Global warming is real

We don’t have to observe or record it, we know it happens because of the math every time an object interacts with us gravitationally.

Even if the planet were completely unoccupied the physics remains the same.

You have to be able to observe it if you want to claim that the historical observations support your theory that our orbit corrects itself.

I don’t know how much simpler I can explain this.

No you don’t, all that has to be observed or calculated is the passing of the NEO. The math does the rest.

Ok, I understand you can’t determine the exact +/-. So what does “accurate” mean?

The claim was your “math” (which you have demonstrated very poor grasp of throughout this thread) has been backed up by observation.

If that’s the case, your argument falls to pieces.

So an NEO has been observed. Pick one. Then tell us what effect it’s passing would have on our orbit. Then compare that delta to the detectable limit of our technology today and the detectable limit to the technology of 75k years ago.

(I’m still having trouble with the whole 75k years ago thing)

It means the alignments still line up with the apertures exactly as stated repeatedly.

Is there any possibility that at some point you’ll be able to keep up without the constant need for remedial help ?

sure, provide me the super computer and modeling software and i’ll crank it right out for you.

I’m asking what the error bar is on these “apertures”.

The math relating to the predictive nature of our orbits has been demonstrated to be accurate going on both directions through observation.

That is how we can calculate our position at any point in time past, present, or future.

I’ll tak a ballpark figure.

A question which as already been asked and answered repeatedly. Perhaps you need to take notes if you can’t otherwise keep up.

In the natural world, very, very few things are exact. Measurements of alignments not one of those things.

Who said anything about exact other than yourself?

Define exact, how many decimals?

Why would I offer a figure I can’t substantiate? I haven’t measured any of the sites nor do I know of any reference for same.

No, we can calculate our position in the past only if there have been no unexpected forces that would change that position, which has been the basis of your entire argument which you are now contradicting.

In my argument, if the accuracy of these predictions is not sufficient to determine if a tiny change (by a close encounter with a NEO), a point which you have conceded (I think, sometimes it’s hard to tell what you’ve agreed to since you sometimes change your mind), then you cannot say the orbit has “corrected itself” since the two possibilities, corrected and not corrected appear identical to our insufficiently accurate measurements.

Imagine a dump truck full of pebbles. Let’s say there’s no way to count the number of pebbles but we can put the dump truck on a scale which is accurate down to the nearest 10 lbs, it’s a really good scale. Every day we measure the truck and it’s always the same. One day we see someone toss pebbles in it but the next day the truck still weighs the same down to the beast 10 lbs. You’re arguing that someone must have come by and taken those pebbles out of the truck, while the alternate explanation is that our scale simply isn’t accurate enough to tell if they’ve been removed or not. Both explanations appear identical to the observer.

You did. You said exact:

15 minutes ago. Did you forget?

You also claimed a comet could not have any effect on our orbit when NASA has demonstrated that by redirecting them they can move us permanently out of our orbit as the links provided early showed.

Most of what you say is provably false, on the subject and the rest you contradict your own statements repeatedly.

The word exact no where appears anywhere in my statement other than “exactly as stated”.

Lord have mercy. Is that actually what you’re gong with?