# Global warming is real

#2711

The alignments would be accurate if such an interactions and orbital were below the threshold for detection by ancient civilizations.

Do you see what I’ve been getting at this entire time?

(By the way, if you ever get a chance, I’m dying to see the documentation of our orbit from 75,000 years ago. I’d settle for 40,000 years ago too)

#2712

Every one of the variations induced by neo’s over that time period has been self corrected by the system, if they hadn’t we’d be out of position.

#2713

ding ding ding ding

“ if we can’t perceive the perturbations”

What makes you think those ancient temples and megaliths from 75,000 (!) years ago would predict orbits with the precision to capture orbital differences between today and then?

Before giving us a generic answer, can you provide the +/- on the orbital measurements from 40k and/or 75k years ago?

#2714

That’s what I thought. You still don’t get it.

You can’t claim anything has self corrected if it don’t have the capability to observe the initial change in the first place.

That’s because whether it’s corrected or not corrected, both situations appear completely identical to the observer who lacks that capability.

#2715

I don’t know the exact plus minus.

what we do know is that they remain accurate today.

Whatever has happened over that time span has not been significant enough to induce enough of a variation to throw them off.

if it had, they would not remain accurate today.

#2716

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.

#2717

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.

#2718

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

#2719

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

#2720

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.

#2721

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)

#2722

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 ?

#2723

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

#2724

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

#2725

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.

#2726

I’ll tak a ballpark figure.

#2727

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

#2728

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

#2729

Who said anything about exact other than yourself?

Define exact, how many decimals?

#2730

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.