Global warming is real


#2731

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.


#2732

You did. You said exact:

15 minutes ago. Did you forget?


#2733

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.


#2734

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


#2735

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


#2736

Yes, i’m kinda partial to accuracy. something you are not comfortable with.


#2737

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.


#2738

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.


#2739

Okay. Feel better now?


#2740

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.


#2741

You have net to offer any legitimate criticism.


#2742

This is my criticism which you have net to respond to.


#2743

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.


#2744

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.


#2745

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.


#2746

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.


#2747

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.


#2748

I guess I’m not alone…


#2749

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.


#2750

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?