Originally posted by Nygdan
But Harrington didn't find any other anomolies. What paper are you saying covers this then?
I'm not sure what you mean by "other anomalies." When I said, "he did find anomalies," I was refering to the anomalies that already existed from
the masses that were known at the time. Its all in that video. He talks about how something is pulling on Uranus and Neptune, and how a large
mass(planet X) could account for the strange orbit of those outer planets. And all of this is implied in the report or stated. He even states in the
video that in that paper they hypothesized that there was tugging on the outer planets. So there is a report that claims there were anomalies pulling
on the outer planets and that paper is on that site. You just have to be able to understand all the implications and the charts of his experiment.
Something a real time astronomer can do, maybe even an amateur. Otherwise, if your an average joe, don't expect to be able to hunt and peck for
direct statements that say, "The anomalies found were..." Science reports(bio, physics, chem) are never that simple and direct. I'm not saying I'm
an astronomer and I understood the reports better then you, but from experiences in reading other science papers, its not always directly stated.
I am not the one making the claim that there is another planet residing out there. The burden to present evidence is on that theories
It is a burden for a theoy to present its data/evidence. But then the burden is then handed to the person hearing the theory. It's his choice of
whether he wants to accept it or not. There are many proponents and critics of Zecharia's translations. In the end it all comes down to what you
believe. People still discredit evolution. Go fig.
In addition, if a theory is presented, it is a skeptic's job to present counter evidence. So if your a skeptic the burden is also on you to disprove.
You presented what you felt was counter evidence, but only did so after many posts that had no links. Thats why I called you hypocritical for telling
me that I didnt present any evidence even though I posted a link on my first post of this thread, when you didnt post any links from those multiple
posts you made.
Also, the '88 Harrington paper doesn't find anything, it assumes that planet x exists and then goes about figuring out some of its orbital
and other characteristics.
It hypothesizes planet X exist just like any other hypothesis based on the scientific method. They do look at orbital and other characteristics, but
the ultimate goal is to map a region of where it could possibly be, and confirm that it does pull on the outer planets. The hypothesis of the report
is that very first sentence in the middle of the top page. He states all this in the video and makes a map(although hard to see) and points to a
general location of the planet from the data they found.
If you think he is using the old inaccurate data then whats the sense then?
Well I'm only taking your word for it for now, unless I see from some other place that shows otherwise. Whats the sense then? 1. Because you've made
it into a big argument. I only wanted to know when they made the claim that old masses were being used. But you started bashing me for almost no
reason, so I wasnt going to sit back and relax. You bash me, I'll bash you right back. 2. The focus of this argument has shifted away from whether
inaccurate data was used or not to what the hypothesis of his paper is and if he did find anomalies. As stated in the video they did find some form of
pulling on the outer planets, which had to accout for another planet.
And just because, Harrington used the old data and the new data showed there to be no anomalies does not necessarily disprove planet X all together.
We dont know the size of this thing. Maybe if it went off far enough, it would cause minor perturbations. Minor pertubations for which anomalies can
be explained for. There are still multiple translations from Zecharia Sitchen, as well as others who agree with his translations that talk about
planet x. That debate can pretty much go both ways because there will always be critics and always be believers. We can save that for another time and
In addition, there are also other professional astronomers that also feel there is another planet. Look at the links that were provided by Muaddib
But can I also address the same question to you. If your so confident enough that this planet doesn't exist, then why bother?
[edit on 18-10-2004 by kyateLaBoca]