Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,340 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,123,299
Pageviews Today: 1,403,470Threads Today: 167Posts Today: 3,869
10:09 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist

 
AstromutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
11/02/2011 11:29 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
I'm sure most everyone around here knows about Robert Harrington's Planet X theory, but what some may not know is that he published a paper about its expected orbit and mass before he died. TBar1984 has an excellent video about this here:

[link to www.youtube.com]

The whole purpose of the Planet X theory was to explain what appeared to be perturbations in the positions of Uranus and Neptune. Neptune was not only discovered, but its position was predicted by monitoring perturbations in the position of Uranus, so it seemed logical that this could be the case once again.

In 1989, Voyager 2 flew by Neptune, the final planetary visit of its journey through our solar system. In 1992 (published in 1993), Myles Standish more accurately calculated the masses of Uranus and Neptune using the telemetry from the Voyager flyby's. The result was that Neptune's previously accepted mass was off by about 0.5%, and the newly computed masses eliminated the apparent perturbations of the planets; the gravitational interactions of the planets with each other were the cause but were not being properly accounted for with the old mass figures.

[link to adsabs.harvard.edu]

Now, of course since this is coming from a NASA scientist, specifically from JPL, there are some who would say this was just a NASA lie to make people stop searching for Planet X in the wake of Harrington's death, which was less than a month after the final revisions to the above paper were made prior to its publication.

Let's assume for a moment that the "official answer" is a lie to placate us and lead us off trail of Harrington's planet X. As TBar showed, Harrington predicted the orbit of his hypothetical planet X, and we can use that orbit to determine where it should be today, as well as throughout history. Now, as I previously mentioned, the reason given for why there previously appeared to be perturbations going on was due to an inadequately determined mass for Neptune. In fact, using Voyager's flyby telemetry data, they updated the mass figures for all the gas giants; Neptune's adjustment was just the largest (Table 1):

[link to adsabs.harvard.edu]

Let's assume for a moment that planet X was the true cause of the perturbations, and they only updated the mass figures of the planets to make the perturbations appear to vanish.



That would seem to be at least hypothetically possible to do, but the problem is that it wouldn't stick. You'd be trying to beat a square peg into a hole whose shape is constantly changing. Changing Neptune's mass could be done to make the perturbations in the position of Uranus vanish for a moment in time in the early 90's when the correction was made using Voyager's data, but it wouldn't stay corrected because the true source of the perturbations would not be Neptune. Planet X and Neptune would not occupy the same point in space, nor would they follow the same orbit around the sun. Neptune's changed mass might fix the problem in the apparent position of Uranus in 1992, but the question is, would it remain consistent with the "planet X" version of the solar system nearly 20 years later?



ORSA is an open source program that is perfect for answering just that question.

[link to orsa.sourceforge.net]

Using ORSA I simulated the "planet X" version of the solar system using the original masses of the planets (IAU 1976 figures), and Harrington's planet X using his own orbital elements and mass of the planet. I let Pluto retain its current low mass in this system since it was a discovery made in part by Harrington himself, which lead to the search for planet X since pluto could most definitely not account for the perturbations with that little mass. I then compared this to a simulation which had the corrected masses of the planets, and did not have Harrington's planet X in it. In other words, does the "corrected neptune mass" version of the solar system remain indistinguishable from the "planet X" version of the solar system today?



I ran the systems from 1900, which was approximately the time period where the predicted positions of the planets using the old masses were last reasonably consistent with their detected positions without any corrections according to the data, and ran it through to October 31st, 2011, which is when I photographed Uranus' position relative to the stars to see where it actually is and if it is remaining true to the "revised mass" model of the solar system used today to predict the locations of the planets. I set it to generate an output of one sample point per day. I then exported lists of the coordinates of Uranus, the earth and the sun from both simulations, which you can access here:


[link to www.4shared.com]
[link to www.4shared.com]
[link to www.4shared.com]
[link to www.4shared.com]
[link to www.4shared.com]
[link to www.4shared.com]


The file format is a list of X Y Z positions, each line represents about 1 day of time, the first line starts on January 1, 1900, the last line is less than an hour before midnight on October 31, 2011.


The results show that, yes, the corrected mass of Neptune makes the perturbation of Uranus' position relative to earth appear to vanish in the early 90s. On January 1, 1992, the models agree that Uranus should be at angle relative to the sun as seen from earth of 5 degrees 47' 52" within the X-Y plane of the simulation (which is similar to, but not exactly the plane of the earth's orbit). The difference bewteen the two is less than an arcsecond and not only is Uranus' position a potential contributer, but differences in the sun's apparent position relative to earth as well. To make sure that the sun wasn't "compensating" for any differences in Uranus' position between the two by being off from where it should be, I also checked the difference between Uranus' position relative to earth by itself in both models and found they were also in agreement to sub-arcsecond precision (where Uranus' distance relative to earth would also contribute to any difference but would not actually be noticed in any individual measurement of Uranus' stellar position as seen from earth).



Despite the contribution of both Uranus and the sun's positions relative to earth, the models agree extremely well to sub-arcsecond position, which they should at that timepoint regardless of whether NASA was telling the truth or not; even if Planet X doesn't exist, it was hypothesized in that time period as a way of explaining the apparent perturbations, so naturally a model of it should agree with the "corrected mass model" at that timepoint.



The "corrected mass" model of the solar system that we currently use based on Voyager's data "fixed" the perturbations then, but it turns out that this would not still be the case today if planet X were the true cause. By October 31, 2011, the models are no longer in agreement. Uranus' angular separation from the sun in the simulation's X-Y plane was 143 degrees 3' 21.9" in the planet X version of the solar system, but the revised mass version of the solar system has it at 143 degrees 3' 28.25". Although not detectable by eye, a difference of several arcseconds would be easily detected by telescopic observation. Of course, that begs the question, is there an apparent perturbation of Uranus and/or the sun of 6+ arcseconds? Both the sun's apparent position and Uranus' apparent position as seen from earth contribute to this angle, and as it so happens, I've recently measured both the sun's and Uranus' apparent positions in the sky.

You can see my thread on the sun's position here: Thread: The sun is right where it should be in the sky!



I took this image of Uranus at 9:33:47 eastern time Halloween night (1:33:47 UT 11/1/11):

[link to www.4shared.com]

Uranus' position at that time should have been about RA: 0h05m11.53s, DEC: -00°16'01.3". Here's the astrometrically solved version of the image embedded into a kml file. I removed the hot pixels removed adjusted the levels so that the solver wouldn't fail while mistaking camera noise for stars:

[link to www.4shared.com]

The resolution was about 0.38 arcseconds per pixel. Just load it up in Google sky and you can see for yourself, Uranus is right where it should be to within the resolution of the image, at about RA: 0h05m11.54s DEC: -00°16'01.37" (the measurement line is just a way of showing by the green dot where the center point of Uranus is in the image; I measured out from there to the sides to make sure I had an equal distance on the sides):

[link to i319.photobucket.com]

In summary, Uranus and the sun show that Harrington's planet X does not exist and NASA was telling the truth about the mass of Neptune as determined by Voyager.

Last Edited by Dr. Astro on 05/20/2012 07:30 PM
astrobanner2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 842983
United States
11/02/2011 11:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
Sitchin's "12th Planet" is also called Planet X but the two planets are different from Harrington's I believe.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1464958
Canada
11/02/2011 11:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
So basically you are calling a very brilliant astronomer who worked for the United States Naval Observatory a crackpot nutcase because he said it exists.

Gotcha.
Aquarius58

User ID: 1347659
United States
11/02/2011 11:59 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
...the truth is out there somewhere.

Last Edited by Bridge of Sighs on 11/03/2011 12:01 AM
"The Physical World is a mystery, wrapped in an enigma, coated in a conundrum, basted with a paradox and garnished with uncertainty"
AstromutModerator (OP)
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
11/03/2011 12:00 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
So basically you are calling a very brilliant astronomer who worked for the United States Naval Observatory a crackpot nutcase because he said it exists.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1464958

Show me where I called him a nutcase. He hypothesized its existence, but he never claimed to have found it. I showed definitively that his hypothetical planet does not exist and is at odds with current data, even though it was at least consistent with the data from his day (because it was designed to be). It was a legitimate hypothesis, it was just wrong.
astrobanner2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3486334
Germany
11/03/2011 12:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
Do you have an infrared scope by chance?
AstromutModerator (OP)
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
11/03/2011 12:10 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
Do you have an infrared scope by chance?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3486334

Yes, my scope can be used to detect infrared as well as visible light:
m42infraredbw
astrobanner2
TBar1984

User ID: 1537588
United States
11/03/2011 12:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
So basically you are calling a very brilliant astronomer who worked for the United States Naval Observatory a crackpot nutcase because he said it exists.

Gotcha.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1464958


Actually, if you read the paper, you'll find that Harrington was persuaded to look for Planet X by Tom van Flandern, Ken Seidelmann, Conley Powell, and the early work by Miles Standish. The same Miles Standish who later came back and revised his work on Uranus & Neptune removing the need for Planet X.
Third paragraph 1st page, Standish 1982a,b and third page, last paragraph:
[link to articles.adsabs.harvard.edu]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3486334
Germany
11/03/2011 12:24 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
Do you have an infrared scope by chance?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3486334

Yes, my scope can be used to detect infrared as well as visible light:
:m42infraredbw:
 Quoting: Astromut


That must've cost you a small fortune with the special solid state detector, let alone the cooling method.

[link to coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3012557
Korea, Republic of
11/03/2011 12:32 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
what of richard muller's work?

[link to muller.lbl.gov]
AstromutModerator (OP)
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
11/03/2011 12:33 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
Do you have an infrared scope by chance?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3486334

Yes, my scope can be used to detect infrared as well as visible light:
m42infraredbw
 Quoting: Astromut


That must've cost you a small fortune with the special solid state detector, let alone the cooling method.

[link to coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3486334


Not necessary, I'm not trying to compete with IRAS or WISE. I can however see stars in infrared that I can't see in visible light, I just proved that and you ignored it. You simply asked if I have an infrared scope, and I do, just not a far infrared scope like IRAS or WISE. Thanks for the bait and switch post with the strawman fallacy though!
astrobanner2
TBar1984

User ID: 1537588
United States
11/03/2011 12:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
what of richard muller's work?

[link to muller.lbl.gov]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3012557


Two different animals. Planet X was supposed to be a Planet, orbiting beyond Neptune. Nemesis is theorized to be a Star, beyond or near the Oort cloud.
parlous
User ID: 1609119
United States
11/03/2011 01:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
So did Voyager 2 use the newly modified Neptune mass for successful fly by or the old one? I know they had to send some kind of programming 7 or 8 months prior to flyby. I was never ever to find that information. Most of Standish papers simply say "data from Voyager" when referencing the mass without explicit indication of which mass was used (that I've seen, perhaps I missed something?) but to see the exact reasons how the updated masses were derived are unavailable - JPL proprietary software apparently. Perhaps either mass would work but I doubt seriously, seriously it. As one put it, its like "making a 3000 mile long golf putt." It must be precise, after so far into the approach, the hydrazine would be of no use (I think they were hydrazine?). Something like modifying Neptune's mass, prior to fly-by, seems important - why did it take so long after the fly-by to publish this information? Why not say, Voyager 2's telemetry data indicates Neptune's mass must be modified and we're going to use it to make this flyby work. It seems important - something worthwhile to publish prior to flyby. But then again, go ask any random astronomer about the newly modified Neptune mass - do they know what happened? Not really, I know cause I frequently ask them. They're more concerned with things in deep space than something in their local neighborhood. Its nice to see that you aren't that way.

Anyways, never found an answer to which mass Voyager 2 used for Neptune for flyby. If you can find this out, that would be fantastic.
AstromutModerator (OP)
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
11/03/2011 01:37 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
So did Voyager 2 use the newly modified Neptune mass for successful fly by or the old one? I know they had to send some kind of programming 7 or 8 months prior to flyby.
 Quoting: parlous 1609119

The course was pretty much set long before they got to Neptune, programming updates were sent to improve the quality of the data collection, kinda like when Meade updated the Envisage software for their DSI cameras. They weren't trying to aerobrake into Neptune orbit or anything crazy like that, so it wasn't necessary to have the revised mass of Neptune ahead of time. Standish determined it after the flyby using Voyager's telemetry to see how much Neptune had affected Voyager's trajectory, whose position was able to be monitored to a far greater degree of precision than the positions of the moons of Neptune can be determined from earth (which is how you would normally measure the mass).
Perhaps either mass would work but I doubt seriously, seriously it. As one put it, its like "making a 3000 mile long golf putt."
 Quoting: parlous

It would make a difference if Voyager had been attempting an aerobrake maneuver; just a few kilometers off in one direction or another and you either burn up or fail to slow down enough. They weren't doing that though, they just needed to pass somewhat close without slamming into the planet. Since it was the final planet on the trip, it didn't really matter what the precise final direction would be, thus it didn't really matter what Neptune's mass was to within a few percent.

Last Edited by Dr. Astro on 11/03/2011 01:37 AM
astrobanner2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1676648
United States
11/03/2011 01:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
:DONKEYFAIL8349:
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3592081
United States
11/03/2011 02:27 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
Don't you see the backwards logic in saying that "something does not exist?"

Prove a dense object in space like a neutron star does not exist in our solar system.

You can't, no matter what you say or do it is 100% impossible for you to prove that something does not exist.

If we went by your logic the sun at the center of the solar system does not exist.

I find it so hard to believe that someone with a logical mind like yourself would be so against having an open mind unless there were other unseen factors at play.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4351696
Australia
11/03/2011 02:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
TL;DR
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1494013
United States
11/03/2011 02:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
:nib:
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3486334
Germany
11/03/2011 02:44 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
Do you have an infrared scope by chance?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3486334

Yes, my scope can be used to detect infrared as well as visible light:
:m42infraredbw:
 Quoting: Astromut


That must've cost you a small fortune with the special solid state detector, let alone the cooling method.

[link to coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3486334


Not necessary, I'm not trying to compete with IRAS or WISE. I can however see stars in infrared that I can't see in visible light, I just proved that and you ignored it. You simply asked if I have an infrared scope, and I do, just not a far infrared scope like IRAS or WISE. Thanks for the bait and switch post with the strawman fallacy though!
 Quoting: Astromut


No, I got from you what I wanted. Thanks.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1062660
United States
11/03/2011 03:35 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
for being an expert you sure do type 'let's assume' alot....
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1605695
United States
11/03/2011 03:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
for being an expert you sure do type 'let's assume' alot....
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1062660


big difference between an expert, and a smart hobbyist which is what astro is.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4543630
United Kingdom
11/03/2011 03:42 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
Don't you see the backwards logic in saying that "something does not exist?"

Prove a dense object in space like a neutron star does not exist in our solar system.

You can't, no matter what you say or do it is 100% impossible for you to prove that something does not exist.
 Quoting: LUCUS

You don't understand science, or how it's done. No, science doesn't try to prove negatives (which, as you correctly say, is impossible). What it does is show that, based on the evidence from observations and experiments, the probability of something either becomes very large or vanishingly small.

For something like a neutron star being anywhere within a the solar system the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. The gravitational effects on the planets would be obvious, and it would be easily detectable in a range of wavelengths from radio all the way through to X-Ray.

For a "Planet X" or even "Nemesis", again the evidence shows that their existence is exceedingly unikely.

If we went by your logic the sun at the center of the solar system does not exist.

I find it so hard to believe that someone with a logical mind like yourself would be so against having an open mind unless there were other unseen factors at play.
 Quoting: LUCUS

Applying science and logic, and using the available evidence, shows that there is a very, very, very high probability that the sun exists :)

There's having an open mind to accept possibilities and theories, and having it so far open your brain falls out...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3592081
United States
11/03/2011 03:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
For something like a neutron star being anywhere within a the solar system the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. The gravitational effects on the planets would be obvious, and it would be easily detectable in a range of wavelengths from radio all the way through to X-Ray.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4543630


Ahhh... where have you been living in a cave?

All the planets are heating up. Saturn had unusual storms... one of the spots on jupiter disappeared.

On earth, quake after quake after quake.

GLOBAL WARMING

Natural disasters... sinkholes... birds and fish dying... earths core slowing down...objects hitting the planet...cosmic rays off the charts... the sun acting in an unexpected way...

I could sit here all night naming thing after thing.

If that is not "OBVIOUS" then you must be in a cave.

What exactly is the LEVEL OF OBVIOUS that you are trying to obtain?

Some guys know their wife is cheating the minute it happens... others go blindly while the OBVIOUS goes on right in front of them. OBVIOUS is a perspective.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1185727
United States
11/03/2011 03:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
That's great, now we can just deal with the problems we have here on earth.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3592081
United States
11/03/2011 04:01 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
weakening magnetic field... volcanos all coming to life at once... crazy unexplained tides... floods on a magnitude man has never seen before... record high temps... record low temps... record snowfall... record rainfall...record droughts...record fires

WHEN DOES OBVIOUS BECOME OBVIOUS TO THE CLOSE MINDED?
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
Contrarian's Contrarian

User ID: 1222987
Netherlands
11/03/2011 04:12 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
So basically you are calling a very brilliant astronomer who worked for the United States Naval Observatory a crackpot nutcase because he said it exists.

Gotcha.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1464958

Crackpottery isn't defined by wrongness, but by being wrong for the wrong reason.

New ideas turn out to be wrong most of the time.

That's how science works,
You come up with an idea to explain a phenomenon, Planet X explains the perturbations.
You use your idea to predict future observations, Planet X should be visible at such and such point in the sky.
You TEST your prediction, you get a big ass telescope and LOOK.
Results: either positive or negative.
If positive inform your colleagues so they can test for themselves.
If negative refine idea or try another one.

Harrington did excellent science, his hypothesis just turned out to be incorrect.
That's how we learn.

You should learn the difference between statements of facts and hypotheses, btw.
Harrington did not say it exists, scientists don't say that until it's properly verified.
book


Actually, if you read the paper, you'll find that Harrington was persuaded to look for Planet X by Tom van Flandern, Ken Seidelmann, Conley Powell, and the early work by Miles Standish. The same Miles Standish who later came back and revised his work on Uranus & Neptune removing the need for Planet X.
 Quoting: TBar1984

Conley Powell was actually a poster here, some years back, his handle was Dr. P.
He was not amused.
book


Don't you see the backwards logic in saying that "something does not exist?"
Prove a dense object in space like a neutron star does not exist in our solar system.
You can't, no matter what you say or do it is 100% impossible for you to prove that something does not exist.
 Quoting: LUCUS

Easy enough, neutron stars have properties.
Like visibility and a gravitational field.
They are detectable, you couldn't miss them.
They have not be detected and many people have looked, ergo: something with the properties of a neutron star is not present.

Actually we'd all be dead if there was.

If we went by your logic the sun at the center of the solar system does not exist.
 Quoting: LUCUS

The Sun has has detectable properties. We've detected them.
In fact, people have been killed by some these properties.

Harrington's Planet X was an explanation for detected properties which turned out to not even to exists. (Not his fault.)

I find it so hard to believe that someone with a logical mind like yourself would be so against having an open mind unless there were other unseen factors at play.
 Quoting: LUCUS

You might be correct on philosophical cogito ergo sum level, but on a practical level there are things that are with great certainty impossible.
Things don't spontaneously fall upwards, daffodils won't sing, you will not wake up some day in the body of a giraffe, and water will always be wet.

Unless you believe in magic.

would be so against having an open mind
 Quoting: LUCUS

Open-mindedness doesn't imply ignoring the facts.
That's stupidness.

Actually Astromut tested an idea that's pretty ridonkulous to begin with.
Doesn't get more open-minded then that.
For a rational person at least.

unless there were other unseen factors at play.
 Quoting: LUCUS

Yep.

If you can't argue the facts argue the man.

So lame.

Ahhh... where have you been living in a cave?
[snip]
 Quoting: LUCUS

What does all that has to do with Harrington's Planet X?
It would have less of an effect on the inner solar system then Neptune.

We're not talking about some Magical Mystery Planet here, but about an astronomical object that complies with the laws of nature.

WHEN DOES OBVIOUS BECOME OBVIOUS TO THE CLOSE MINDED?
 Quoting: LUCUS

First you will need to proof that these alleged phenomena are REAL, and THEN you will have to proof they all have the same CAUSE.

Neither are actually obvious to the well informed non-magical thinkers.
book


for being an expert you sure do type 'let's assume' alot....
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1062660

I suspect you missed the point of the excersise.
Astro tilted everything he could think of in favour of the Conspiracy Theory ("NASA" lied about Neptune's mass).
The results still didn't match observed reality.
Inevitable conclusion: the Conspiracy Theory is incorrect.
book

Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 11/03/2011 08:36 AM
Hatred is a cancer upon the world.
It rots the mind and blackens the heart.


Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
bunnyuk
User ID: 1348141
United Kingdom
11/03/2011 07:37 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
So basically you are calling a very brilliant astronomer who worked for the United States Naval Observatory a crackpot nutcase because he said it exists.

Gotcha.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1464958

Crackpottery isn't defined by wrongness, but by being wrong for the wrong reason.

New ideas turn out to be wrong most of the time.

That's how science works,
You come up with an idea to explain a phenomenon, Planet X explains the perturbations.
You use your idea to predict future observations, Planet X should be visible at such and such point in the sky.
You TEST your prediction, you get a big ass telescope and LOOK.
Results: either positive or negative.
If positive inform your colleagues so they can test for themselves.
If negative refine idea or try another one.

Harrington did excellent science, his hypothesis just turned out to be incorrect.
That's how we learn.

You should learn the difference between statements of facts and hypotheses, btw.
Harrington did not say it exists, scientists don't say that until it's properly verified.
book

Actually, if you read the paper, you'll find that Harrington was persuaded to look for Planet X by Tom van Flandern, Ken Seidelmann, Conley Powell, and the early work by Miles Standish. The same Miles Standish who later came back and revised his work on Uranus & Neptune removing the need for Planet X.
 Quoting: TBar1984

Conley Powell was actually a poster here, some years back, His handle was Dr. P.
He was not amused.
book

Don't you see the backwards logic in saying that "something does not exist?"
Prove a dense object in space like a neutron star does not exist in our solar system.
You can't, no matter what you say or do it is 100% impossible for you to prove that something does not exist.
 Quoting: LUCUS

Easy enough, neutron stars have properties.
Like visibility and a gravitational field.
They are detectable, you couldn't miss them.
They have not be detected and many people have looked, ergo: something with the properties of a neutron star is not present.

Actually we'd all be dead if there was.

If we went by your logic the sun at the center of the solar system does not exist.
 Quoting: LUCUS

The Sun has has detectable properties. We've detected them.
In fact, people have been killed by some these properties.

Harrington's Planet X was an explanation for detected properties which turned out to not even to exists. (Not his fault.)

I find it so hard to believe that someone with a logical mind like yourself would be so against having an open mind unless there were other unseen factors at play.
 Quoting: LUCUS

You might be correct on philosophical cogito ergo sum level, but on a practical level there are things that are with great certainty impossible.
Things don't spontaneously fall upwards, daffodils won't sing, you will not wake up some day in the body of a giraffe, and water will always be wet.

Unless you believe in magic.

would be so against having an open mind
 Quoting: LUCUS

Open-mindedness doesn't imply ignoring the facts.
That's stupidness.

Actually Astromut tested an idea that's pretty ridonkulous to begin with.
Doesn't get more open-minded then that.
For a rational person at least.

unless there were other unseen factors at play.
 Quoting: LUCUS

Yep.

If you can't argue the facts argue the man.

So lame.

Ahhh... where have you been living in a cave?
[snip]
 Quoting: LUCUS

What does all that has to do with Harrington's Planet X?
It would have less of an effect on the inner solar system then Neptune.

We're not talking about some Magical Mystery Planet here, but about an astronomical objects that complies with the laws of nature.

WHEN DOES OBVIOUS BECOME OBVIOUS TO THE CLOSE MINDED?
 Quoting: LUCUS

First you will need to proof that these alleged phenomena are REAL, and THEN you will have to proof they all have the same CAUSE.

Neither are actually obvious to the well informed non-magical thinkers.
book

for being an expert you sure do type 'let's assume' alot....
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1062660

I suspect you missed the point of the excersise.
Astro tilted everything he could think of in favour of the Conspiracy Theory ("NASA" lied about Neptune's mass).
The results still didn't match observed reality.
Inevitable conclusion: the Conspiracy Theory is incorrect.
book
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


well done guys , as ever astromut to the rescue.

I wonder what will happen when there is no internet around for us to discuss these conspiracies together.

I for one need to believe that we are all here for a reason and the only explanation I have is to help one another ?
AstromutModerator (OP)
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
11/03/2011 07:41 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
...

Yes, my scope can be used to detect infrared as well as visible light:
m42infraredbw
 Quoting: Astromut


That must've cost you a small fortune with the special solid state detector, let alone the cooling method.

[link to coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3486334


Not necessary, I'm not trying to compete with IRAS or WISE. I can however see stars in infrared that I can't see in visible light, I just proved that and you ignored it. You simply asked if I have an infrared scope, and I do, just not a far infrared scope like IRAS or WISE. Thanks for the bait and switch post with the strawman fallacy though!
 Quoting: Astromut


No, I got from you what I wanted. Thanks.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3486334

And that is?
astrobanner2
FubarMan

User ID: 3805646
United States
11/03/2011 07:53 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
Great Post Astro.

I hate to see you continually throw pearls before swine.

There is no planet x. The only doom from space maybe a comet or asteroid.
AstromutModerator (OP)
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
11/03/2011 08:16 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
Prove a dense object in space like a neutron star does not exist in our solar system.
 Quoting: LUCUS

As others have pointed out to you, the perturbing effect of such an object on the planets would be absolutely massive and that is simply not happening. In fact, it so happens that I have a video showing a simulation of what a neutron star would do to the solar system at the radius of the asteroid belt. I could also sim one farther out but it would just be a variation of what you see here; planets would be pulled completely out of orbit from the sun and the ones that remained would have extremely altered orbits.


If we went by your logic the sun at the center of the solar system does not exist.
 Quoting: LUCUS

As already mentioned, the sun has detectable properties, including effectively dictating the orbits of the planets (it's quite sad to me that I even need to say that).

I find it so hard to believe that someone with a logical mind like yourself would be so against having an open mind unless there were other unseen factors at play.
 Quoting: LUCUS

And the ad hominem begins...
astrobanner2
AstromutModerator (OP)
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
11/03/2011 08:20 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist
Great Post Astro.

I hate to see you continually throw pearls before swine.

There is no planet x. The only doom from space maybe a comet or asteroid.
 Quoting: FubarMan


Thanks man, I enjoy doing it, it was quite fun to create Harrington's system in the computer and see what happens.
astrobanner2

News