Editing Talk:1297: Oort Cloud

Jump to: navigation, search
Ambox notice.png Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 7: Line 7:
 
At least according to my freshman year science teacher, the Oort Cloud is just a theory, and hasn't been proven. Perhaps that should be made more clear?{{unsigned|Wasda}}
 
At least according to my freshman year science teacher, the Oort Cloud is just a theory, and hasn't been proven. Perhaps that should be made more clear?{{unsigned|Wasda}}
 
::::::@Wasda, A theory is something which is proven, if not its a hypothesis or a speculation. Mocking on "theories" is typical for laymen. 15:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)~
 
::::::@Wasda, A theory is something which is proven, if not its a hypothesis or a speculation. Mocking on "theories" is typical for laymen. 15:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)~
βˆ’
:Theory is the wrong term. Gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory. The oort cloud is "hypothesized". {{User:Omega/sig}} 06:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
+
:Theory is the wrong term. Gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory. The oort cloud is "hypothesized". [[User talk:Omega|Omega]] ([[User talk:Omega|talk]]) 06:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 
----
 
----
 
What's here looks exactly in line with current comet theory: A comet is "perturbed" by interactions with other objects out there, and at that distance the sun is a very bright dot, no more. On return (chancy, based on both/either burning up or being in a no return hyperbolic orbit), what has come back is fragmented and with two tails.  What I'm not seeing is the second level joke - it's in the movie "I'm going to check out x" form, but I don't get the specific quote. [[User:FractalgeekUK|FractalgeekUK]] ([[User talk:FractalgeekUK|talk]]) 13:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 
What's here looks exactly in line with current comet theory: A comet is "perturbed" by interactions with other objects out there, and at that distance the sun is a very bright dot, no more. On return (chancy, based on both/either burning up or being in a no return hyperbolic orbit), what has come back is fragmented and with two tails.  What I'm not seeing is the second level joke - it's in the movie "I'm going to check out x" form, but I don't get the specific quote. [[User:FractalgeekUK|FractalgeekUK]] ([[User talk:FractalgeekUK|talk]]) 13:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)

Templates used on this page: