Just stop. Your posts are still here where everyone can see them and show you his wrong you are.
Yes. You did. This was a ridiculous attempt at trying to sound smart.
The “orbital period” is the length of time to complete one orbit.
I said nothing about measuring the distance of the orbit because it cannot even begin to be calculated without first being observed.
My posts show exactly what I stated which is why I again quoted them.
If you know the period, you’d know the size of the orbit. It’s called Kepler’s Third Law.
You forgot the one which contradicts what you’re saying.
Horse hockey. To know the orbit you’d have to observe the object and calculate it’s speed.
Why are no astronomers or physicists proposing your theory to explain the 100,000 year cycle?
If you believe Global Warming is real, then you need to donate your unused, carbon dumping, earth poisoning lifespan back to mother earth.
Put up, or shut up.
You’ve reviewed everything that has ever been published on the subject? Somehow I seriously doubt that’s true.
You proposed a hypothetical period of 100,000 years in your post. Just to be clear, a planet with a period of 100,000 years that comes anywhere near our planet has an apogee on the order a tenth of a light year from the sun.
You can’t begin to determine that without knowing the shape of the orbit. Ellipsies can be only slightly more eccentric than a perfect circle or they may be stretched out to ridiculous lengths being very narrow in the middle. You would also have to know all of the other large objects way out in space acting on it. Orbits don’t follow a perfect continuous curve in the presence of other objects action on it.
“Lucky coincidence”…
What value does a cumulative distribution function (CDF) approach as time increases?
So now you are saying that somewhere, sometime, someone out there is championing your theory…I just haven’t found them yet.
That’s really what you are proposing?
You made the claim, not me.
I haven’t spent much time looking, very little in fact. This isn’t a democracy, it’s an internet discussion board.
No, you made the claim and Samm chimed in that your claim was likely to be true.
Sure. And a cursory search shows scientists seem quite content with a different explanation of the 100,000 year temperature cycle, citing Milankovitch (sp) cycles as the cause. They don’t mention your theory which requires an undiscovered planetoid having an off-the-charts eccentricity.
I find it quite telling that you can’t source one scientist that has even proposed your theory to explain the 100,000 year temp cycles. Why do you think that is?
This was your claim.
Borgia
Why are no astronomers or physicists proposing your theory to explain the 100,000 year cycle?
I made no such claim you did.
Why? Many reasons, let’s start with the fact that gov’ts and institutions funding resarch are not
offering billions of dollars to them to promote such a theory.
A "cursory search’ in this case apparently means none at all.
Wandering star shook up the prehistoric solar system
70,000 years ago, a nomadic star came within a light-year of the Sun, likely sending dozens of comets and asteroids tumbling out of the solar system.
There are billions of “castaway worlds” and many more smaller objects floating around our galaxy and we are centuries if not millennia from even beginning to get a handle on their paths much less knowing how many may interact with the earth on long orbital periods, or how many might just pass through not locked into any particular orbit yet.
I’m not talking about the 100,000 year ice age cycle, I’m talking about what could have put Earth into an orbit that produced that cycle as opposed to the relatively warm, relatively stable climate that lasted for many millions of years prior to this current age of ice ages.
