It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Study links periodic mass extinctions to "Planet X"

page: 3
36
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: HawkeyeNation

No guys, this is how the real world works.. Its awesome with ideas, and theories.. But the main fact still remains, always prove them..
Its to many theories that isnt even substantial..




posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: sosruko

You do know that literally everything science has ever done and discovered has come from an idea that went from

idea->hypothesis->theory.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: sosruko

You do know that Neptune was heavily predicted and theorized about before we actually found it right?

Discovery of Neptune

The planet Neptune was mathematically predicted before it was directly observed.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: sosruko
a reply to: HawkeyeNation

No guys, this is how the real world works.. Its awesome with ideas, and theories.. But the main fact still remains, always prove them..
Its to many theories that isnt even substantial..



Clearly you don't know what the definition of a scientific theory is either.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So was Pluto (also know as Planet X back in the early 20th century).



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Show me the evidence, hearsay is not evidence... Do you have the education to actually confirm the claims?



Its great he has the credibility and isnt biased, hopefully he can elaborate even further in the realm science..


exactly my quote above.. Dont know if that wasnt enough?



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I know the foundation for a theory at work, comes with the foundation of philosophical work of Kant and Popper.. Im sure you are familiar to both?



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Im asking for physical evidence, not a blind faith in men who tries to sell books..



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: sosruko

Yes there is EVIDENCE (as I already pointed out).

Bodies on the outer reaches of our solar system have been reacting to an unknown force. First they thought they were reacting with each other, but the reactions are too great in force to be one asteroid/comet reacting with another. That's where the idea for a planet came in.

Now, no one is saying that it's 100% true as its just a hypothesis, but the indications are strong for a planet.

(BTW Planet X does not equal Nibiru)



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: sosruko
Im asking for physical evidence, not a blind faith in men who tries to sell books..


What exactly is your problem with the hypothesis? Actual reasons explaining what your problem with it would be nice, instead of just dismissing it.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: sosruko
Im asking for physical evidence, not a blind faith in men who tries to sell books..


From the article itself


Caltech inferred its existence based on orbital anomalies seen in objects in the Kuiper Belt


So how was Neptune discovered


Neptune was the first planet to be discovered by using mathematics. After the discovery of Uranus in 1781, astronomers noticed that the planet was being pulled slightly out of its normal orbit.

coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu...

While yes the Planet X (unknown planet) is purely hypothesized at this time we do have physical evidence that fully supports what we've seen in the past.
edit on 30-3-2016 by HawkeyeNation because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: sosruko

Have a read of this CALTECH link and all the data linked from that link.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: sosruko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I know the foundation for a theory at work, comes with the foundation of philosophical work of Kant and Popper.. Im sure you are familiar to both?


Well when you say things like this, "No guys, this is how the real world works.. Its awesome with ideas, and theories.. But the main fact still remains, always prove them..
Its to many theories that isnt even substantial.." it makes it seem like you don't understand that for a scientific idea to reach theoretical status, it has been proven MANY times over by many different sources.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 10:52 AM
link   

“Planet X” triggers comet showers linked to mass extinctions on Earth at intervals of approximately 27 million years.



So when is it supposed to come around again? They left out the most important piece of info.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: HawkeyeNation

I live in the western world, so i have to agree with your statement of 1781.. I have a great book on my bookshelf written about 2400 years ago.. By an astronomer called Ptolemy.. Great work, you should buy it..



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief

“Planet X” triggers comet showers linked to mass extinctions on Earth at intervals of approximately 27 million years.



So when is it supposed to come around again? They left out the most important piece of info.


I don't actually understand that part of the article as the supposed orbit of Planet X is 10,000 years and goes nowhere near the Kuiper belt.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

First rule, always object.. Visible object.. otherwise its theoretics.. The line isnt that hard to see.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: sosruko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

First rule, always object.. Visible object.. otherwise its theoretics.. The line isnt that hard to see.


Can you see Antarctica from where you are?
No? Must not exist then.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I dont think it works that way, but an A+ for effort..



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: sosruko
a reply to: TerryDon79

I dont think it works that way, but an A+ for effort..


It's funny how you have yet to provide any reason why you believe the hypothesis to be wrong/flawed beyond saying it is.



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join