I did not put any words in your mouth. I explained why you are wrong and I asked you a question which you still have not answered.
McCanney said: "it is huge, so we may expect atmospheric and orbital changes". If you can bring informations regarding small to large orbital changes, that would be great, I didn't knew you're a professional.
Quoting: glaucoYes, you did. I said (McCanney said) that if the comet is large, the atmosphere and surface changes could occur and probably minor to large orbital changes, but you ignore the first part that is easier to detect,
The first part is not confirmation of the claim. I did not put words in your mouth, I explained why you are wrong and asked you a question. I addressed the issue of "atmospheric changes." Atmospheric changes happen all the time in the absence of comets, it means nothing with respect to the claim. If NASA detects something new about the atmosphere of Mars after comet ISON it will not serve as confirmation that it had anything to do with ISON or that ISON was a massive object as McCanney claims. If what McCanney claims is true then it would produce a detectable perturbation of the orbit. If there is no perturbation then it was not the massive object he claimed it was. Will you ignore that empirical data if indeed it proves that McCanney was wrong, yes or no? Answer the question.
Alright, but I don't know how to do that and I will not be able to check it twice.
Quoting: GlaucoYour ignorance is your problem, not mine.
That is scientific: you claim something, get the data, and permit other people to confirm it. How would I check your data if I don't know how to do that nor I have equipment?
Quoting: GlaucoI don't give a damn. It is not up to me to teach you astronomy so that you can confirm it for yourself. I will show my data and you can work on your own at studying astronomy and acquiring the equipment or access to equipment needed to repeat it for yourself if you like, but that is not my problem if you are incapable or unwilling to do it. You clearly don't understand science at all if you think the onus is on me to do that for you.
Give me only one example of a planet getting or losing large amount of atmosphere, or getting dozens of vulcans erupting, or getting new moutains by itself in one-week period and I do the bet in your conditions.
Quoting: GlaucoI do not agree to your terms. Either you will accept the empirical data or you will ignore the empirical data, which is it?
You *must* consider all the claimings, not just one that I can't check!
Quoting: glaucoNope. You have until October to learn how to do astronomy and astrometry for yourself if you want to be able to do it for yourself. That is not my problem. Atmospheric changes etc are not confirmation of ISON being a massive object, particularly in the face of a lack of perturbations in the orbit of Mars.
If NASA's probes detect something new about the atmosphere of Mars that they hadn't noticed before (entirely possible, maybe even likely given the rate of new discoveries), that would meet your arbitrary and incorrect goalpost and allow you to claim you were right when in fact it wouldn't be confirmation at all. I will present astrometric data showing the presence or absence of perturbations in Mars' orbit. You can either choose to accept it or ignore empirical data. Your choice.
