wrote:my own version of solar system formation.

Doug, are you an astronomer/astrophysicist? I'm wondering how it is that you have your own version of solar system formation, what research it arises from, and where this has been published. Would you please enlighten me? Thanks.

I have to be very careful what I say to the Guardian of the Codes. Yes, Owlice, I do have my own published version of solar and general star system formation that differs in many ways from the popular, accepted version. I have my own website where my published ideas exist, but I am not allowed to tell you the name of this website because of the forum's code.

My website provides all my publications and explains who I am. I am a self-taught astrophysicist and planetary scientist and still very much on the learning curve. I have been studying these subjects since the mid-80's when I got the "bug". By training I am a mechanical and nuclear engineer who is retired. The only ax that I have to grind is my enthusiasm for science and NASA's exploration. My research is basically following all the data published or disseminated by the different space programs, placing my own "spin" on the interpretation or meaning of the data, and then watching for possible corroboration by further study of new data. My own calculations based on physics and shown within my journals support much of my research. I have no salaried job, no tenure from an university, no special funding from public sources, or no membership/interest in a "fringe" group.

I guess you are allowed to email me about the website, but only the Guardian of the Codes knows for sure. Thanks for your interest. If you have ideas for me in regards to getting the word out about any of my hypotheses, it would be much appreciated. I thoroughly enjoy all the personalities of this forum.

Doug

Doug, thanks for answering my question; I appreciate it. By "published," I mean in peer-reviewed journals such as ApJ, A&A, and the like. Have you submitted your work to the major respected astronomy journals and been published by them? If you are not willing to subject your work to review, then I think you cannot legitimately call yourself a scientist.

dougettinger wrote:If you have ideas for me in regards to getting the word out about any of my hypotheses, it would be much appreciated.

Publish, publish, publish!

owlice wrote:By "published," I mean in peer-reviewed journals such as ApJ, A&A, and the like.

Do not just be a bystander. Please help me with my communications. How do I receive peer review or get published in a ApJ or AetA journal ? I do not have direct connections to the academic community.

Doug

owlice wrote:Doug, thanks for answering my question; I appreciate it. By "published," I mean in peer-reviewed journals such as ApJ, A&A, and the like. Have you submitted your work to the major respected astronomy journals and been published by them? If you are not willing to subject your work to review, then I think you cannot legitimately call yourself a scientist.

What is the AetA journal? Admittedly, I am not legitimate, but interested in entering mainstream science. Can I submit my website papers directly to one of these journals? I believe there are many kinds of rules that restrict this kind of submittal. But I will check once again.

Doug

Doug,

http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=c ... Itemid=235

I got that by Googling "A&A Journal" -- I trust that you can do the same for other journals. What research is it that you are reading, if you are unfamiliar with the standard journals in the field? It seems very (very!) odd to me that you would not know these journals if you have been studying in this field since the 80s.

AJ, ApJ, and ApJL Submission Guidelines: http://aas.org/journals/authors/common_instruct
Science: Information for Authors: http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/
Nature Submission Guidelines: http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/

I suggest you read CosmoQuest (BAUT) Forum thread: http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread. ... -published

If you just want someone to pick holes in your theory, try submitting them to: http://cosmoquest.org/forum/forumdispla ... Mainstream

Here is an image of our very Un-flat inner solar system http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?ss_inner

Yellow dots are known numbered asteroids and white sun facing arrows are comets as of Oct 1 2012
The orange line is the orbit of Jupiter

BMAONE23 wrote:Here is an image of our very Un-flat inner solar system

Click to view full size image

http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?ss_inner

Yellow dots are known numbered asteroids and white sun facing arrows are comets as of Oct 1 2012
The orange line is the orbit of Jupiter

That's still pretty darn flat. And in terms of mass, nearly everything is with in just a few degrees of the principle plane. All of that junk that is in higher inclination orbits represents just a fraction of a percent of the total mass of the system.