Originally posted by kyateLaBoca
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.
Ok, however those anamolies are entirely accounted for by pluto, when the correct masses are used. Infact, thats how pluto was found in the first
place. With all the anamolies accounted for,
Something a real time astronomer can do[...] 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.
Here is my issue with the Harrington paper. The paper begins with the assumption that Planet X exists and uses inaccurate information.
It -clearly- does not support the existence of Planet X. I think he presented it to say, if
Planet X exists, this is where to look for it. It
takes the anamolies that are known about neptune and uranus and says -if- planet x exists then how does it play a part in these anamolies.
Furthermore, it seems that every paper about Planet X, Neptune and Uranus, uses the pre-voyager information.
but from experiences in reading other science papers, its not always directly stated.
If Harrington isn't directly stateing critical information, then he, or anyone else for that matter, isn't writting very good science papers.
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.
The evidence should make it clear, not personal preference tho. The evidence for Planet X is insufficient, entirely.
People still discredit evolution. Go fig.
Yes but evolution has overwhelming evidence in its favour, Planet X does not.
In addition, if a theory is presented, it is a skeptic's job to present counter evidence.
Fair enough, but Harrington's Paper is not evidence for Planet X, so there is no need to present 'counter evidence'.
So if your a skeptic the burden is also on you to disprove.
I wouldn't want to disprove it. If good evidence is presented then I'd be exstatic to accept that there is another whole planet out there.
You presented what you felt was counter evidence, but only did so after many posts that had no links.
Because I was never presented anything as evidence. I was told that there's a french magazine, and dozens of books out there. Thats not presenting
It hypothesizes planet X exist just like any other hypothesis based on the scientific method.
It doesn't hypothesise that planet x exists, it hypothesises that one can predict characteristics about a planet according to the formula presented.
It assumes planet x exists. I'm sure the guy wrote other papers that have what he thought was evidence for the existence of planet x, but this
isn't one of them. He apparently wanted to determine where to look for planet x, assuming it exists in the first place. It was a perfectly valid and
scientific way to go about things, but its not evidence that it exists in the first place. The primary hypothesis of the paper, the one that is being
critically examined/tested in it, is that this Eckes formula can predict some characteristics of the planet.
and points to a general location of the planet from the data they found.
But the data used was inaccurate.
. But you started bashing me for almost no reason, so I wasnt going to sit back and relax.
I was only joking around about the not presenting evidence. You weren't involved with the main bulk of the thread, so I couldn't have even been
talking about you specifically. I was just being sarcastic, not tryig to bash you. If you felt I did, then I aplogize.
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
lets put it this way, people in the other forum I noted seem to be pretty well versed in this stuff, and they seem to beleive that Harrington used the
old data. I would gather that they worked out out from the formula he gives. Does anyone state that Harrington used the correct data? WHy doesn't
harrington state what the data is? And, also, the paper in question, its looking at the orbits of neptune and uranus and figuring that the pull their
orbits exhibit are entirely from planet x, which is strange, considering that Pluto is known to pull on them.
As stated in the video they did find some form of pulling on the outer planets, which had to accout for another planet.
When I had first heard about Planet X back in the day, the idea was, I thought, that it pulls on pluto. Pluto was discovered because an unknown
massive somethign was pulling on neptune and uranus. So it made sense that if another planet exists it should pull at least on Pluto, if not all
three. Unfortunately there is no mystery pull on pluto, and the pull on N&U is accounted for entirely by Pluto.
[qquote] just because, Harrington used the old data and the new data showed there to be no anomalies does not necessarily disprove planet X all
I agree entirely. However, I would think that if planet X exists, and it is planet sized, then there should
be a pull on N, U, and/or Pluto.
However I'd think that it could still be there, perhaps far away enough to not have an affect, or in some sort of weird orbit that cancels the
affect, or there could be some entirely unknown factor that cancels out the affect. Anything like Sitchin's Niribu however would by now not only be
showing up but be causing gravitational havoc throughout the system. And be visible. Anything like Nemesis would be even more havoic wreaking and
as well as others who agree with his translations that talk about planet x.
I'm actually getting really insteresting in Sitchin, if for nothing other than entertainment pruposes. Which of his books do you recommend? Do any
of them detail his translation? Or is he just reinterpreting the myths, perhaps re-translating some key words? Do any akkadian linguists agree with
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
Probably best. For now suffice to say we are talking about a 'normal' planet x, something bigger than 'sedna' with a slightly ellicptical orbit,
rather than a massive planet that screams between the inner planets and the deep reaches of space, inhabited by sumerian gods whith atomized gold in
But can I also address the same question to you. If your so confident enough that this planet doesn't exist, then why bother?
I don't understand the question. I'd like to know if it does or does not exist. It looks like it doesn't. I just want the best cases for and
I'll be looking at muadibb's info shortly.
edited to fix attributions
[edit on 18-10-2004 by Nygdan]