Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!

>> The Voyager data showed us the answer, that it was the mass of neptune that was wrong

Really? But we got all the other ones right - right? Uranus, Saturn, Jupiter ...

Only Neptune we dropped the ball on.

OK - fine.

>> I have new data; astrometric readings that were taken late last year, almost 20 years after Harrington's death.

Wow - so what you're really saying is that we're all still pretty much NOOBS at all this orbital mechanics shit. RIGHT? But I can NOW be sure that you, GENIOUS ASTROMUT, has now closed the book on any discrepancies or doubts. I can be assured that a thousand years from now, history will identify 2012 and the great ASTROMUT as the Dude who finally worked out the last of the KINKS.

Amazing - I can't tell you what an HONOR it is to converse with you!!!

By the way - just what is the source of your "astrometric readings?"

NASA???

Or did you gather them yourself between beers at the last star party you attended? (With your admittedly inferior equipment - or did the others [with better equipment] assist you when they were'nt busy bragging to they ladies about the better quality of their stuff?)

Last Edited by **ZetaMax** on 08/10/2012 03:09 PM

The other gas giants also had their masses slightly tweaked as well based on Voyager's data, but only Neptune needed a significant change.

No, there was nothing wrong with orbital mechanics you idiot.

The problem was figured out 20 years ago. I just verified the solution so that fucking morons like you couldn't accuse NASA of simply faking the solution.

By the way - just what is the source of your "astrometric readings?"

NASA???

Or did you gather them yourself between beers at the last star party you attended? (With your admittedly inferior equipment - or did the others [with better equipment] assist you when they were'nt busy bragging to the ladies about the better quality of their stuff?)

So - as a "fucking moron" accusing NASA of faking the solution, I ask again: What is the SOURCE of your "verification" data?

Holy shit dude, how stupid are you? I explained it in the thread, they're MY readings, I took them, I explicitly said so!

I don't drink beer, and my equipment has more than enough resolution for the task at hand.

Me. I said so in the first post of the thread. Thanks for proving how much of a fucking moron you really are.

>> Thanks for proving how much of a fucking moron you really are.

Happy to oblige.

>> I don't drink beer

Pity - some mighty good brews out there.

>> ... my equipment has more than enough resolution for the task at hand

WOW - so what your saying is that just a mere 20 years later, the middle-of-the-road equipment that a poor college student can afford and carry in the tiny trunk of his Corolla (of course you wouldn't buy AMERICAN), is BETTER than anything Harrington and his colleagues had back in 1990? I know computers have advanced that far, but it's not like you can carry the Naval Observatory's 26 inch scope in the back of your compact.

And since such large lenses were in use much farther back than 1990, seems the observational data would be there all along to glean accurate mass calculation figures from the gathered astrometric data available to Harrington.

Oh - but it was the VOYAGER readings that showed the "error" - an error that you can now confirm with equipment inferior to Harrington's?

And with a rich history of readings going back decades before 1990, shouldn't he and his colleagues have been able to account for the perturbations by playing with mass figures - even without hard data? Especially since the figures turned out to be "off" by only 0.5 percent?

I'm sorry, but I would think something as important as a "10th planet" couldn't be so easily dismissed with a simple "mass adjustment" to Neptune - as you (and NASA) make it out to be - and if it can be, than every astronomer and astro-physicist prior to 1990 was truly a "fucking moron" in their own right - and not for hypothisizing Planet X - but for thinking perturbations were there that WEREN'T.

I remain firmly of the opinion that Harrington was NOT a "fucking moron".

Last Edited by **ZetaMax** on 08/10/2012 04:56 PM

I prefer to keep my mind sharp at all times. There's no telling when I'll have another great idea. For you I'm sure it's no great loss.

It's creepy how much you seem to know about me, I don't swing that way max. And yes I was a poor college student, but I dedicated every dime I could stash away for 4 years to the purpose of buying that telescope. I got a great deal on it too. And again, if you could understand what I'm saying you'd realize it's not about the telescope being "better" than what Harrington had, it's about the fact that about 20 years have ellapsed since then and we can now evaluate the two models of the solar system at a later time point and see which was right. Harrington could not have done that without a time machine.

A 26" telescope is not needed to obtain the needed astrometric data. An 8" schmidt-cassegrain like mine is more than sufficient.

Harrington wasn't even trying to measure the mass of neptune you idiot, he had a completely different hypothesis as to the nature of the perturbations, that's the whole point!

Such calculations are non-trivial, especially given the limited computing power of the era. It took a considerable amount of time for my modern computer to calculate just the two scenarios I tested, and I had exact masses to work with for both scenarios. Empirical measurement was the best way to make that determination, which is exactly what Myles Standish did.

Well it is and it was, and I proved it. Your denials themselves illustrate your ignorance. You have made a complete fool out of yourself max.

No, they weren't. They had no way of directly measuring the mass of Neptune, and since it was the farthest planet (not counting pluto), its mass had the greatest amount of uncertainty (still only a fraction of its total mass, but still enough to matter). Scientists were not unaware of this problem...
[link to adsabs.harvard.edu]

And your head clearly remains firmly planted up your ass. Just because Harrington was wrong does not mean he was an idiot.

Last Edited by Astromut on 08/10/2012 05:09 PM

Yes, he is a moron, he is also a troll and a not particularly good one at that. Just plonk the liar and move on, the rest of us are capable of reading your words and asking intelligent questions. Trolls can not and will not.

BAN melfy!!!!!

Stichen and Velikovsky were simply wrong. It happens.

Don't worry about ZM. This is ZM in his MOST contrary-troll-mode -- there is no rational way that he'll agree or change his position, and he will adopt the opposite position i.e. the Monry Python Argument Clinic sketch no matter what. He's irrational that way.

Astro has done a fine job demolishing ZM/Nancy/PX's claims. Good on him.

>> it's not about the telescope being "better" than what Harrington had, it's about the fact that about 20 years have ellapsed since then and we can now evaluate the two models of the solar system at a later time point and see which was right. Harrington could not have done that without a time machine.



Harrington had a time machine. IT IS CALLED THE PAST. Neptune was first seen by telescope on September 23, 1846. That means there was nearly 150 years of observational data to draw from. Now granted, the data prior to say, 1930, was probably not all that valuable. But that said, there is SIXTY YEARS of good observational data to draw from. Please explain how that data is useless in comparison to your gathered data in 2012?

This ought to be GOOODDD!!!



Last Edited by **ZetaMax** on 08/10/2012 09:05 PM

Sorry but that's not helpful. He couldn't know the future and that's why he couldn't know his theory was wrong.

Of varying quality. But more importantly, his whole theory was a force fit solution to that data. Once the dataset expanded another 20 years it no longer fit once again. The only solution that fits is that Neptune's mass was actually incorrect.

Last Edited by Astromut on 08/10/2012 09:22 PM

>> He couldn't know the future and that's why he couldn't know his theory was wrong.



Please explain how the progression of the orbit of Neptune from 1970 to 1990 is substantially different from it's progression from 1990 to 2010?

I thought "orbital mechanics" was a reliable forecasting tool. Apparently NOT!!!

His planet X theory was a force fit to the data from that period, he didn't have the data from 1990 to 2010 so it had to be able to correctly predict future behavior, which it did not because it was wrong.

It is when you're properly accounting for the right planets and the right masses for those planets. That's what the voyager revised model of the solar system did, harrington's model did not.

>> It is when you're properly accounting for the right planets and the right masses for those planets. That's what the voyager revised model of the solar system did, harrington's model did not.

But DOCTOR - the mass of Neptune was off by "only" 0.5 percent - and the mass of the gas giants only slightly tweaked (your words). The perturbations were/are REAL, it's only the MODEL to describe them that's in dispute. Harrington's Planet X had to be HUGE - at least three times the mass of earth in order to complement Pluto's "surprisingly" small mass. How can a 0.5 percent drop in Neptune's mass "miraculously" cure such a HUGE discrepancy given Pluto's small mass, and eliminate the "need" for a HEAVY MASS OBJECT beyond Pluto's orbit to compensate?

You're not making SENSE.

I get it - the 0.5 number was settled upon because anything bigger (and MUCH MORE realistic) would be not just absurdly insulting to earlier astronomers - but LAUGHABLY so. The problem is, the 0.5 number is simply not BIG ENOUGH a difference to account for the observed perturbation. That or Harrington and all earlier astronomers were indeed GARGANTUAN FOOLS.

>> Astro has done a fine job demolishing ZM/Nancy/PX's claims. Good on him.

And as Myles Standish proved and I confirmed, that was enough to make a difference.

Semantics, the "perturbations" are from that inaccurate mass figure for neptune. Allow me to use a more precise term, residuals. The residuals in the astrometric data go away when you fix the mass of neptune.

You're bitching about something which is not even disputable, fixing Neptune's mass DID fix the problem. "Planet X" was supposed to have a semi-major axis more than three times as large as Neptune's, hence it had to be much more massive than the real discrepancy in order to account for the perturbations.

Wrong. The "0.5 number" actually fixed the problem. Myles Standish proved it and I already confirmed it. You're once again proving your ignorance and ignoring the facts of the matter and pretending they are not facts.

I know he doesn't get it, and deliberately won't get it, but I will continue to explain it for the sake of lurkers who may not understand just how bad max just got his ass handed to him. He'll declare "victory" if I stop explaining it.

Can you prove that it DOES exist? No? Then you're even funnier!

Something is presumed to NOT exist, or it remains a theory/hypothesis, until proven otherwise.

... 14, August, 1978 which is just about six weeks after we discovered the fact that Pluto has a satellite. Once you have a satellite for a planet you can determine how heavy it is. It turns out Pluto was very much smaller and lighter weight than we thought which meant that Pluto has no influence, no appreciable influence on the motions of the planets Uranus and Neptune. At that point, we foist a hypothesis that there is at least one yet to be discovered planet in the outer regions of the solar system

Dr. Robert Harrington, August 30, 1990

Neptune has thirteen known moons, by far the largest of which is Triton, discovered by William Lassell on October 10, 1846, just 17 days after the discovery of Neptune itself.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

So Neptune's mass has been measured for more than 150 years - and all this time we've been getting it WRONG.

How incredibly convenient.

In the Sitchen video, a Detroit News article is shown dated January 16th, 1981 with the headline "Tenth Planet? Pluto's orbit says 'yes'"

Did the Voyager data "magically" fix the math for Pluto's orbit as well???

And all this within FOUR MONTHS of Harrington's death??? Again AMAZING co-incidence!!!

But wait, it gets BETTER!! Your "Standish" article was published in May of 1993, but was written in July of 1992, and REVISED in December of 1992. Harrington is DEAD just ***DAYS*** after the article that is to SET THE WORLD RIGHT is tweaked for final publication. It's most likely critic of enormous reputation and stature, CONVENIENTLY disappears from the scene, forever unable to challenge it.

SIMPLY INCREDIBLE!!!

And Harrington's wife believes he was MURDERED.

Crazy lady ...

Dr. Mut is WRONG. He said:

>> It wasn't even proven wrong until after he died.

But the article he cites was "only PUBLISHED" after Harrington died - it was completed BEFORE he died.

Last Edited by **ZetaMax** on 08/11/2012 12:18 AM

Astroshill!

He might be wrong about one insignificant detail...but he's mopping the floor with you otherwise.

The work of Dr. Robert Harrison is often abused by esoteric pages. The problem is that they do not really know the theory Harrison had in his mind. If Zetamax, the troll, saw the whole interview with Sitchin he would know that Harrison really believed in Planet X. But the object Harrington had in his mind was a so called Transneptun, a planet far beyond Neptun and Pluto. So Harrington`s idea is still valid and accurate in modern astronomy. We are talking here about the planet Tyche which is still an unproven theory.

But this concept has nothing to do with the lame theory of a planet Nibiru, which indeed doesn`t exist. Even modern astronomers are still calculating how Tyche might look. It could be an object with several times the mass of the earth or even a brown dwarf. But this object is so far out there that it will never be of any real interest for us or influence our daily life. The only danger this object could cause are probably some comets which can be diffracted by it in the Oort cloud. But even this is only a theory.

Excellent rebuttal, ZM. Worthy of you.

I **DID** take High School Physics!! Come on, you SHILLS have all my transcripts right there in a drop down menu. Don't be LAZY.