Actually we do. A series of large nuclear discharges around the planet could end all live on the planet and lead to the loss of our atmosphere over time.
Some people think we understand it all. And yet we have not even solved the general 3 body problem analytically. Numerical solutions can provide some insight but the absence of an analytic solution indicates a deficiency with fundamental mathematical constructs
That’s what I meant. But you see that it would be very eccentric? It’s minor axis is approximately 1 AU. It’s major axis puts it out beyond Pluto. That’s pretty eccentric.
It is about mass, correct.
“Planet X” comes no where near our planet, so no, not like “planet x”.
1 Like
It’s hard to describe how much is incorrect in this post.
For starters, you don’t calculate orbits with third grade math.
A lot less close to Jupiter than to Earth since it’s 300x our mass. Saturn too. For an orbiting object, over enough time, the likelihood of an interaction is exceedingly high.
No. I don’t know. I do know that the likelihood is exceedingly small. I’ve continued to assert that if an object large enough to cause such an interaction existed, we would know about it.
It’s not contradictory when you accurately represent it instead of altering what I’ve said.
You moved the goal posts. You stated that nuclear power plants produce a “tremendous” amount of water vapor but admit that no one has ever calculated it. Now you’re shifting the topic back to the product of all human activity.
“Common sense” is not a substitute for science which isn’t based on assumptions. Again, if you want to claim that the earth is warming because we’ve increased water vapor through burning fossil fuels, then congratulations you’ve just signed on to AGW via the burning of foss
How can you claim the experiment is never done but somehow understand the results of such an experiment?
Hard to say since we don’t know the actual orbit of Planet X. Only evidence of it’s existance and a beleived orbit.
From the linked article I provided earlier.
That it’s possibly 10 times the size of earth, it comes into the solar system at regular intervols. Imagine if they are off on the estimated path by only a small percentage.
It would seem to be highly unlikely that the orbit would come anywhere near us. From the article:
Its closest approach to the sun is seven times farther than Neptune, or 200 astronomical units (AUs). (An AU is the distance between Earth and the sun, about 150 million kilometers.) And Planet X could roam as far as 600 to 1200 AU, well beyond the Kuiper belt, the region of small icy worlds that begins at Neptune’s edge about 30 AU.
They’d have to be off by a factor of 200x in order to have it come near us.
As I said before, a very small chance over billions of years is significant. If such an object flew near Earth on average every 100,000 years, it means it has occurred more than 35,000 times since life first existed here.
Well, that’s the point: your objections are not based solely, or even partially, on “good science.”
They’re based on ideology, and then attempted backfill of handwaving gibberish claimed to be “good science.”
But let’s hear it: what’s this “good science” supporting your objections and denial? Where are the myriad peer-reviewed papers published in legitimate journals that show that AGW theory is wrong? Where are those peer-reviewed papers that support your contentions? I stand ready to read.
Again, we are talking about the last few million years, not the last few billion years.
I’m reasonably sure that the odds are much lower than 1 out of ever 100,000 years.
considering they haven’t actually seen the planat, nor tracked it, just guessing it could be way off.
We would not lose the atmosphere.
He said “our” atmosphere. I assumed he meant the atmosphere constituted the way it is now. There would be SOME atmosphere… but not necessarily OUR atmosphere.
If they were that far off, the odds are they would have detected it by now. The reason they haven’t seen it or tracked it is because it’s so far away if it exists at all.
That seems like an exceptionally generous interpretation and I doubt is correct.
“Reasonably sure” is not a convincing argument.
