Over 300 comets crosses Earth's orbit. Now, earth has been around for a few billion years, according to the evolutionists. Now, I know they say there was on huge comet impact that wiped out dinosaurs. But Earth is a small planet, so dont you think that, in billions of years, with over 300 comets crossing earth's orbit, possibly more back then, there would be at least one comet strike destroying the earth completely or destroying all life, or knocking earth out of its orbit?

6000 years sound more reasonable of getting hit by only one major comet that just wiped out the huge dinosaurs.

billions of years and 6000 years are a HUGE difference. 300 comets crossing earth's path, which one sounds more reasonable that we are still alive?

One only has to look at the moon, to see that in the early formation of the solar system impacts were rather more common than they are today. There is geological evidence, of multiple impacts on the earths surface, however one must remember that the earth is very active ad much evidence is erased by erosion, etc.

There are also reliable eyewitnesses accounts of modern impacts, on the earth and the Moon, and most famously, Jupiter (Shoemaker Levi 9).

Luck has much to do with it as anything else but basically you have a big (in volume) solar system and by comparison a very small target. It’s one of probability and some would say we are overdue.

Around 4.5 billion years is the estimated age of the Earth.



It was an asteroid estimated to be ten kilometers wide that impacted north of the Yucatan peninsula. Comets most likely would just burn up entering the atmosphere.



You seem to have confused comets with asteroids. It is asteroids that pose a threat to the Earth not comets, and it is not known exactly how many large asteroids have or will come close to Earth.



It would take a massive object like another planet to do that.



So you are suggesting the dinosaurs were wiped out by a comet less than 6000 years ago instead of 65 million years ago by an asteroid. But how do you explain the lack of evidence of such a devastating impact happening so recently? Especially if that impact inflicted such devastating environmental damage to the Earth.



Actually an Earth billions of years old which formed during the early stages of the solar system, makes more sense to me.

To put it simply.

Remember that the Earth has followed the same orbit for billions of years. If something was going to hit it, then it likely already happened before.

"It would take a massive object like another planet to do that."

Please explain how if all planets originated from a big bang, why several of them and their moons seem to be flipped upside down on their axis, or at odd angles in their spin. Shouldn't they all be spinning the same direction?

"there would be at least one comet strike destroying the earth completely or destroying all life, or knocking earth out of its orbit?"

I think a better question would be, after billions of years, why are their still comets left?

"So you are suggesting the dinosaurs were wiped out by a comet less than 6000 years ago instead of 65 million years ago by an asteroid. But how do you explain the lack of evidence of such a devastating impact happening so recently? Especially if that impact inflicted such devastating environmental damage to the Earth."

In "the h*vind theory", supposedly a comet struck the earth and triggered the flood by stretching the crust which resulted in it cracking and the sub-terranian water chambers exploding outwards. Many pieces of the comet probably got sucked into the gravitational pull of other planets, and that's why we have rings of ice. Some probably struck the moon as well. The comet which is polar would have been sucked to the poles mainly, and froze a bunch of mammoths and other animals before they could fall over.

The makeup of a comet would actually make it a hydrogen bomb as soon as it entered our atmosphere. I saw a film once where they believe one hit in another country, around Russia I believe it was. But it was out in the middle of nothing except woods. These explorers had heard about what had happened from some natives that lived in the woods, and went to see it. They had only black and white film camera 16 mm, but from what they where able to film look like a massive bomb had gone off just above ground. For there was no impact spot. The trees were layed out like tooth picks in all directions from the center of the explosion. It looked like what Mt. Saint Hellens did to the trees around it. This damage to the trees went on for over a mile from the center. And they said the only reason it did not do more damage was because it exploded before impact.

And being they really had no bombs like that back then, a comet seemed to be the only thing that could have done that.

Our solar system did not originate from the big bang but from a cloud of dust and gas that had condensed to form our solar system.

Most planets do spin on their axis counter clockwise with the exception of Venus, which spins clockwise, but its rotation rate is 243 days. Also the axis of Uranus is on such an extreme tilt that it almost spins on its side. The prevailing theory is that both planets were struck by massive objects and as a result had altered their rotation.

Almost all moons on the other hand spin at the same rate as they orbit. The exceptions being captured objects such as asteroids.



Those comets follow stable orbits that do not intersect with any planets.



An unusual theory to say the least.

So if I understand correctly this theory suggests that during the time of Noah God sent a comet to the Earth in order to create the flood. The comet created a global shift in the Earth’s crust unleashing all the underground water in order to raise the water level. The comet survived the impact and was ejected to the outer planets forming their rings. Pieces of the comet also impacted the moon in order to explain its craters. The comet impacted on one of Earths poles? Creating an instant ice age.

The Tunguska event has many unusual theories attached to it. Some of the more bizarre explanations are that an alien spacecraft exploded, a micro black hole passed through the atmosphere, a theory about anti time intersecting with time, and even just explained as an act of God, but I do agree a comet or asteroid is the most likely explanation for the event.

Actually, I learned there are 300 comets crossing Earth's orbit currently. this is exactly my question. If there are 300 comets still left after 4.5 billion years, I'm sure there would have been quite a lot of comets like the one that hit Jupiter. Jupiter, as a gas giant, has a much greater atmosphere than the Earth. So, actually, there had to be quite a lot of comets big enough that they would not burn up in the earth's atmosphere and destroythe planet.

Anyway, if there are still this many comets left after 4.5 billion years, How many would there be 4 billion years ago? they would have overcrowded the solar system. and remember. there are other comets that dont cross earth's orbit.



Ummmm thats my point there. 4.5 billion years. Wouldnt something massive enough to destroy the planet alerady have hit earth?

I think you may have misunderstood that statistic. There may be that many comets whose orbits carry them within the distance between the Earth and the sun but their orbits are usually on a different tilt than the planets are.

This webpage provides a few examples of the orbits comets take.

http://www.theastronomer.org/orbit_diagrams.html



Are you in present tense or past tense in this part?

You have to remember Jupiter has a far greater gravity pull than any of the inner planets and is far more likely to pull in objects from space. The comet would have had to of been much, much closer to Earth in order to be pulled in.



Indeed the solar system would have still been a violent place then.



Hey you edited your post!

I don’t think you realize how difficult it is to completely destroy a planet. Even if an object shattered a planet it would simply reform due to gravity.

The Tunguska event is almost certainly a comet that exploded in the atmosphere, the tell tale ‘butterfly’ shape of the downed trees from point zero is very convincing. The estimated size is something in the order of a bus from memory. There are a couple of other less well known events in South America.

Wow, a lot of stuff has been said since last night, lol.

"Those comets follow stable orbits that do not intersect with any planets."

Yes, but comets have a life of what, 30 years or so? When you look up and see a comet and it has that big tail behind it, what do you suppose it is?

"Our solar system did not originate from the big bang but from a cloud of dust and gas that had condensed to form our solar system."

Uh, what?

"The comet survived the impact and was ejected to the outer planets forming their rings. "

Not really, that's highly unlikely I think. Pieces of it probably broke off from the pull of gravity from the other planets as it passed by.

To crystaleaglesprings,

Comets vary in size and trajectory. The life of a comet depends on both. The larger comets should be around longer than the smaller comets on the same trajectory. If the trajectory takes the comet too close to a heat source the ice that binds the comet together melts more and the debris in the tail would increase. And as you know we can't keep taking from something and have it be around forever.

Or if a comet gets too close to a gravitational field, like LS-9, it gets torn apart then collides with what caused that feild.

We know comets last longer than 30 years. Both Hale-Bopp & Halley's are well over 30 years old. I am currently tracking a comet named Hyakutake on my automated star chart. It is in the constellation Cetus just below its main star Mira.

As far as how the solar system formed: (basic)

The Nebula Hypothesis

Link is broken, or does not work. You can pm me with the fix, plus the link to this post, and I'll insert the fix.

It is estimated that comets have a lifespan of 1000 orbits since comets eject 0.1 percent of their mass with each passing orbit. The material of a comets tail is highly reflective that is why we can see the tail on Earth.



I had hoped you at least knew the scientific theories behind the formation of the planets and the solar system. Hopefully Google can provide you with some useful pages since I cannot give you enough info to cover the subject in this thread without writing an essay on it.



The problem isn’t how the material got there, its how that much material was there in the first place.

Comets are usually only 1-20 KMs in diameter so unless this comet was some sort of planet sized super comet the part about it creating the rings around the outer planets just doesn’t work.

""Our solar system did not originate from the big bang but from a cloud of dust and gas that had condensed to form our solar system.""

So it originated from dust and gas that originated from a big bang? how would dust and gas get together if they're flying away from a central point? And by the way, I thought it started out with radiation only. So here you have radiation flying out from a central point, where will that get you? How did Uranium and all of the other elements come to be? Did they "evolve" from hydrogen?

And I know I'm not supposed to just post an article, but this is one that I'm reading right now, I think it keeps going for several pages and you have to click the "next" button at the bottom. I thought you guys might enjoy it, or maybe enjoy critiquing it.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets2.html

If you want a big essay about the big bang theory, the formation of the universe, galaxies, and the solar system you will need to create another thread and give me a few days to research and collect the information I’d need to present to you with a decent explanation.

As for the article you posted, to be honest I have never read such a poorly written piece.

Edit by Admin3: We do not go along with name calling of a member, or a quoted person and link. To suggest someone lies means you have absolute truth. And since science shys away from absolutes, they do not have this. So if your going to call someone's quote a lie, you'd better have an absolute truth to back it up. Other wise, just say you don't agree.

His whole argument collapses in his first paragraph.



The pressure of the deep ocean caused an explosion sending large volumes of water into space forming all the comets at the beginning of Noah’s flood.

I don’t think the author realizes the scale of what he’s proposing here. To put it simply no explosion of any size could send large enough volumes of water into space at a rate of speed fast enough to escape Earth’s gravity without vaporizing the water. The author also fails to mention the Kuiper Belt or the Oort Cloud, both of which contain icy objects and are the source of comets.

It’s also interesting to note that the author doesn’t feel the need to explain this part of his theory any further.

While the link is an interesting set of reading material, it gives some really vague information.



It's called Amalgamation. Dust and gas cling to each other, once a critical mass is reached, it collapses in and thus planets were created.

Has this been observed, or theorized?

"Oort Cloud"

Yet another philosophical idea to attempt to explain away the problem of the fact that there shouldn't be any comets left. Nobody has seen the Oort cloud. Oort never saw the Oort cloud.

"It's called Amalgamation. Dust and gas cling to each other, once a critical mass is reached, it collapses in and thus planets were created."

You're missing my point. If everything is heading away from a central point, then everything is getting farther away from each other. You can't gain mass by creating a larger distance. I think you may have forgotten to explain how radiation coming from a central point manages to create matter. Thanks.

GTC said:



Not always true. If a planet was destroyed, there is also the chance that it's gravity was destroyed also.

And there is something else. Smaller fragments are weaker in their gravity and pull. According to how many fragment a said planet was broken up into, would determine the gravity strangth of each said fragment. And because they are weaker, if they travel outside the range of each other's gravity, they cannot pull thenselves back together as you suggest.

Lets take our earth for instance. Lets say something destroyed it and broke it into four major pieces. None are equal in size or mass. But we will say that the strength of gravity was divided by 4 which makes each fragment 1/4 of what the planet was as a whole, just for easy math, and easy understanding.

According to their momentum would determine whether they would escape each other's gravity. But there are other factors as well. The sun's gravity would pull upon any object that was heading in it's direction from the break up of the planet. Making it move away from the other objects faster. Even if it all came back together, the other objects would all have to follow the one and settle for a closer orbit.

So to suggest that it would or could go back together without the these factors, is to make it look easy, when it would not be.

Since comets are of topical interest at the moment (sort of, with the recent success of “Deep Impact”). I should point out that some asteroids could be classed as dead comets, as some fellow members of my Astronomy club have observed and reported very faint tails on some asteroids (under the right conditions). This seems to imply that some comets can form a crust or deplete their volatile components.


crystaleaglesprings
There are 2 proposed sources for the long term Comets, the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud. The Kuiper belt has a few hundred objects confirmed, the Oort cloud is too far away for current technology and is more of a mathematical solution to the source of long periodic Comets.

A recent topical discovery re Kuiper belt LINK

"the Oort cloud is too far away for current technology and is more of a mathematical solution to the source of long periodic Comets."

Where did the evidence come from for the idea of the oort cloud? "We know the universe is billions of years old, so there has to be a reason why there are still comets left. Oooh, here's a good idea. Let's invent this idea of a cloud that is so far away that nobody can see it, so it can't be proven wrong. Ahaa! The Oort cloud!!"

IMO,
a. It’s a mathematical solution insofar as “if a non/long periodic comet is observed, it mathematically, can come from the Oort cloud”.

b. in addition, the Oort cloud is consistent with some models of the early solar system.

c. there is some observational evidence in other solar systems, have a look at the link I posted previously.

But in some respects you are right no one has seen it, so the Oort cloud remains a hypothesis not a theory.

"a. It’s a mathematical solution insofar as “if a non/long periodic comet is observed, it mathematically, can come from the Oort cloud”. "

What? You're saying just because a "long term" comet is observed, it mathematically could have come from the oort cloud? How can there be any math based on something that can't be seen and is completely imaginary? What you are saying, I believe, is that the "mathematical" here is the age of the universe. "Mathematically, the universe is too old for this comet to be here, so it must have come from this cloud somewhere." PLEASE correct me if I got the wrong impression. With this reasoning I could say, why couldn't God simply have created it?

Yes. The speed and orbital parameters do not exclude an oort cloud, that’s about as far as you can take that part of it. It’s is not presented as a slam dunk for the existence of an oort cloud, it’s just a little bit of falsification, e.g. if long period comets came into our solar system in a straight line, at very high speed, that would be evidence against that comet coming from an oort cloud.





What about negative numbers! I suspect that not what you mean however.



No, just orbital mechanics, see first para.



Not sure what you mean by this. The oort cloud is proposed to have formed as radiation clears the inner solar system when the sun switched on .



You need to understand the principle of falsification with respect to a theory or hypothesis. If you come up with a new idea, that ok, but the second there is evidence against it, your idea collapses. So with the oort cloud it must be mathematically sound for it to get past first base, on it’s way to becoming a theory, currently it is only a hypothesis.

No offence ment, but that question is a double edged sword. How can their be a religion on something where the main deity has never been seen and may be completely imaginary?

Just because it cant been seen, doesn't mean it's not real.

The oort cloud was something imagined and theorized.

Jesus has been seen and written about. The oort cloud does not even stand up to what science demands for it to even become a theory. It's not testable, only imaginable. And the reason science wants to accept it is because it fills some holes that can be shot at science through the existence of comets. It's just a temperary fill until something better comes along.

As were most religions at one point in time. Remember, religions were created by Prophets, who castised the way people lived in the name of God.

Even Christianity was created by people a branch off of Judeaism which was mostly created using Ideas from Zoroastrianism.

God is like the Oort cloud. Imagined and Theroized but in no way can it be tested, you can only believe.

"Yes. The speed and orbital parameters do not exclude an oort cloud,"

This is from h*vind. Say I tell you that I have a new theory.My theory is that watermelons are blue on the inside until you cut the skin. Prove I'm wrong.

"What about negative numbers! I suspect that not what you mean however."

Hahaha. Lol. You are correct in both.

"You need to understand the principle of falsification with respect to a theory or hypothesis. If you come up with a new idea, that ok, but the second there is evidence against it, your idea collapses."

You'd think that for something to be a theory that there would have to be some evidence FOR it. See first paragraph.

"How can their be a religion on something where the main deity has never been seen and may be completely imaginary?

"Just because it cant been seen, doesn't mean it's not real."

A: You are absolutely correct.
B: We are talking about theories on scientific things not greater beings. Please notice that Chance is an atheist, so that would kind of exlude your arguement from supporting him.

"Remember, religions were created by Prophets, who castised the way people lived in the name of God."

? Sorry a little confused here.

(Would that be Kent Hovnid?) Ok, what evidence it there for blue watermelons? To qualify as a theory one must have evidence, an idea (blue watermelons) is not a theory. Now compare that with the oort cloud, Mathematical explanation, and fits with current models of soar system formation, and possible visual evidence of other solar stems in formation. Evidence must come before theory.




Explained above (and in previous posts).

"(Would that be Kent Hovnid?)"

h*vind, yep.

"Ok, what evidence it there for blue watermelons?"

What EVIDENCE is there for an oort cloud? Just because there isn't a theoretical PROBLEM with it doesn't mean it's evidence. Just because it is plausible based on math doesn't make it evidence. It's plausible that watermelons are blue on the inside before you cut the skin. Just as plausible as there being an oort cloud.

By this comment, and you saying your a christian (your world view), you just put God lower than science. So do you believe that science is the only truth, and that God's word will always need to be corrected by science? And that God will always be restricted by the naturalistic laws that science dictates (science the dictator of God's power)?

Because from your comment, I see oort being above God. I see science being above God. So is God who He say's He is? Or do you have doubts?

why the * ?



Yes it is.

Basically you are making a paradox where non exists. Lets breakdown what is actually being reasoned.

The observations are - long period comets exist.
The question is – where do they come from?
The best theory that explains the evidence is oort cloud. Which is based on supporting evidence of:
a. math.
b. consistent with existing theory of soar system formation.
c. observation of other solar systems.

Now try to fit that in with your counter example below



The observations are – there has never been a blue watermelon (yet).
The question is – where do they come from? See how the second question is now irrelevant, there is no question to ask.
The best theory that explains the evidence is? Again irrelevant.


By asking the question in a logical manner the apparent paradox (neither oort cloud or blue watermelons have been observed) is removed.

What you're doing is trying to rationalize something to your point of view, which completely misconstrues the point I was trying to make.

I believe in god, I believe in science. But we are only human, and we have doubt. Things like religion and science were created to ease that doubt. One to prove, the other to disprove.

That’s an interesting way of putting it, I’ll give that some thought.

clarification When you say “religion was created” I take it you mean the ‘organisation’ not the belief, yes?

"why the * ?"

It does it automatically for whatever reason. Try typing h*vind in all lower case letters and see if it does it for you too.

"The best theory that explains the evidence is oort cloud."

I disagree.

"The best theory that explains the evidence is oort cloud. Which is based on supporting evidence of:
a. math.
b. consistent with existing theory of soar system formation.
c. observation of other solar systems."

The only reason you accept it as the best theory is because of already assumed presuppositions.

"The observations are – there has never been a blue watermelon (yet)."

What you SHOULD say is "there has never been a blue watermelon observed. Just like there has never been an oort cloud observed. You say that by there being nothing AGAINST it, it is therefore evidence for an oort cloud, correct me if I'm wrong. There is no reason why a watermelon shouldn't be blue on the inside until you cut the skin either.

h*vind ! how bizarre

It’s ok to disagree, but if this were being to decide what explains the evidence then oort cloud will stand until displaced by a better explination.



All scientific theories stand on the shoulders of those that precede it, else one will be force to ‘re-invent the wheel’ for every avenue of investigation.



If one were to take that line of reasoning you would end up with an infinite number of line of investigation, to take your own example:

“There has never been a < > watermelon observed” Now substitute < > with either:

Poker dotted
Striped
Square
With a apple inside
With an radio inside

As you can see this line of reasoning will get you know where.

I think you're taking it beyond the limits here. Apples and radios obviously couldn't form inside a watermelon because of various that I hope I don't have to go into, lol. But yes, poker dotted, and blue, yellow,etc. just proves my point further. Science are things that can be seen, observed, tested, demonstrated, repeated. An oort cloud is certainly not.

The name h*vind brings in H*vind trolls. The search engines spiders hit on his name, and this forum becomes connected to h*vind and listed on search engines, and the H*vind haters come in. Having the astrik stops his name from bringing in some of the trolls who can be very hateful. It is nothing against him.



I think we are getting to silly here. Let's quit trying to out silly one another .

Obviously I am exaggerating to the extreme, (to demonstrate the point), i.e. that stating something might be there based on the logic that no one has seen it yet and is thus a valid counter argument, is false reasoning. As I demonstrated, you can have an infinite number of things we have not seen.




No, an oort cloud is consistent with what is currently known, in future generations an oort cloud may or may not be confirmed, it’s scientific in that it is falsifiable, i.e. evidence will ether support or reject the current theory. You can’t do the same with the watermelon example.




Admin3 Thanks for clearing up the h*vind spelling mystery. I didn’t realise he is on some sort of ‘hit list’.

There's a group of trolls that are dedicated to destroying anything good said about H*vind. I find that they are also very vulgar when they get mad. These people have gone as far as to take a trip to H*vinds home town to look into his back ground. That's how some of that personal info got out about somethings. I even got caught up in a scam where they put up a fake website that was made to look like the local police station website in his home town. That's where those rumors about him being arrested came from. It was all a scam.

How I figured it out was, the link provided went to a ip address and not a www address. When I pointed this out, the thread, user name, and all involved disapeared, including the fake website. From that experience, I don't believe all I hear about him. It just goes to show how far some will go to smear someone's name they disagree with.

There is no "proofs" in either.
You are a troll, right"?

"i.e. that stating something might be there based on the logic that no one has seen it yet and is thus a valid counter argument, is false reasoning."

No, you stated that something not being falsified, (In this case it's not even falsifiable) is evidence FOR it. I simply showed the same with the watermelon. Obviously I took it to the extreme as well though.

"No, an oort cloud is consistent with what is currently known,"

As is the watermelon....

"Things like religion and science were created to ease that doubt. "

Where did you get your information? Is it not possible that maybe the 40+ people who wrote the bible were actually telling the truth? Are you just too afraid of what it might mean if they were telling the truth? God loves you, and by the way, God doesn't believe in Atheists.

But the oort cloud can be falsified, you can go and take a look when we have the technology, in addition it is a mathematical solution to an observed event i.e. long period comets.



Again no, because you can’t falsify the blue watermelon, there will be no time in the future when one could not say “you just have not found one yet”.

Do you really not see the difference?

Must have all seen this by now, a tenth planet (in the Kuiper region). It’s bigger than Pluto, and very far away see this LINK

"But the oort cloud can be falsified, you can go and take a look WHEN we have the technology"

A: Science is based mainly on the here and now. It is not science to say that someday we'll be able to falsify it, so therefore the theory is scienctific. Currently, no, the oort cloud is NOT falsifiable, and therefore using the 2 ideas of A: It not being falsified, and B: In the future having the ability to falsify the theory as reasons to support your theory are unscientific.
B: Your assumption is that we will someday have the technology to falsify the theory.

"in addition it is a mathematical solution to an observed event "

We've discussed this already.

"Again no, because you can’t falsify the blue watermelon"

You're switching between logic here. First you tell me that I'm wrong for saying that we can't currently falsify an oort cloud, and then you turn right back around and say I'm wrong because you can't falsify the watermelon currently. If I use your other logic, I could claim that someday we will have the technology to prove the blue watermelon theory wrong, just like you assume that someday we will have the technology to falsify an oort cloud.

Can you really not see how you're switching between thinking here?

Science is based mainly on the here and now What nonsense, the claim has been made as has a method of falsification, if we go there or use some sort of telescope/radar whatever, and find none it can be falsified, that makes it a valid re falsification. A couple of examples:
light bending with gravity (re Einstein) how to falsify it was proposed at the same time as the theory.
Another example – the discovery of Halley’s comet was predicted on historical records alone, it was years after the prediction that the comet was found (on time in the right area of sky).

That’s putting your money where your mouth is in a very big way and what is required of science.




And again you are deliberately ignoring the logic. The mathematical solution is consistent with the observations (it’s one small part of the falsification process). Do you understand that point?

The blue watermelon cannot be falsified because There will be no time in the future where one could not say you just have not looked at them all yet . There is a world of difference between the two.



No I’m not. It has 'partly' already passed some of the falsification, i.e. the mathematical calculations point to an oort cloud. Oort cloud does not rest upon not having seen it.



Correct, as explained above.




Really! how would you do that? Here is your chance to see if your logic is sound. Demonstrate how you could do this.




My logic is sound and consistent, blue watermelons can never be falsified (prove me wrong), oort cloud can and has. You do realise that falsifications is not proving don’t you? as you seem to be confusing the two terms.

"My logic is sound and consistent, blue watermelons can never be falsified (prove me wrong), oort cloud can and has. You do realise that falsifications is not proving don’t you? as you seem to be confusing the two terms."

No I'm not confusing them. Answering this statement should answer your above statements as well.

"blue watermelons can never be falsified (prove me wrong),"

Now I think you're deliberately ignoring what I said, or at least I hope you are.
Straight out facts.
A: Currently, the technology is not possessed to see or not see an oort cloud, and therefore is not possible to prove or disprove.
B: Currently, the technology is not possessed to see inside of a watermelon without cutting it, thereofre not possible to prove nor disprove the blue theory.

Taking A into consideration, you told me that one day we will have the technology to prove or disprove it, but yet you doubt that one day we will have the technology to prove or disprove B! You make an assumption that we will possess the techology in the future for A, but turn right back around and say we will never have the technology to see inside a watermelon without cutting it! How about some kind of x-ray machine with other equipment? You may say, "well that doesn't make any sense." Well that's because a way hasn't been invented yet. Just like a way hasn't yet been invented to see the oort cloud, but you assume that we will be able to some day.


"oort cloud can and has."

Hmm. You may want to think that over. You just told me that an oort cloud can and has been falsified.

I am not the one doing the ignoring.

You stated

I challenged you to demonstrate how you could do so. It my position that you cant and that the ‘blue watermelon’ cannot be falsified, ever. (P.S. I am not after a technology, just a method of testing, can be as futuristic as you like, within reason).

Conversely oort cloud can be falsified, by
a. mathematics (i.e. if it was not consistent, the theory would have been dropped years ago)
b. direct observation (obviously for our own solar system this is currently not available)
c. comparative observation (I previously posed a link that shows a solar system with what may be a oort cloud).

All these lend weight, for, or against, the oort clouds possible existence depending on the evidence that is drawn from them. This is faslfiable.




Irrelevant, the method is sound so it can be falsified.



I maintain it is not possible to falsify your claim, that oort cloud hypothesis, is on equal terms to your blue watermelon, by virtue of the fact that oort cloud can be falsified and blue watermelon cannot.



Correct.



The technology is already available to go a visit the oort cloud one just need a reason, the will and the cash to do so. It can be falsified

How you propose to test your blue watermelon is up to you. I maintain that whatever method you choose you will never be able to claim that you have a falsifiable test.




Sigh, to me this proves you have not grasped the idea of falsifiable. If there are methods with which to falsify a theory, then it valid. The theory stands and falls by the evidence gleaned form performing those experiments. Oort cloud if you like has passed the mathematics test, i.e. “so far so good”. It may still stand or fall on some more direct observation method.

"I challenged you to demonstrate how you could do so."

Hmm. I'm not real sure how to get this across to you. I have no idea how the blue watermelon could be falsified because there is no way invented yet to do so. In the same manner, there is no manner invented to see or not see an oort cloud. YOU tell me, how will we be able to see an oort cloud? A telescope? With what technology? We simply don't have the technology yet. ("Yet" doesn't assume that we ever will.) We don't have the technology for either theory, and therefore you cannot make assumptions of what we will and/or will not discover and conclude that a theory is therefore supported or not. That is simply not science.

"The technology is already available to go a visit the oort cloud one just need a reason, the will and the cash to do so. It can be falsified"

The oort cloud is supposedly orbiting the sun many thousands of times farther away than the earth is. Do you really think we can really go that far?

"Sigh, to me this proves you have not grasped the idea of falsifiable. If there are methods with which to falsify a theory, then it valid. The theory stands and falls by the evidence gleaned form performing those experiments. Oort cloud if you like has passed the mathematics test, i.e. “so far so good”. It may still stand or fall on some more direct observation method."

You completely missed what I said. You told me right here: -"blue watermelons can never be falsified (prove me wrong), oort cloud can and has."- that the oort cloud can and HAS been falsified. If so, we can all go home.