Yes, i’m kinda partial to accuracy. something you are not comfortable with.
I see. Are you finally abandoning your baseless argument? Seems you decided not to stay on topic.
This sentence makes no sense, much like most of your claims.
You haven’t proven anything. You just make it up as you go along. Despite your poor grasp on the subject matter, you persist in our unshakable belief that what you claim has any foundation in math or physics. When cornered, you revert to the most basic and simplistic lessons you still remember from middle school science class which seems to be the extent of your education on the matter.
You just demonstrated you have absolutely nothing left.
Read back up to Borgia’s link on the redirection of comets.
Haven’t abandon anything I’m have tired of your constant contradictions and talking in circles.
You haven’t’ been able to support anything you’ve claimed here for over a thousand posts but you just keep ranting.
Okay. Feel better now?
We wouldn’t be talking in circles if you could stop shifting your argument and actually respond to the criticisms.
However, that would require you to understand the criticisms first which seems to be the sticking point.
You have net to offer any legitimate criticism.
This is my criticism which you have net to respond to.
1 Like
The same criticism which has been responded to repeatedly throughout the thread.
there’s nothing new here and there’s no sense repeating myself yet again.
Every object that interacts with us gravitationally alters our orbit, we know this and you admitted it.
This is not a response to the criticism. It’s a dodge. We both agree that every object alters our orbit, it’s just that almost all of them alter it in ways that are beyond our capability of measuring it.
The criticism is in reference to whether the observational evidence shows that our orbit has “corrected” as you claim. It’s a claim which cannot be supported by referring to ancient (75,000 years old, possibly some very crafty Neanderthals, who knows) observations that lack the accuracy to detect the movements to begin with.
Let me emphasize this. If a NEO comes by but doesn’t change our orbit enough to detect the difference, then we cannot know if we “returned” to our prior orbit.
There is no detectable difference between Wildrose’s hypothesis and it not returning to the prior orbit.
It can be confirmed by all of the historical data going back as s far as history recorded it and by those alignments which remain accurate.
Again, this has been stated repeatedly multiple times.
Get some new material.
If we did not return to the normal pattern after each of them the effect of all of them would be cumulative and therefor easily detectable over such a long period.
I guess I’m not alone…
You can’t say that’s true unless you know the sum of many interactions (which have the capability of reversing previous interactions) is within the detectable limits.
Since you don’t know any of that, you cannot make the claim.
You don’t even know what the detectable limits are.
What makes you think every NEO would be additive? What happens if a NEO passes by us on the inside of our orbit? Seems it is about a 50/50 chance so they would, on average, cancel each other out.
Plus, even if we add them all together from the past 75k years, how do you know the total effect surpasses the detectable limit?
of couse i can there have been thousands of such interactions over that time frame.
Demonstrate that 50% pass on opposite sides.
First off, I’d assume most pass outside our orbit. That’s because the space is much larger there.
But we are talking about those close enough to effect our orbit minutely. That’s still pretty close. I’d assume they were distributed somewhat evenly over that length. I don’t have any evidence of this though.
What’s your thoughts on distribution, inner vs outer?
But you don’t know what the sum of their interactions amounts to let alone what the detectable limits would be.
Without that knowledge, the number of interactions (which you don’t know then number of either, thousands was just plucked out of thin air) is irrelevant.
The historical data cannot conform anything they don’t have the sensitivity to detect.
How are you not getting this?
