What’s wrong? You seem unusually obstreperous.
Anyway, glad you followed debate norms and provided your cite. I’d request that you actually identify the specific section you gave a problem with since in standard debates it is the norm but I suspect that won’t go over well considering your mood.
So I will read you source and comment in a bit. Sound good?
If you want to list them fine, but your statement “a combination of events” is nonspecific and therefore, it says nothing at all. For example, how did life originate on Earth? -> By a combination of events. See how stupid that is?
It is not misleading. Something is either possible or not. It is possible for large masses flying by Earth to change it’s orbit slightly. That does not mean it happened, but it does not discount it either. Very little is known about the solar system in the past and likewise, very little is known as to the existence of large mass, long period orbit objects in the outer solar system (which we DO know exist) so there is no way you or anyone else can conclude that the likelihood of them affecting earth’s orbit in the past is “infinitesimally low.” You are just making that up and you know it.
I already listed a few. Maybe you should be more careful with reading the thread. It’s awfully boring having to repeat myself.
It’s extremely unlikely.
Not making anything up. Large objects don’t cross the orbits of other large objects. Not for very long. That would be an incredibly unstable arrangement.
While I agree it is possible, when your theory relies on an undiscovered planet out beyond our solar system that has a 10000+ year orbit around our sun whose orbit falls close to earths at one point…you’re on thin ice.
Man you just can’t help but make it up as you go along. They travel in a group because their own gravity draws them together and they can range in size from dust particles to huge boulders.
Meteors originate from the breakup of larger objects due to collisions and tend to continue on their new path largely as a group.
The size is irrelevant the same physics applies either way.
Make what up? Boulders aren’t going to matter one iota. The size is relecant to this discussion because we are talking about gravitational effects. Don’t forget the context.
Meteor showers are debris fields of comets. Has nothing to do with “traveling together because of gravity”. They travel together because they came from the same object on the same trajectory.
This is fifth grade science class mate.
Then you must have failed 5th grace science. Any two objects in space that have mass have gravitational forces. The larger and denser the object the strong the attraction. The same physics applies regardless of size.
Sure does. Except the gravitational constant is 6*10^-11.
Which means the forces among the dust and pebbles in this debris field are incredibly small.
Even more to the point, pebbles and maybe some boulders aren’t going to do anything worth mentioning to the Earth’s orbit. The very idea is pretty silly.
Even more to the point, none of these interactions have been shown by you to disproportionally affect one “side” of the planet as claimed earlier.
You’re shoveling a lot of baloney around this thread.
Some folks have found the humility in their hearts to decide that they know more than the experts of a topic that they haven’t studied and don’t understand, which doesn’t surprise themselves in the least, and they are giving us their anonymous opinions here in order to save us from doing anything that will increase their taxes.
Because there’s a conspiracy somewhere, they just feel it, and they just found a graph which makes everything seem so simple, if only they could comprehend it.
Heck, post it anyway.
Anything with mass in space has gravity. Planets and stars are born when tiny bits of matter are drawn together by their gravitational attraction forming ever larger and denser masses. As they grow large the gravity increases in the center drawing more and more of the small bits to the core.
The physics is the same no matter the size.
Of course the effect of gravity from two objects passing each other is going to pull those objects off of their paths towards one another, gravity is not a repelling force.
My gosh the ■■■■■■■■ in this thread…
It is simple math folks, and until you can in this box post the math that proves global warming or climate change so that I can correct you, well LOL
I do truly want to know what you folks think a scientist is? Is it someone whom spends their life in a lab working with models or those folks whom actually do the work and put into play those things that we test and learn?
Most of you would not know Science from a damn newspaper article.
Not that I care to get in this fight, and I don’t, but…
The argument to be made about things coming toward the sun, and thus pushing down the Earth orbit versus things hitting the backside of the planet, is that solar gravity increases the KE of the former and impedes the energy of the latter.
First year Physics.
Are you saying that the mass of the earth is increasing???
An argument could be made that all the incredulous stupidity is in fact increasing mass, much like a twinkee does for a fat broad.
I’m thinking of the earth and an NEO on marginally parallel tracks rather than crossing.
Whether they are approaching or recedeing from the sun they are still going to have a gravitational interaction between them and under the right conditions could be enough of an effect to cause some eccentricity in our own orbit at least temporarily.
Eventually then we should return to roughly the same original orbit because the constant forces in the solar system should make the system self correcting.
There was a group that hit Jupiter a while back.