That’s what makes it a hypothesis. That is what drives science. Or aren’t you familiar with the scientific method?
There’s a difference between pure conjecture and a hypothesis.
1 Like
Yeah … people laughed when someone suggested that the fossils found high up in the Himalayas came from the ocean floor too.
You are spending an awful lot of energy on this. Maybe the waste heat is contributing to global warming. 
That person had evidence behind their suggestion.
You have none.
1 Like
Yeah? What do you call the recent discovery of large masses in our solar system? What do you call the comets that are known to come through the inner zone? What do you call the obvious evidence of large impacts on planets, which statistically would occur less frequently than a near miss?
There is far more evidence pointing to the possibility of orbit changing encounters than the base statement “I don’t believe it” argues against it. Do you seriously believe that Earth’s orbit has never been altered by celestial bodies simply because no one has ever seen it happen even though the probability of it having been seen is far less likely than for it to have happened? Your outright rejection of the hypothesis requires far more speculation than the hypothesis itself.
The theory of large masses in the solar system has no help for your hypothesis given that the evidence points to objects hundreds of AUs from the sun at its closest.
I call the comets that come near us as far, far too small to have any substantial effect. It would take a comet orders of magnitude larger than anything we’ve ever seen.
I know objects are out there, but none of them that are anywhere near large to enough to have an effect are on orbits that intersect us.
The evidence you and others have cited does not support the conjecture. I don’t accept conjecture not supported by any evidence. That’s how the scientific method works. Or aren’t you familiar with it?
Seems astrophysicists have already figured out the 100,000 year cycle Samm and Wildrose are attempting to attribute to an undiscovered planetoid. They seem comfortable with the current explanation, which does not include some rogue planetoid.
I haven’t seen anyone propose Wildrose’s and Samm’s “likely” NEO theory. Strange that the people who spent their lives learning about the universe and how it works never mention this “likely” theory. Why do you think that is?
Can we chalk this topic up to yet another topic that Samm and Wildrose outsmart the experts?
As far as we know. But lack of knowledge does not constitute proof, particularly about what may have happened in the past. As I said, Earth’s orbit could have been nudged many times, and we would never know it because it leaves no trace and there is no record of where it was before.
I’m done trying to open your mind. Its clear to me that you will go to your grave steadfastly believing that extra terrestrial influences could not possibly be responsible (either directly or secondarily) for climatic changes on Earth. Unless that is, it happens again before you die.
If there were any evidence to support it then I’d be interested. I’ve never said it’s impossible but by using everything we currently know, it’s exceedingly unlikely. Science isn’t about speculation. It’s a merit based system. Ideas with merit rise to the top. There is, at this time, no merit to your idea. If that changes I’ll be interested but nothing you’ve pointed to supports it at all. You understand how science works, right?
That’s what I said. Closed mind unless you see it yourself. If everyone was like you about everything, there would be no science.
You’re wrong. I love new ideas. But I’ll give each idea the respect it deserves. Because that’s how science is supposed to work. You understand why it needs to work that way, don’t you?
Just gotta have the last word, don’t cha.
Could say the same about you?
Go ahead … say it.
I’ll be here until the inevitable locking of this thread.
No response to scientists already explaining the 100,000 year cycles without your NEO theory and they don’t even mention it? Why do you think that is? Are you just more knowledgeable than them about the mechanics of orbital bodies? Have you educated yourself on that topic as well?
Science in the face of anti-science regressives is worth it, so yes, dantes should have the last word
And I can tell you I said nothing about measuring it’s orbit.
The distance from earth to another body is determined along a straight line unless you are measuring the orbit.
Even when measuring the orbit though the distance between two bodies is still a straight line.
No, I started talking about all sources emitting steam and water vapor.
WildRose
We know it’s a “tremendous amount” far exceeding CO2 production just using basic common sense.Look at the breakdown of the products produced from burning gas, diesel, NG, Propane, and coal, then add to that all of that produced from agriculture, horticulture and exhaust steam.
That of course doesnt’ even begin to include that produced from natural processes such as native green plants, volcanoes, hot springs, and steam vents and surface water evaporation.
I added one more since obviously fossil fuels are not the only means by which we have steam/water vapor exhaust added to the atmosphere.
WildRose
Not just fossil fuels. Even nuclear reactors produce a tremendous amount of steam and vapor.
Even Geo Thermal vents excess steam.
We’ve only been able to even view the close passing comets for a few hundred years with anything other than the naked eye.
The observed record is too short to draw anything resembling a conclusion from as to the size and mass of extra solar objects that may pass through our system over long periods, of tens, hundreds, millennia or more.
