Moon Orbit Wrong Cornell University Says.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by ColAngus

 

No you are wrong .This has nothing to do with anything related to planet X

Originally posted by CherubBaby
Ok . 15 cm. a year? Well, sounds like two extra planets in our solar system would explain that . Then again we could always go for the big prize and have a couple of black holes in the oort. Doesn't sound like a problem. Nothing to see here.

What's the word I'm looking for here? Disingenuous, maybe?

I know you get all hyper when called a liar, but...

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Your data or links that you post or the conclusions and interpretations carry no more proof or guarantee of outcome than mine do. You simply believe in what your sayiing. I believe in what I am saying. You sidestep my questions that you know are valid and I won't address yours as long as you continue to do so. One word does come to mind however. Funny but I keep thinking about the word "Contractor"

I addressed your claims directly; the very data you supplied shows that perturbations from an undiscovered object are not to blame. I don't just "believe in what I'm saying," I backed it up with proof. You won't address it because you know it's unassailable, your only recourse is to accuse me of being a "contractor," your not-so-subtle way of accusing me of being a "paid shill." I'm pretty sure that's against the rules.

Back to the original assertion in the thread title, Cornell University said no such thing, this was pointed out on page 2, yet the most ridiculous threads seem to live for 20 some pages because of simple OP denial.

You know what, I can make a hat!

Prove me wrong.

reply to post by Illustronic


The only thing I can prove is that you keep coming back to complain.

reply to post by ColAngus


You twist better than chubby checker. I meant me starting the thread has nothing to do with planet X The article's authour mentioned planet X. .. The title of the article is why I stared the thread with this title, What has you so bent out of shape? You constantly keep pushing it. Why? There is an old saying. "If you dont know what it is, then dont claim to know what it's not" I m not trying to press an agenda here. I have a right to say what I feel. 600 members a day do it. The thread topic is in the title of the article. I notice there are no lawsuits being filed by Cornell for the article. You and your friends are the only ones complaining. But then thats business as usual right?

I didn't ask you why you authored this thread. I asked what your theory was behind all of the discrepancies you have noted as of late, i.e. the moon being upside down, the sun rising too far to the east, etc. You finally slipped and gave your theory a page back as noted, even though you denied a rogue planet being the suspected culptit earlier.

Let's twist again...

Originally posted by ColAngus

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by Illustronic

 

I think your pretty well informecd but I dont totally agree or disagree with you at this point. The problem isn't the 2=2 so to speak, I just think there maybe more to this than what meets the eye. If I am right, it will be obvious soon enough for me.. Thanks for your opinions..

Was I right about this being about Planet X/Nibiru? Is that your belief or theory that is causing this?

I asked way back when in your initial "Moon is upside down" thread, and it seemed like you were going to post your theory, but I never saw it.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by ColAngus

 

No you are wrong .This has nothing to do with anything related to planet X

Originally posted by CherubBaby
Ok . 15 cm. a year? Well, sounds like two extra planets in our solar system would explain that . Then again we could always go for the big prize and have a couple of black holes in the oort. Doesn't sound like a problem. Nothing to see here.

reply to post by ColAngus


Planet X really has 2 meanings. One is an actual planet dubbed Planet X because it is not found but there is evidence to suggest its' existence. The other is a quantity, Planet X, kind of like solving for something unknown. There are variances that would be explained by a Planet X but Planet X is not found at the locations where the error would be solved. Of course there are other things that could explain it too. A glitch in the maitrix or new physics.

reply to post by luxordelphi

Or, as the author of the article says:

Our analysis should have effectively restricted the field of possible explanations, indirectly pointing towards either non-gravitational, mundane effects or some artifacts in the data processing.

arxiv.org...

reply to post by Phage


So yeah...mundane explanations would be the old physics and that would include Planet X. Artifact could be careless data input. Also making the speed of light variable instead of constant might be of help. That would be the new physics.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Phage

 

So yeah...mundane explanations would be the old physics and that would include Planet X.

A "Planet X" explanation is inconsistent with the data:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
There are mundane explanations that do not involve planet X nor are the issues necessarily related. For instance, the moon's eccentricity anomaly has been suggested to be caused by insufficiently understood and modeled internal dymanics of the moon itself.

reply to post by yeahright

I just perused the paper. I didn't have time to figure it all out, probably never will, but it appears that a group who knew their physics and their math produced the paper. The jist of it appears that the moon is not exactly where it should be from the calculations regarding all other known bodies. It further appears that they were attempting to locate the unknown body or bodies by their minor perturbations of the moon. The ultimate conclusion was a possible earth mass at 30 au, and a giant at 200 au.

reply to post by 3cents


That was not the ultimate conclusion. From the reference in the OP:

A potentially viable Newtonian candidate would be a trans-Plutonian massive object (Planet X/Nemesis/Tyche) since it, actually, would affect e with a non-vanishing long-term variation.

On the other hand, the values for the physical and orbital parameters of such a hypothetical body required to obtain the right order of magnitude for de/dt are completely unrealistic.

Moreover, they are in neat disagreement with both the most recent theoretical scenarios envisaging the existence of a distant, planetary-sized body and with the model-independent constraints on them dynamically inferred from planetary motions.

Thus, the issue of finding a satisfactorily explanation for the anomalous behaviour of the Moon's eccentricity remains open.

Which quite specifically says a "planet-X" type things is "completely unrealistic"

reply to post by Uncinus


The problem is you and the constant way your off topic. The thread isnt about PLUTO. THE THREAD isnt about me having an education in Astronomy, The thread is about a paper and it's title. and the fact that everyone, everyone, everyone is entitled to come to THEIR own conclusions about HOW THEY FEEL about the article.
Not what you feel 50 times in one thread. I didnt start the thread to answer questions or your questions constantly.

I am not on trial here GET IT ??? I put it on the board for others to have the freedom to decide what they do or dont believe about THE ARTICLE.

READ THE THREAD TITLE. Take it up with CORNELL if you don't like it. Im sick of you and your inquisitions. Take the hint..

PS If you don't think I am accurate when I claim that many ATS users, many internet users and many people world wide are agreeing that something is not right with the moon. Say so and I will send you the proof. Otherwise get out of the thread or address the title and the facts of the ARTICLE. The latter you have already done dozens of times repeating yourself over and over and over and over and over.So whats left maybe your exit from a thread you can't behave in.

reply to post by CherubBaby


Uhh.. this is a nonsense.

CORNELL UNIVERSITY didn't claim this.

The amount of deviation is WAY too minuscule to be seen with the human eye and MOST IMPORTANTLY the paper actually refutes that the moon is in any way different, at least as far as any human would notice.


So the title is wrong, you've reached a contradictory conclusion than the paper you posted a link to, and you really do need to "get" what you're posting if you hope to not have your misunderstanding thrown back a you.

This is all a mess of your creating... either "get" what the paper says, and change the title/stop using it to justify claims it indeed contradicts OR expect to be roundly mocked for your silliness.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


NO Your Poost is Nonsense. Why? Well below you start out by saying,

Uhh.. this is a nonsense.
CORNELL UNIVERSITY didn't claim this.

Really? They didn't have any association with the article? Then what is this below?



The above document is from the library of Cornell, and by the way , why don't you read the posts of the thread before you embaress yourself again? The first 2 pages of this thread laid to rest the same argument you again "Johnny Come Lately" regurgitate.

Then you say,

The amount of deviation is WAY too minuscule to be seen with the human eye and MOST IMPORTANTLY the paper actually refutes that the moon is in any way different, at least as far as any human would notice

I will decide what I notice NOT YOU !! you continue to rant saying,

So the title is wrong, you've reached a contradictory conclusion than the paper you posted a link to, and you really do need to "get" what you're posting if you hope to not have your misunderstanding thrown back a you.

Again for those who can't remember , I never named the article . I quoted the title the blog had given for the article. I GET what I am posting. I hope YOU GET what I am posting now !! Then you continue preeching..

This is all a mess of your creating... either "get" what the paper says, and change the title/stop using it to justify claims it indeed contradicts OR expect to be roundly mocked for your silliness

Whats a mess? I see no mess ? So I say to you "Either Get What the Op Says and Change your Post" "Stop Using The Thread To Justify Claims That You Indeed Contradict OR Expect To Be Roundly Mocked For You Sillyness"

reply to post by CherubBaby


So much nonsense in your response.

Being associated with an origination doesn't mean you SPEAK for the organisation. (Ask Ron Paul)

You CAN'T decide to notice something imperceptible... you might as well claim you've DECIDED to be invisible.

As far as blaming an inaccurate quote goes; YOU now KNOW the truth. Defending a misleading quote, because it's simply a quote, is either lazy (i.e. you can't be bothered to think it through), dishonest (i.e. you KNOW what you're saying is inaccurate and blame the quote to cover a lie) or just plain simple-minded (i.e. you believe the inaccurate quote). Which is it?

What mess you say? The mess of of the OP posting a bunch of nonsense then being called on the nonsense then vigorously defending the nonsense with dishonesty. That mess.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


And what did I do dishonest? Will you define dishonest in your opinion. I did nothing dishonest. I did not title the paper. Do you understand that?

reply to post by CherubBaby


Your OP suggests that the paper verifies the accounts of eyewitnesses. It very clearly does not.

reply to post by CherubBaby


Dishonest things you've said,

"I will decide what I notice NOT YOU !!"
"Frankly I don't care at this point what is causing it, the fact is something is not right with the moon. Thats all I need to know at this point. That explains why thousands of people have reported through observation something isn't right with the moon."
"Really? They didn't have any association with the article? Then what is this below? "

You know all of this is BS, or if you don't you aren't reading your own thread.

Look here: arxiv.org...

"Disclaimer: Papers will be entered in the listings in order of receipt on an impartial basis and appearance of a paper is not intended in any way to convey tacit approval of its assumptions, methods, or conclusions by any agent (electronic, mechanical, or other)."

Cornell University in NO WAY vouches for this paper. It was put up on an AUTOMATED system by a researcher from ANOTHER university and there's NO PROOF AT ALL that ANYONE in Cornell even knows it exists.