Talk:Oort cloud

message: Some well intentioned editor keeps changing "hypothetical" to "theoretical."
Perhaps they think it makes it sound more serious? I don't know exactly what their faulty thinking is. 
There is a reason the first section is correctly titled the "Hypothesis" and NOT the "Theory." 
When someone developes a model that explains phenomena, that "model" is a "theory."
Example: Einstein's theory of relativity. 
When someone proposes "objects exist" to explain phenomena, those "objects" are "hypothetical" until their existence is empirically verified, at which point they are "fact."
Example: an 8th planet was hypothetical until Uranus was discovered, now it's fact. 
A model will always remain a "theory." It does not matter how much evidence substantiates it, it will forever be a "theory."
Something theoretical forever remains theoretical (scientific theory). 
Something hypothetical becomes fact with enough empirical evidence. 
The Oort cloud is a hypothetical object (cloud of many objects) that is proposed as a source of long term comets. Currently, there is absolutely NO empirical evidence that it exists. However, if we one day do get enough empirical evidence of its existence, it goes from being "hypothetical" to being a "fact," something which cannot happen with a "theory." Hexakaidecanitarian (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is "Theoretical" because astronomers have observed many comets coming directly from the Oort cloud (with inbound aphelia 10,000-70,000AU from the Sun). We know they came directly from the Oort cloud because we can calculate their barycentric orbits back into the past. (Heliocentric solutions at the same epoch will have even larger orbits because the solution will not include the gravity of Jupiter.) -- Kheider (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

text: It is theoretical as it is a successful working scientific model that explains all comets with periods greater than ~100000 years. Objects in the Oort cloud are on unstable orbits that are not perfectly spherical. Everything orbiting the Sun has a best-fit orbital period even if that period is millions of years. -- Kheider (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

text: At this point Hexakaidecanitarian, your edits appear disruptive! -- Kheider (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Comets that spend most of their time in the Oort cloud are members of the Oort cloud. (2002 RP120 is a TransNeptunian Object even though it comes well inside of Jupiter.) We have seen numerous comets that spend most of their time in the Oort cloud. The closer an object is to the Sun the faster it needs to move to maintain the orbit. Objects move slowest when furthest from the Sun (aphelion) and fastest when closest to the Sun (perihelion) and this is why Oort cloud comets spend most of their time in the Oort cloud. (Equal areas are swept out in equal times at any location in the ellipse.) While in the Oort cloud these slow moving objects are subject to numerous small perturbations that can make the object unbound/bound. The Oort cloud is theoretical regardless of whether it is called a concept, idea, or a substantiated scientific model. -- Kheider (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia needs to lock in "hypothetical." 

message: Just to make a point, I just thought up the Hexa giant impact hypothesis (a modified version of the giant impact hypothesis).
More than 4.5 billion years ago there existed an icy planet with a mass several times the mass of the earth with an orbital distance from the sun of about 20 AU. Let's call it planet Comet. 
A massive interstellar object collided with this planet breaking it up into large pieces and propelling those pieces into the solar system. 
The Comet debris then had an orbit with a perihelion of about 1 AU and an apheliin of about 20 AU. 
About 4.5 billion years ago the Comet debris field encountered a pre-Earth planet, let's call it Terra1. A large piece about the size of Mars struck Terra1 resulting in the formation of the Earth and the Moon (the Earth getting its abundance of water from this large icy Comet fragment). 
Most of the debris field which missed Tera1 was then scattered in various directions at this collision yet the individual pieces still had an apheliin of about 20 AU. 
But of the piece which struck Tera1, much of it exploded away losing momentum to the collision, a large mass of this collision debris had an aphelion of about 10 AU. 
Over the next 4.5 billion years, the Earth and moon formed and cooled. And the now 2 debris fields continued to break up. Over time, further collisions resulted in short period comet orbits.
Due to collisions, tidal forces of near passes to planets, regular effects from the sun at perihelion, etc.  the larger pieces continued to break up until now what remains are scattered smaller fragments. 
This is my just formed hypothesis. 
Planet Comet, hypothetical. 
Planet Terra1, hypothetical. 
It doesn't matter him much I work on this, it doesn't matter if it all makes sense. These "objects" shall forever be called "hypothetical" unless we go back in time and OBSERVE them, and upon observing they become "fact." 
At no point can these objects be called "theoretical." IT'S SIMPLY THE *WRONG* WORD TO USE. 
PS. I kinda like my new hypothesis. Hexakaidecanitarian (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point Hexakaidecanitarian, your edits appear disruptive! -- Kheider (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypothetical 

message: Since you cannot refer to an objects possible existance as theoretical (unless its proposed existance is solely the prediction of a model, such as the Higgs Boson).
You cannot refer to "the Oort cloud" meaning the cloud itself as "theoretical" but instead must refer to the object as "hypothetical."
However, when there is a theoretical concept surrounding the object, you can use "theoretical" to the concepts concerning the object. 
NASA worded it as so:
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/solar-system/oort-cloud/overview/
"Though long-period comets observed among the planets are thought to originate in the Oort Cloud, no object has been observed in the distant Oort Cloud itself, leaving it a theoretical concept for the time being. But it remains the most widely-accepted explanation for the origin of long-period comets."
Referring to the Oort cloud as a " theoretical concept" of a cloud is correct. Good job NASA.
To summarize:
The entity "the Oort cloud" is "hypothetical."
The concept "the Oort cloud" is "theoretical." 
So let's finally agree on NASA's wording. 
PS. Yes, this is pedantic. Hexakaidecanitarian (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Comets that spend most of their time in the Oort cloud are members of the Oort cloud. (2002 RP120 is a TransNeptunian Object even though it comes well inside of Jupiter.) We have seen numerous comets that spend most of their time in the Oort cloud. The closer an object is to the Sun the faster it needs to move to maintain the orbit. Objects move slowest when furthest from the Sun (aphelion) and fastest when closest to the Sun (perihelion) and this is why Oort cloud comets spend most of their time in the Oort cloud. (Equal areas are swept out in equal times at any location in the ellipse.) While in the Oort cloud these slow moving objects are subject to numerous small perturbations that can make the object unbound/bound. The Oort cloud is theoretical regardless of whether it is called a concept, idea, or a substantiated scientific model. -- Kheider (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final fix on hypothetical/theoretical, hopefully. 

message: Most of the language in this article assumes the Oort cloud exists. Grassynoel (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This whole article 

message: The graphic in the "Stellar perturbations and stellar companion hypotheses" section has multiple factual errors, . Template:Solar_encounters has correct figures for at least the two mentioned in the talk page comment, though I haven't checked others.
I just removed it in hopes that someone can maybe either re-create the graphic or get the original author to fix the issues and re-add it. impinball (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The graphic in "Stellar perturbations and stellar companion hypotheses" has some wrong locations 

message: I changed it from "Fastest probe" to "Once fastest probe" the parker solar probe currently is faster. 2A00:801:700:8A66:F66D:1459:EC6C:31A1 (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @2A00:801:700:8A66:F66D:1459:EC6C:31A1  Dont mind if I did misstake, I am new to Wikipedia but I ain't stupid. 2A00:801:700:8A66:F66D:1459:EC6C:31A1 (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

text: @2A00:801:700:8A66:F66D:1459:EC6C:31A1 Yup fixed FalseWorldDictionary (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrected small misstake