Sun May Still Have Low-Mass Solar Companion, Say Astrophysicists Searching NASA WISE

The same way you calculatad, that the Venus transit was of by one hour and five minutes?
And than we showed you that 1) it was Britisch Summertime 2) that the five minutes were the result of paralax.

And than you edge away with your tail between your legs.
LOL

.

You are quite wrong, i have proved to myself through repeated interactions with him that he is not only brainless, but intentionally spewing disinformation and casting a shadow of doubt on any legitimate unusual astrophysical idea that strays from the jewish academic version of things.He is also attempting to prevent people from preparing for what is most probably a natural disaster of unprecedented proportions in the near future to maximize casualties and prevent interference from the masses in the preparations of the "elite".
For instance , ask ASSTROLL about the reality of the electric universe, which to my satisfaction is a given and has been proved and yet not acknowledged because it defrocks and dethrones the jewish 'gods of science' and nearly every Nobel laureate in the field of physics.

One day my ideas will reflect the quite from Plato in the OP

BLAB BLAB BLAB
.

If and when that thread can be posted to be everyone on GLP who desires to do so I will respond. Don't even bother.....

That's pretty much the other side of the debate, and it's equally as likely. When you look back in time though, in almost every religious text, as well as Hopi prophecy, nostradamus, and others who everyone quotes all the time, something they all refer to is a fiery, red object. That is star/comet-like in appearance. And always comes right after a blue object, likely a comet. In my opinion, this is no coincidence, this is a form of evidence. The type of object Tyche is thought to be, fits the description. The scientific community has been representing these new type of gas giants we're discovering, as well as brown dwarfs, are red in appearance. They've even said that because of the speed they travel, and solar flares hitting them, that they will often grow comet-like tails. Like Mercury and Venus have, but much more intense. I believe it was either Nemesis or Tyche was represented as being one if these red, gas giant-like objects with tails. I'm not sure. But surely there is an argument on the "Nibiru" or "Planet X" end, whatever you want to call it.

I find it ironic how the series of photographs displayed on the bottom of every post you make proves the moon was in a a much more distant proximity to Earth than has ever been consider normal during an eclipse, a point I have argued with you, and then you argue against anything unusual going on with the solar system.

FUCK OFF.

Ooooohhh, Astro Mutt!!!

Oh how I love astrophysics. Continue the lengthy exploration of our universe.
We thank you

No, you DID NOT prove "parallax" could account for the error. SHOW YOUR "CALCULATIONS".
You furthermore DID NOT prove that modern science dos not rely on ancient astronomy to predict solar and lunar eclipses and the transits of Venus. If you did, we all missed it. I conceded that I could not comprehend why Britain had chosen to change the actual time there from UTC in the summertime and , which makes about as much sense as hitting oneself in the head with a hammer.

No, you DID NOT prove "parallax" could account for the error. SHOW YOUR "CALCULATIONS".
You furthermore DID NOT prove that modern science dos not rely on ancient astronomy to predict solar and lunar eclipses and the transits of Venus. If you did, we all missed it. I conceded that I could not comprehend why Britain had chosen to change the actual time there from UTC in the summertime and , which makes about as much sense as hitting oneself in the head with a hammer.

Next is: Halcyon Dayz, Dr. Astro, Marketselloff, ect < ALL PAID SHILLS

The dark object in 1st. pic. is not the moon period! But it could be a black weather balloon.

Concerning the so called photo of the "moon" from Antarctica, we CAN in fact PROVE it is not the moon and cannot possible be the moon. The size of the moon in the Earths sky can be skewed by only two factors, atmospheric effects which make it appear larger as it rises. and it's very slightly variable distance from Earth. Since the moons size is @ 1&#8260;2 degree, or 30 arc minutes from any point on the Earth surface, by simple measurements and math it becomes glaringly obvious that object IS NOT the moon, CANNOT BE the moon, and for whatever reason it is being falsey claimed to be the moon. The maximum degrees the moon can deviated from the ecliptic at any given time is approximately 5 degrees. Anyone who argues that this object is under thirty degrees off the ecliptic plane is an airhead.

And here comes the bickering to completely change the topic.

Honey, I will look tomorrow for the post, where you yourself made the paralax calculation (to prove us wrong) and had to admit, that we were right and you where dead wrong.

You even denied, that the paralax was involved.

.

You are quite wrong, i have proved to myself...

If and when that thread can be posted to be everyone on GLP who desires to do so I will respond. Don't even bother.....

Concerning the so called photo of the "moon" from Antarctica, we CAN in fact PROVE it is not the moon and cannot possible be the moon. The size of the moon in the Earths sky can be skewed by only two factors, atmospheric effects which make it appear larger as it rises. and it's very slightly variable distance from Earth. Since the moons size is @ 1&#8260;2 degree, or 30 arc minutes from any point on the Earth surface, by simple measurements and math it becomes glaringly obvious that object IS NOT the moon, CANNOT BE the moon, and for whatever reason it is being falsey claimed to be the moon. The maximum degrees the moon can deviated from the ecliptic at any given time is approximately 5 degrees. Anyone who argues that this object is under thirty degrees off the ecliptic plane is an airhead.

I see people like you claim others are paid shills all the time. So, I'm wondering - how do you know they're paid shills? What is your evidence?

It's 'parallax' , and no it is not responsible for the error and could not possibly be. When modern astronomers use the Mayans prognostications, they get it right, and when they try to 'calculate' them using a imperfect and inexact system of measuring the passage of time, they GET IT WRONG EVERY SINGLE TIME.


Face it , asshole, astronomy is going backwards and so is physics because of hard headed morons who cannot admit their ideas are horseshit..

No, you DID NOT prove "parallax" could account for the error. SHOW YOUR "CALCULATIONS".

I find it ironic how the series of photographs displayed on the bottom of every post you make proves the moon was in a a much more distant proximity to Earth than has ever been consider normal during an eclipse, a point I have argued with you, and then you argue against anything unusual going on with the solar system.

FUCK OFF.