PDA

View Full Version : Binary Kuiper Belt Objects:a problem for Evilution?



Prince
2002-May-11, 06:30 AM
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0510_kuiper.asp?srcFrom=aignews

Karl
2002-May-11, 06:42 AM
No, why should they be?

Kaptain K
2002-May-11, 11:18 AM
Weeeeeeeeooooooo!!!!!
Where to start?
1) What's so hard to believe about a billion KBOs (or TNOs if you prefer). The number of known inner system asteroids is aproaching 100,000 and we've been looking for them for over 200 years. The first KBO was only found 10 years ago. The volume of the Kuiper belt is thousands of times larger than the asteroid belt.
2) Of course the known KBOs are large. They are a long way off and black as coal. As our instruments improve, we will discover smaller and farther objects.
3) The Oort cloud is far larger than stated (30-100 AU). It is more like 100,000AU (1 1/2 LY) radius. It probably contains trillions of objects and is a nearly inexhaustable source of comets.

roidspop
2002-May-12, 05:18 AM
"Evolutionary astronomers (who assume the solar system is billions of years old) must propose a ‘source’ that will supply new comets as old ones are destroyed"

What was it my drill sergeant said, ages ago? "Trainee, don't you assume nothin'. Cause when you do, you makes a a** of u and me." So that's the evolutionary astronomy community's little trick, hm? They make this stuff up about an ancient universe and then have to concoct evidence, like comet aphelions, radiometric dating, and so forth to cover their tracks. And we fall for it. An example...how many of you uncritically believe that there are ANY comets out there, when all we've ever seen are large objects? Did you fall for the gobbledegook about all the cometary orbits that seem to originate in that region? See? You ASSUMED those evolutionary astronomers were telling you the truth. When will you ever learn?

Kizarvexis
2002-May-12, 10:59 PM
On 2002-05-11 02:30, Prince wrote:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0510_kuiper.asp?srcFrom=aignews


Cute spelling on the topic title. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

Check out this page right here on Badastronomy.

Tons of Asteriods
http://www.badastronomy.com/bitesize/asteroid.html

If there are an estimated billion asteroids 100 meters across in the solar system, I see no problem with an estimate of 1 billion KBO's.

When talking about space the numbers always seem large. But since space is soo large, a billion KBO's would be a drop in the bucket of the mass of the solar system. Did you know that the estimated billion 100+ meter asteroids would weigh less than our moon?
Besides, how much mass does a comet lose each orbit? This page on Nine Planets, http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/comets.html, had this to say about comets.

"After 500 or so passes near the Sun off most of a comet's ice and gas is lost leaving a rocky object very much like an asteroid in appearance. (Perhaps half of the
near-Earth asteroids may be "dead" comets.) A comet whose orbit takes it near the Sun is also likely to either impact one of the planets or the Sun or to be ejected out of the solar system by a close encounter (esp. with Jupiter)."

Lets see, ~500 orbits times ~200 years per orbit means that it takes roughly 100,000 years for a comet to lose it's ice and gas layers. Heck, ~250 orbits times ~100 years is about 25,000 years. Oops, both estimates are longer than 6,000 years. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif Hmm, maybe we don't need 1 billion KBO objects to have a solar system older than the young earth creationists would have us believe. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Kizarvexis


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kizarvexis on 2002-05-12 19:01 ]</font>

SimonCB
2002-May-20, 11:45 AM
To be fair the majority of Short Period Comets have periods considerable less than 100 years. Though this is a large part due to observational bias.

To date we have seen about 600 TNOs with diameters ranging from ~100~1000 km. The reason we are only seeing large objects is that it is the limit of the present day telescopes. The deepest searchs made so far are down to around 26th magnitude which corresponds to a diameter of about 100km at 50 AU.

The article then goes on to talk about comets which have a diameters of about 30 km at most. It is fairly obvious that the smaller you get the more objects you have.

I think the best example of this is to see how big the fragments would be if you broke up a pluto sized object into 10^9 pieces. Pluto has a radius of 1137km which if my maths is right gives 10^9 fragments with a diameter of 2.3km.

The point is a billion sounds a lot (a british billion sounds a lot more) but in terms of space it is isn't.

Simon