Cacique Caribe | 06 Mar 2017 2:06 p.m. PST |
Are astronomers just yanking our chain to continue being relevant? link link PS. What's funny is how just a couple of years before, there were documentaries with renowned scientists saying there couldn't be any such thing as a "Planet X" (or the Niburu of lore) hiding anywhere at all in the Solar System, because they would have seen it by now. Lol |
FABET01 | 06 Mar 2017 2:20 p.m. PST |
If I could count the number of times I read Astronomers say they understand the universe and they say "Whoops, didn't see that coming",Or the number of times Mathematicians have made up a new form a math to make a theory work…. If I did work like that while I was in grade school, I still be left back in 1st grade – and that was almost 60 years ago. |
Cacique Caribe | 06 Mar 2017 2:47 p.m. PST |
Lol. I know what you mean. Believe it or not, I find comfort in a room full of scientists who read the same data and all come to different conclusions. I respect them even more when they venture out and work out data independently from each other. But … when all of them come to the exact same conclusion, and then sound so absolutely confident of it (and be so openly dismissive of laymen who have some doubts), well let's just say THAT'S when I think we need to take pause, because the other shoe is probably about to drop … even though they would never admit to all being massively wrong, of course*. :) Dan * That's why I seriously doubt Pluto will ever be reinstated as a planet, because it would mean they were collective wrong TWICE about the exact same thing at exactly the same time. Plus, with Pluto reinstated as our 9th planet, that would also mean they would have to call Planet 9 something else entirely … and I doubt they would want to call it Planet 10 (too close to mythical Planet X). :) TMP link |
Martin From Canada | 06 Mar 2017 3:39 p.m. PST |
PS. What's funny is how just a couple of years before, there were documentaries with renowned scientists saying there couldn't be any such thing as a "Planet X" (or the Niburu of lore) hiding anywhere at all in the Solar System, because they would have seen it by now. Lol That's correct, since the proposed orbits are VERY different, and we would have seen the "damage" that a planet with a apoapse closer to the sun than Earth and a periapse further than Pluto in the orbits of all the other planets (even if it was perpendicular to orbital plain – and at that point, you have to explain why such a large object is perpendicular to the orbital plain when conservation of angular momentum concentrates bodies into the a plain…
Believe it or not, I find comfort in a room full of scientists who read the same data and all come to different conclusions. I respect them even more when they venture out and work out data independently from each other. I'll get famous, have my own lab and oodles of grant money by proving the consensus correct… said nobody ever. Albert Einstein wouldn't be what he is today if he proclaimed that Newton was absolute right on ever single point and that the Princepea was omniscient and gave the mathematical tools to solve every single problem ever devised and treat it as some divine revelation inscribed to paper. . When scientists working independently using different and unrelated techniques have results that points in the same direction, that's called consilience and that's a big sign that they might be onto something. (And that not to get dragged into the whole Newton-Leibniz debate about who was first to discover calculus) But … when all of them come to the exact same conclusion, and then sound so absolutely confident of it (and be so openly dismissive of laymen who have some doubts), well let's just say THAT'S when I think we need to take pause, because the other shoe is probably about to drop … even though they would never admit to all being massively wrong, of course*. :) Have you read relativity of wrong? (If you haven't, here's a copy link or a slightly different version link ). One thing I would like to teach is that there is a world of difference between sufrace differnces between theory and observation (theory predicted x and observation was x+0.02) and fundamental irreconcilable differences (theory predicted x and observation was [insert favorite Deepak Chopra word salad here]). |
Cacique Caribe | 06 Mar 2017 3:49 p.m. PST |
Martin, I'm sorry, maybe I didn't explain my point properly or I completely misunderstand yours. I guess either way I must be the one who did something wrong. So, here it goes again … A) A few years ago astronomers ridiculed anyone who even suggested there could be a large unknown planet in our solar system (insert any name you want), specially one whose orbit occasionally affected that of the existing planets. B) Now we are told by the same scientific community that we must all be open to the possibility there is such a planet. Don't see the humor in all this? Dan |
Winston Smith | 06 Mar 2017 3:56 p.m. PST |
|
Cacique Caribe | 06 Mar 2017 3:58 p.m. PST |
Sounds Greek to me. Dan PS. I'm feeling a bit like the little kid that raises his hand at Sunday School to ask a simple question and is told he must read the works of St. Augustine or some other theologian, just to be on an even keel to even get ask the question in the first place. |
Martin From Canada | 06 Mar 2017 4:15 p.m. PST |
A) A few years ago astronomers ridiculed anyone who even suggested there could be a large unknown planet in our solar system (insert any name you want), specially one whose orbit occasionally affected that of the existing planet.B) Now we are told by the same scientific community that we must all be open to the possibility there is such a planet. Don't see the humor in all this? No. The multiple Nibiru/PlanetX theories are pure crackpotery divorced from celestial mechanics as we know them, are mutually incomparable and lack any shred of physical evidence other than what's found inside of a bong after a few too many hits and constant exposure to Coast to Coast AM, whereas while we don't know for certain that Planet 9 exists, there's a circumstantial case to be made from physical evidence that it could exist, and the search for Planet 9 is constrained by our understanding of physics, with the residual error on Cassini's orbits around Saturn allowing researchers to eliminate huge swaths of sky and narrow their focus on others. Also, don't let the radio silence fool you, since we may already have sighting of Planet 9, but teams are waiting for more observations before publicly announcing that they found it rather than it being dirt on the lens or cosmic ray affecting the CCD. This isn't a fleeting astronomical event such as a supernova where the discovering science team puts out an all telescopes warning – orbits have a tendency of being predictable ;-) . |
Cacique Caribe | 06 Mar 2017 4:18 p.m. PST |
That's not what I was asking at all. The summary dismissal was all based on how there couldn't be another planet, period. Not based on the source of the idea or the entire myth that developed around it later, which seems to be all you're looking at. But thanks. Dan |
Martin From Canada | 06 Mar 2017 4:21 p.m. PST |
The dismissal was all based on how there couldn't be another planet period. podcast.sjrdesign.net/tree.html Look up the PlanetX header. Dr. Robins looks at various PlanetX/Nibiru theories and explains that if they existed as predicted, we would see x,y and z effects in the Solar system, and that while absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, these theories are bunk. |
Cacique Caribe | 06 Mar 2017 4:25 p.m. PST |
This is like talking about comets and other celestial bodies observed or theorized by ancient Mesopotamians and which were later given names of gods and goddesses … but all you're doing is disputing the Sumerian or Babylonian religious beliefs … or that they weren't omens of anything … or that astrology is a crock. Dan |
nazrat | 06 Mar 2017 4:33 p.m. PST |
Good to see the science hate is alive and well on TMP… Sheesh. |
Cacique Caribe | 06 Mar 2017 4:37 p.m. PST |
"Science hate"? Wow. Is that modern-speak for "Heresy! Heresy!" Or "infidel! Infidel!" That itself sounds more like skepticism-hate to me. Lol Dan |
piper909 | 06 Mar 2017 5:03 p.m. PST |
If there's another planet far out there, I hope thewy have a better name for it than "Nibiru." Why not Stygia? |
Cacique Caribe | 06 Mar 2017 5:09 p.m. PST |
|
15th Hussar | 06 Mar 2017 5:52 p.m. PST |
Planet Nine from Outer Space! |
Winston Smith | 06 Mar 2017 7:00 p.m. PST |
Name it after me. I won't charge much. |
Winston Smith | 06 Mar 2017 7:21 p.m. PST |
Seriously…. Dan is right. The history of Science is replete with scientists holding adamant views that were (searching for a neutral word here) proven not quite completely accurate. I can find no fault with Aristotle as a scientist. Who am I to criticize Aristotle? And yet he was often "wrong". Doing the best he could with information he had on hand, Ptolemy came up with his epicycles which were accurate …. up to a point. Circular orbits of planets gave worse empirical results than heavily modified Ptolemaic geocentric epicycles. It took Copernicus to come up with elliptical orbits to be empirically verifiable. Science is never "settled". It is always evolving. Those who believed and practiced what they thought to be settled were neither fools or charlatans. They were simply behind the times. Newton stood on the shoulders of giants. Einstein didn't topple Newton. He simply looked out a few more decimal points and stood on Newton's shoulders. Planet X is silly. That's Dan's point. I know Dan. He likes silly. Planet 9 is the few more decimal points solution to very abstruse anomalies. I hope they find it. Soon. It would be way Kool. |
Hafen von Schlockenberg | 06 Mar 2017 9:53 p.m. PST |
Just to note that it was Kepler with the elliptical orbits--Copernicus stuck with the "perfect" circles,which was why his system needed as much finagling as Ptolemy's. |
Winston Smith | 06 Mar 2017 9:54 p.m. PST |
|
Cacique Caribe | 06 Mar 2017 10:38 p.m. PST |
Winston, Lol. You are so spot on! Dan |
Martin From Canada | 07 Mar 2017 2:33 a.m. PST |
This is a bit embarrassing, but earlier in this thread I mixed up apoapsis and periapsis by flipping the terms. Furthermore, the words apoapis and periapsis are generic, and most manuals of style prefer aphelion and perihelion when using our sun as reference point. I apologize for the typographical and linguistic mistakes. |
Bowman | 07 Mar 2017 6:30 a.m. PST |
Seriously…. Dan is right. No actually he is wrong and doesn't grasp Martin's answers to him. I can find no fault with Aristotle as a scientist. Who am I to criticize Aristotle? grin And yet he was often "wrong". And here I thought he was a philosopher. I don't think "science" as we understand it now was practiced by the ancient Greeks. And there is nothing wrong with being wrong. That's how science works. Science is never "settled". It is always evolving. Those who believed and practiced what they thought to be settled were neither fools or charlatans. They were simply behind the times. Ptolemy came up with his epicycles which were accurate …. up to a point. Circular orbits of planets gave worse empirical results than heavily modified Ptolemaic geocentric epicycles. It took Copernicus to come up with elliptical orbits to be empirically verifiable. No, and no. This is an old canard that floats to the surface every once in a while. From Palter: Copernicus' theory was at least as accurate as Ptolemy's but never achieved the stature and recognition of Ptolemy's theory. What was needed was Kepler's elliptical theory, not published until 1609. Copernicus' work provided explanations for phenomena like retrograde motion, but really didn't prove that the planets actually orbited the Sun. Robert Palter, An Approach to the History of Early Astronomy Copernicus' circular orbits under heliocentricm were still more accurate. However, since real orbits are elliptical, Copernicus still needed epicycles to "correct" the movement of his planets. Copernicus needed fewer (from 80 to 34) and much smaller ones, known as epicyclets. It took Kepler to remove the epicycles forever. Owen Gingerich, The Book Nobody Read, Walker, 2004, p. 257 References from Wiki link |
Winston Smith | 07 Mar 2017 6:44 a.m. PST |
Aristotle and science: link |
Bowman | 07 Mar 2017 7:22 a.m. PST |
Thanks for making my point, Winston I had to read Aristotle's science stuff in Philosophy class. That's why he is remembered nowadays mostly for his philosophy. Love his Nichomachean Ethics. |
Hafen von Schlockenberg | 07 Mar 2017 5:19 p.m. PST |
I liked the Poetics. But nobody reads that but English majors. . . (sob). . . |
Cyrus the Great | 07 Mar 2017 10:44 p.m. PST |
Just wait until the orbital path of Nibiru comes within hailing distance of Earth. Then those, who were once thought Sumerian gods, will invite the select few to join them. They will send ships to collect us at predetermined points. Just buy David Bowie's last album "Blackstar" and play it backwards at 78 RPM to get the locations. I will have the last laugh as I leave your pathetic planet behind. |
jdginaz | 07 Mar 2017 11:11 p.m. PST |
Ok guys enough, we all know that if you criticize scientists or point out the their flaws in any way you upset Martin & Bowman. |
Cacique Caribe | 08 Mar 2017 12:41 a.m. PST |
Lol. I know what you mean. I'm just glad there are still scientists out there who don't take themselves so freaking seriously. Dan |
Gunfreak | 08 Mar 2017 11:40 a.m. PST |
Ok guys enough, we all know that if you criticize scientists or point out the their flaws in any way you upset Martin & Bowman. No scientific flaws have been pointed out. Only rampant wilful misunderstanding of science in an attempt at scoring some anti science points |
Winston Smith | 08 Mar 2017 3:04 p.m. PST |
If pointing out that scientists are human is "anti-science"….. |
Bowman | 08 Mar 2017 6:20 p.m. PST |
…if you criticize scientists or point out the their flaws in any way…. If pointing out that scientists are human is "anti-science"….. Need a little more straw for those arguments? |
Winston Smith | 09 Mar 2017 6:37 a.m. PST |
Defensive? Just a little? Show us the proof that science can be "settled" or that scientists are infallible. |
Gunfreak | 09 Mar 2017 8:43 a.m. PST |
Man you can now build an army of scarecrows with all that straw you keep piling on. |
Cacique Caribe | 09 Mar 2017 10:33 a.m. PST |
Winston, I think you broke them and now they're caught in a loop, and are even projecting "straw man". Lol They are the ones who are attacking a straw man, and purposely avoiding the whole point I was making, that A + B = Hilarious* Dan * For those who might have somehow missed it: "A) A few years ago astronomers ridiculed anyone who even suggested there could be a large unknown planet in our solar system (insert any name you want), specially one whose orbit occasionally affected that of the existing planets; yet B) Now we are told by the same scientific community that we must all be open to the possibility there is such a planet. Don't see the humor in all this?" |
Gunfreak | 09 Mar 2017 11:44 a.m. PST |
As long as you keep using the same fallacies, we'll continue to point out you are still using the same fallacies. |
Martin From Canada | 09 Mar 2017 1:59 p.m. PST |
"A) A few years ago astronomers ridiculed anyone who even suggested there could be a large unknown planet in our solar system (insert any name you want), specially one whose orbit occasionally affected that of the existing planets; yet That's nowhwere near true. There was always this feeling that the current model was almost there, but that there was room for a planet in the outer solar system to help explain periodic asteroid and comet bombardments targeted on the inner solar system, and that the Jupiter-Saturn interaction wasn't a perfect explanation. Furthermore, as observations of the keiper belt improved, we started to discover other large rocks such as Sedna, Makemake, et, and we hypothosied that something was "odd" with the orbits, but we didn't have a mechanism to explain it. Out of that came the hypothetical planet Tyche – which was Jupiter sized and located in the Oort cloud – or Nemisis, a brown dwarf and that our sun was to be it's Jamie Lannister.
So, when the Wise telescope did a survey of the sky in order to find Near Earth Objects (NEO), its data ruled out possibility of a Saturn-sized object at 10k AU and a Jupiter sized planet at 26k AU. Therefore the theories of Tyche and Nemesis were a bust, but it still left some "design space" for a Neptune sized object to do the same function. As I've explained earlier, this is completly different than Nibiru and Planet X, which have no physical "design space" in which to exist.
B) Now we are told by the same scientific community that we must all be open to the possibility there is such a planet. Don't see the humor in all this?" Not really, especially if you know more than the "lies to children" aspect of 1 |
Cacique Caribe | 09 Mar 2017 1:59 p.m. PST |
|
Martin From Canada | 14 Mar 2017 2:24 a.m. PST |
B can only be funny if A is true, but what I've demonstrated is that A is at best incomplete (takes the "lie to children" explaination of A as a full explanation) or wrong (willful ignorance of the context behind A, and thus putting forward a false premise). Therefore B lacks the necessary and sufficient condition (A=true) to be humourous. |
Bowman | 14 Mar 2017 6:00 a.m. PST |
Defensive? Just a little? Show us the proof that science can be "settled" or that scientists are infallible. First straw man argument. Now a non-sequitur. The Science board is a breeding ground for logical fallacies. To recap, you stated, "If pointing out that scientists are human is "anti-science"……". Which no one ever did. Hence straw man argument. After that, you stated, "Show us the proof that science can be "settled" or that scientists are infallible." Not only do I agree totally with your comment of science never being settled, I gave you a big thumbs up for stating so on my Mar. 7, 6:300am posting. So, me showing you proof on why your comment is wrong does not follow. Hence, non sequitur. Not defensive at all, thanks. Just having a hard time following the reasoning behind some of the arguments here. +1 Gunfreak. |
Bowman | 14 Mar 2017 6:05 a.m. PST |
"A) A few years ago astronomers ridiculed anyone who even suggested there could be a large unknown planet in our solar system (insert any name you want), specially one whose orbit occasionally affected that of the existing planets; yet B) Now we are told by the same scientific community that we must all be open to the possibility there is such a planet. Don't see the humor in all this?" Dan, I tend to agree with Martin here. Can you show us any evidence supporting your allegation A? Mike Brown of Caltech, discovered Sedna in 2003. Batygin and Brown discovered perturbations of the movement of Sedna and other Kuiper Belt inhabitants and suspected a large planet. New observations in 2015 and 2016 seem to corroborate the existence of a large planet 20 times past the orbit of Neptune. PS Brown is the guy most responsible for "killing" Pluto. link |
Cacique Caribe | 14 Mar 2017 9:38 a.m. PST |
@Martin: "B can only be funny if A is true, but what I've demonstrated is that A is at best incomplete (takes the "lie to children" explaination of A as a full explanation) or wrong (willful ignorance of the context behind A, and thus putting forward a false premise). Therefore B lacks the necessary and sufficient condition (A=true) to be humourous." Does not compute … Does not compute … Does not compute … Lol. Ok Sheldon. Dan |
Gunfreak | 14 Mar 2017 11:30 a.m. PST |
It was a perfectly clear explanation. |
Cacique Caribe | 14 Mar 2017 3:53 p.m. PST |
|
Bowman | 14 Mar 2017 4:00 p.m. PST |
Dan, shouldn't you be spending some internet time finding all those astronomers that were ridiculing everyone, a few years ago? Can you name the documentary that had the astronomers deriding the existence of Planet X or Nibiru or whatever? Because that is quite different from the planet the rest of us are talking about. Was it on the History Channel? Did it have this guy in it?
|
Cacique Caribe | 14 Mar 2017 4:07 p.m. PST |
|
Bowman | 14 Mar 2017 4:16 p.m. PST |
Then I'll repeat, can you show us any evidence supporting your allegation A? |