Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by ngchunter
I didn't know you were able to decide what someone means when they say "Concerned". or for that matter when they said "Disturbing"
"However, the possibility that they will be explained by a new theory of gravitation is not ruled out"
Their words. Doesn't say anything about extra planets, a possibility that was ruled out in the paper you originally posted about in this thread.
Goes directly to what I was saying they were saying. Even though I'm only an amateur astronomer, I am a scientist and I've known a number of
professional astronomers over the years, enough to know how they think. Plus, they flat-out tell you what they're thinking right there in the
What is the issue at this point is what you say and whether it is accurate and factual so, since this couldn't be explained by a planets close
by that would have to appraoch closely, close enough to see them then I guess it maybe a black hole or worse.
No, that would not explain it at all. Again, the issue I asked you about is to do with close approaches to earth accelerating spacecraft very, very
slightly more than expected. I asked you how extra planets would explain that. Switching your explanation to a black hole doesn't explain it either
since the phenomenon is centered on earth itself.
Another of the issues they mention is the pioneer anomaly, which was in a sunward direction for both probes... even though they left the solar system
in opposite directions, meaning if it were a planet, black hole, neutron star, whatever-object-you-think-it-is, it would have to be occupying the same
point in space as the sun itself. In other words, no, it's not due to a planet, black hole, neutron star, or any other undiscovered object.
Im on the same page with you.
No, you're clearly not on the same page with me. You seem to think these phenomenon are caused by an external perturber, a possibility ruled out in
the paper you originally posted about. I will quote, from that paper:
We must conclude that not even the hypothesis of Planet X is a viable one to explain
the anomalous increase of the lunar eccentricity of eq. (1).
Before you ask, no, changing the claim to a black hole doesn't help. This isn't about the ability to directly see it, it's about the effect it
would have on other objects. Take for instance the earth itself, your new link notes the increase in the AU of 15 cm/yr. Is that consistent with the
hypothetical perturber from your original paper which was ruled out? The answer is an emphatic no. Using ORSA I simulated the solar system in the
year 2010 using the data for the hypothetical perturber from your original paper. I made the perturber 1 earth mass at a distance of 30 AU and got
the expected increase in eccentricity of the moon of 9x10^-12. The earth-sun distance (the AU), however, changed by a whopping 3.26 meters, over 200
times what the anomaly was reported to be. So again, the attempt to explain it as a perturbation from an undiscovered object fails.