Indeed. But that makes it difficult to understand why you think that we’ve somehow measured orbital perturbations and then have it return to normal.
With modern tech we can make calculations down the tens of meters.
We had that ability since the improvements to radar in the sixties and seventies radar and improved it dramatically with the advent of lasers.
Today we can even detect minute Doppler shifts in objects light years from earth.
Where exactly did I say we’ve measured previous perturbations? Cite the post.
So they’ve had effects on our orbit but we’ve never measured it? Is that what you’re saying now?
I guess that sort of ruins your theory.
My “Theory”?
Even you admitted that any object interacting with a planet affects it’s orbit until you decided it no longer supported your argument.
The fact we could not in prior centuries accurately measure minor perturbations doesn’t refute the physics that demonstrates that any object interacting with us gravitationally has an effect on our orbit.
What is different now and in the future is that we can measure even minor perturbations accurately.
I never changed my story. I just said that the “perturbations” are so minor that they could hardly even be measureable if at all.
Don’t forget. The claim you made was that we would experience a minor perturbation and then our orbit would return to the previous orbit over time. The claim was that this as borne out by observation.
So far there’s been no substantiation for this claim. Specifically, that our orbit would return to some previous state.
The claim is borne out every day exactly as I stated. Those objects have all caused minor perturbations yet we can calculate both forward and back and verify the position of the earth remains predictable.
We can do that by comparing the numbers predicted by those recorded throughout history and recorded at future dates as we get there.
The calculations keep working in both directions.
Your desperation and obsession here are pathological and you keep talking yourself into holes you can’t dig your way out of along with constantly contradicting your own prior statements.
Minor perturbations which have never been measured.
Correct?
Or are you holding out on me.
Exactly which of the words I used are giving you trouble?
This is how we know you’ve lost.
The ones that contradict the other ones and lead to really silly conclusions.
This is what you’ve told me:
- We can measure our orbit incredibly accurately
- Every object exerts a force on our orbit and cause small perturbations.
- The constant forces of the solar system revert our planet back to the “equilibrium”
- We know this because we’ve never measured any perturbation and our orbit is always exactly where it should be
It seems like your logic jumped over a step. You believe a thing because it’s never been observed.
I mean, you get how that’s ridiculous, right?
1 Like
“Observed” and “measured” are not synonymous.
Even you admitted that any object interacting with us gravitationally would have an effect on our orbit and now you’re claiming that since we’ve not recorded prior variations relative to same they do not exist.
Ridiculous and self contradictory at best even if it weren’t for the obvious intellectual dishonesty.
You have to resolve the contradiction here.
I’m surprised you are so confident in the precision of these “monolitic sites” considering your skepticism of historic temperature measurements.
There is no contraction between the two.
We know that NEO’s pass by the earth and have through recorded history.
The alignments remain accurate to this day,k there is no need for assumptions.
We know they were built with the purpose of putting various constellations in view through small apertures at certain times of the year and the same with the solstices. We also know that after many millennia they continue to appear at the same locations today.’
Accurate thermometers have only existed for just around 300 years and have only been in wide distribution for less than a century.
Every thing prior to that is based on assumptions and “estimates” that cannot be verified.
You keep ignoring the second part of your claim, and I don’t blame you because it’s the part that makes no sense.
The second part of claim that our orbit is returns to “normal”. Now, if the Earth has ever been observed or measured to be affected by some temporary force and then return to “normal” maybe you led be right, but so far you haven’t even claimed that has happened.
I’ve been very consistent. I’ve said that minor interactions will affect our orbit, but the effect is so small it could probably not even be measured let alone have any real significance and no forces are present that will “undo” the interaction.
Like my earlier example, a probe getting a gravity assist from Jupiter gains more momentum at the cost of a tiny bit of momentum from Jupiter. But do you think we’d ever be able to measure (or observe) the difference? No way.
I’m not ignoring anything. We’ve had NEOS’ passing the earth throughout recorded history and the oribits of many can be calculated just like those of the planets and verified through both observation and the historical record.
When you observe a ball that you bounce off the floor bouncing upward but don’t measure it’s rise you know it rose.
You can also calculate it’s rise accurately knowing the forces acting on it and verify it through observation and measurement.
So you can calculate backwards and forwards. Great! And then you compare those calculated values to what?
Let’s say we calculate back 1000 years. How do we verify the orbit was as calculated? Do you have records with great precision?
Why would they have to be precise? Because the recorded NEOs in that time period would have had a negligible effect on our orbit.
So to prove your point you have to go back in time knowing an NEO occurred that had a non-negligible effect on our orbit, determine the orbit at that time and then compare to our orbit some time after the NEO has moved out of the system.
Go ahead.
You can go back as far as those observatories have existed and compare current data to where the constellations were originally recorded by their placement.
We can also go back as far as the historical records go to the recorded observations made by the early modern astronomers.
