Has the Nemesis theory been *definitely* ruled out? I rather liked it. If it was a mysterious 'planet X' wouldn't the extinctions be more regular, as far as I know there's a leeway of a couple of million years.

Has the Nemesis theory been *definitely* ruled out? I rather liked it. If it was a mysterious 'planet X' wouldn't the extinctions be more regular, as far as I know there's a leeway of a couple of million years.

It still takes luck for any of the comets to actually strike earth. It would be one incredibly lucky shot from the Kuiper belt right onto us - most likely the comets fall in around the sun and take a few thousand passes around for any one hit.

Shouldn't this increase the probability of impacts on the moon and Mars?
Is there any evidence of this?

Shouldn't planet X be renamed planet IX by now?

Planet x (for a given value of x)

Oh wow. Are we reviving a century old idea here?

Period of 27 million years would mean orbital semimajor axis of 90 thousand AU, which is actually 1.4 light year or outside theoretical Oort cloud limit. Such an object would not be gravitationally bound to Sun.

The Nemesis Theory has been ruled out, in that observations specifically for unknown, nearby stars have failed to find the infrared signature of any star that would qualify.

I question the academic rigor of the current story in that it assumes we have a record of Earth receiving periodic showers of comets, when, to my knowledge, no such record exists.

@JongDan The Oort Cloud is believed to extend out to two or three light-years. Sol is believed to be the dominant gravitational influence out at least to two light-years, or the full extent of the Oort Cloud.

By whom? It doesn't make sense. Stars seem to regularly approach Sun by as close Alpha Centauri is today, some coming even closer.
Based on Sun's orbital period around the Galaxy and distance from the centre, the mass inside Sun's orbit should be roughly 10^11 solar masses. (I'm greatly simplifying here as it's not a point or spherical mass, but just for the purposes of orders of magnitude) Putting this into the formula for Hill sphere gives the outer limit of space gravitationally dominated by Sun as 4 light years — but orbits aren't long term stable further out than 1/3 of Hill radius (which we can also observe from how far out gas giants have their moons). Again, this is based on assumption that all mass inside Sun's orbit is in the middle of the galaxy — since quite some of it is actually closer by, this means the actual stability limit is slightly lower. So orbits further out than 1ly are demonstrably not stable.

The article suggests the *plane* of the orbit shifts over that long time, not that the orbital period is so long. Implication is migrating orbit progressively perturbs Kuiper Belt objects. I'd expect that only objects disturbed while that plane is near the ecliptic have a significant probability of being dangerous to the inner solar system...

The article suggests the *plane* of the orbit shifts over that long time, not that the orbital period is so long. Implication is migrating orbit progressively perturbs Kuiper Belt objects. I'd expect that only objects disturbed while that plane is near the ecliptic have a significant probability of being dangerous to the inner solar system...

So how is this supposed to work? Even an inclined orbit still needs to cross the ecliptic twice per orbit. The only way I can see this working is making eccentricity of the orbit fluctuate wildly, so sometimes it gets close enough to the Kuiper belt to perturb objects at the perihelion, but again, what object would then perturb X's orbit to cause this periodic change? This opens up way more questions than it solves.

Resolved: physorg doesn't just subborn nut cases, it seeks to actively attract them. This is a worthless, discredited theory and a favorite hobby horse of the nut fringe.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

I see no reason why the eccentricity of the orbit would need to fluctuate. It should be enough if the perigee is close enough to perturb the Oort Cloud, while the apogee isn't, thus giving an orbital period of 27 million years rather than 54. Or am I missing something?

See my previous comment, an orbit with a period of 27 million years would be too far out and significantly perturbed by nearby stars, so even if it stayed bound to Sun for a couple of orbits, the orbital parameters would be unstable and unpredictable.

Ummm, the extinction of the dinosaurs wasn't a "shower of comets." It was *one* comet, if it was a comet and not a carbonaceous chondrite, which landed in the Gulf of Mexico northwest of the Yucatan.

Let's try to keep the speculation to a minimum, particularly when we have a well-accepted explanation supported by data from multiple scientific fields, shall we? Thanks in advance.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oy, I know SOOO many mentally-ill people who would eat this up...

This is a worthless, discredited theory and a favorite hobby horse of the nut fringe.

Well, in similar way, like the cold fusion or antigravity drives and another certified taboos of mainstream science.... How this theory was actually discredited in other way, than by collective downvotes at public forums?

@zephir
it's called evidence

that is why your "cold fusion or antigravity drives" is considered pseudoscience

that is the only reason, too

because if you or anyone else could provide evidence it would be the next nobel and the tech talk of the world, guaranteed
(repeatable evidence, not a Fleischmann-Pons event)

that is what separates pseudoscience from science

For lurkerz, when the orbital plane oscillates, it means that the plane of the Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt as compared to the orbital plane of this hypothetical planet move in and out of phase; thus, when they're out of phase, the planet only intersects these features twice in its orbit, but when they're in phase the entire orbit is within these features. Obviously gravitic interactions are far more common when they're in phase.

We call Planet nine Vulcan.

Latch, 1833 to 1911 mentions Forbes anticipated new planet and its relationship to Vulcan.

https://archive.o...mode/2up
Page 9 mentions Forbes' planet at 100 AU and possibly of it being Vulcan.

And it is responsible for relatively recent impact events like Noah's Great Flood about 3195 BC and the Atlantis Castrophe 11,703 years before 2000 AD. We use the weather changes caused by these catastrophes to verifyVulcan's orbital parameters.

http://www.barry....d.html#8

It is a little closer than Dr. Brown thinks. Here are Vulcan's theoretical orbital parameters. Notice how close they are to Vulcan's

http://www.barry....d.html#5

Dr. Barry Warmkessel, Ph. D Physics

And it is responsible for relatively recent impact events like Noah's Great Flood about 3195 BC and the Atlantis Castrophe 11,703 years before 2000 AD. We use the weather changes caused by these catastrophes to verifyVulcan's orbital parameters

@yaridanjo
Not sure how that would work...

i mean, how can you use weather changes from fictitious events to verify an orbital parameter?

are you claiming that "Noah's Great Flood about 3195 BC and the Atlantis Castrophe 11,703 years before 2000 AD" are real events without evidence?

you should link those peer reviewed journal studies that demonstrate they exist before posting the claim that you can use their information to determine events

Forbes orbital parameters to Vulcan's that is

Forbes orbital parameters to Vulcan's that is

@yaridanjo
maybe you missed the rest of the post?

lets try again

i will type this slowly for you, ok?

how can you use weather changes from fictitious events to verify an [any] orbital parameter?

are you claiming that "Noah's Great Flood about 3195 BC and the Atlantis Castrophe 11,703 years before 2000 AD" are real events without evidence?

you should link those peer reviewed journal studies that demonstrate they exist before posting the claim that you can use their information to determine events

IOW - you are making what is called a false claim (see: http://www.auburn...ion.html )
you can't even state this is an untested claim because we know for sure that there was no global noah flood

.

so again, where is the peer reviewed studies from a reputable science journal (with references) that demonstrate either noah's flood or atlantis at all?

Waiting for something squamous and rugose. /me wriggles his fingers under his chin.

Lä. Lä. Cthulhu fhtagn.

There is lots of evidence. The weather change data comes from tree ring and ice core data.

http://www.barry....OAH.html

http://www.barry....TIS.html

The weather change data works because Vulcan causes comet swarms to form in 3:2 resonate orbits. Vulcan comes no closer than about 134 AU. This permits accurate orbital period verification to occur every two Vulcan or three comet swarm revolutions. This is a stable resonate interval of about 9938 years.

For the measurement uncertainties, the weather change data, all data including Forbes is combined here.

http://www.barry....ods.html

The therotical 4969 year orbital period is verified by these three simple measurement techniques to be 4970.7 years.

86.5% of Vulcan's theoretical period if Vulcan is at the IRAS point employed, and 96.4% if it is not. Any probability > 40% means that the two physical quantities are related.

Thank you for typing slowly. My iPad battery is low.

Noah's flood was local.

Planet nine's orbital parameters are easy to find if one can think a bit outside the box.

So where do I find peers? Are you implying that astronomers are my peers?

There is lots of evidence

@yaridanjo
then why is it that the only evidence you can provide is from a personal website that has no scientific credibility?

and why keep going on about "vulcan" when you haven't established any scientific credible evidence for the existence of noah's flood or atlantis?

if you want to talk about your religion, find a forum like cassiopaea with their scientific mystic where you can make unsubstantiated claims like channeling sources from the future to justify your argument

.

this is a science site, so source material only, and skip the pseudoscience sites, ok?

that means *no* links to sites where your evidence comes from conjecture made by a "scientific mystic" or any one else that has no evidence or peer reveiwed studies from reputable science journals

before posting & claiming evidence again - learn more here: https://en.wikipe...c_method

https://en.wikipe...evidence

@yaridanjo cont'd

Thank you for typing slowly. My iPad battery is low

that's ok, my computer is so old it types in pencil

Noah's flood was local

then prove it with evidence and not claims

Planet nine's orbital parameters

are irrelevant to the point i was making

So where do I find peers?

start with the two last links i posted above, then try entering an education program like the following: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

that one is free, but you can build contacts and go from there
peers are learned educated people who have the skills to judge the work as scientific or not

Are you implying that astronomers are my peers?

absolutely not
in fact, the only peers you may have considering the links you left are religious preachers, which have no scientific credibility or validity

if you want to talk science, you need to use evidence that isn't biased, like your links

Sorry, forgot to mention that the comet swarms do come through the inner solar system, and fragments usually hit earth when they pass. Thus, this creates weather changes. The nominal comet swarm period is 3313 years, but they change a little due to Vulcan's presence in the outer solar system. There are four or five such comet swarms. Measure the interval between a sequence of three of them and you have a stable one that is twice Vulcan's period. Madam Blavadsky named this thin Vulcan and it appears that maybe Forbes thought this thing was his planer. His parameters come close to mine, but are incomplete. Blavadsky named this planet and the astronomers screwed it up trying to make it be a planet between Mercury and the Sun. The astronomers even missed Pluto on their plates during 1919. And now Brown is saying this thing does not affect Earth much. What have our astronomers done right?

What have our astronomers done right?

@yari
well, to answer that would take far too many posts, characters and time to put here

before you attempt to denigrate an entire field of expertise, you should attempt to become educated in it at least somewhat
http://ocw.mit.ed...ophysics

while you are at it, perhaps you can learn a little about what peer review and source material means and then come back and share some reputable science instead of the above, ok?

thanks

and if the above is too subtle for you, i can be much more blunt, if you like

So the orbital points of CR105 are pseudo science? So tree ring and ice core data are pseudoscience? Forbes comet aphelions are pseudo science.

The military uses all source intelligence. Wars can be won or lost based on such intelligence. Astronomers think inside the box and they have no orbit. I think a little outside the box. I look where astronomers don't look. I get answers that have been verified by standard scientific means. They are still waving their hands. We have had Vulcan's orbit since 2003. The only reason astronomers are now thinking seriously about a large planet in the outer solar system is because Brown said so and is waving his hands around about its possible orbit.

We have also observed how Vulcan's orbit effects these small Kuiper Belt Objects before Brown even thought of doing so.

http://www.barry....s.html#d

This subsection of a web page was UPDATED 1 Aug. 2014.

And your peer reviewed scientific papers have got ZIP.

I have a set of orbital parameters and data that verifies that orbit.

So point out a test that shows that I am wrong.

All you got is that you don't like my orbit because it has not been peer reviewed.

So if you think I am wrong, prove it!

What have our astronomers done right?

Saw stars?

Invented spectroscopy?

Discovered galaxies?

Wait what I don't even

So the orbital points of CR105 are pseudo science? So tree ring and ice core data are pseudoscience? Forbes comet aphelions are pseudo science

@yari
try re-reading my posts, but this time slow down and actually attempt to understand what is there instead of making sh*t up and posting your interpretations of what i said, ok?
thanks

http://www.barry....ssel.com

a dot-com site is not a reputable peer reviewed journal nor is it a study
neither is forbes etc unless you can callout a reference in the article, and i would suggest using the reference, not the article, because an "article" is opinion about what is in the science

So if you think I am wrong, prove it!

a claim only needs another claim to be refuted
until you give empirical evidence from a reputable source, it is just conjecture

until you read the links i left re: scientific method and scientific evidence, all i need to refute you is to point out the link to the MIT site above

"a dot-com site is not a reputable peer reviewed journal nor is it a study
neither is forbes etc unless you can callout a reference in the article, and i would suggest using the reference, not the article, because an "article" is opinion about what is in the science"

29. Professor George Forbes; ON COMETS; Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh; Vol. 10, 1878 - 80; pg. 426: and Professor George Forbes; ADDITIONAL NOTE ON AN ULTRA-NEPTUNIAN PLANET; Vol. 11, pg. 89; and Monthly Notices Of The Royal Astronomical Society, 1908 - 1909, Vol. 69, pg. 152. Pluto had not yet been discovered.

You can find it in the basement stacks at Stanford.

All you are going to get is a dot.com site out of me. In my past line of work, we have a saying. "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It frustrates you and annoys the pig"

I pointed you to an answer about planet nine's orbit. Accept or reject it as you choose.
We live in a choice and consequence of choice universe.

@ Captain Stumpy, I'm going with this one from Watch, Ha!
'There's a website in Israel called Breaking Israel News, which has people freaking out about a possible ninth planet called Nibiru. Discussions about this mythical planet are nothing new, but what is is the idea that it will collide into Earth, shattering it "like a wrecking ball."
Nibiru's reappearance is expected to destroy all life on our planet.
Gotta get my Sumerian 'bible' out and start praying to 'Lord Enki'...after all it's all his fault we're here in the first place.
I agree with your comments and Da Schneib but meanwhile I better go and look up the details from NASA. Back later

All you are going to get is a dot.com site out of me

@yari
then you aren't doing science, you're doing religion
until you can actually provide something other than your opinion substantiated by yourself or your religious acolytes, you are proselytizing and not researching

I pointed you to an answer about

no, you pointed me to your opinion
that has all the same credibility as any other opinion, which is none

evidence is the key

& you aint got it
that's called religion bubba, not science

In my past line of work, we have a saying

yeah, we have a few too
here is one that is relevant "don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining"

here is another one:
"fool me once, shame on you
fool me twice, shame on me"

another
"stupid is as stupid does"

that last one is cogent to your posts
(is that being too subtle for you?)

Can't find any comment from NASA apart from their official stance in 2014 that Planet X doesn't exist. The two Caltech theorists that published earlier this year with a predicted orbit don't seem to mention a possible rotation of that orbit. To many if's for my liking so I think I'll take my laeve quietly.

Nibiru is a comet swarm or cluster, not a planet.

A planet cannot come whizzing thru the inner solar system without being eventually ejected by an interaction with Jupiter or ejecting some of the inner planets from the solar system.

Brown's planet or Nemesis (a few thousand AU out) cannot exist for a long time either. Boththese astronomically accepted objects would be ejected from our solar system by a passing star.

The safe distance is about 50 billion miles, a little more than 500 AU. Vulcan aphelion is about 448 AU or 41.6 billion miles. This is classical celestial mechanics, check it out for yourselves.

So much for your peer reviewed papers on non dot.com sites.

Nibiru is a comet swarm or cluster, not a planet

@yari
and you have evidence of this from a reputable peer reviewed journal... oh, wait
nevermind. you are proselytizing again

This is classical celestial mechanics, check it out for yourselves

classical celestial mechanics applied to a delusion doesn't mean it is real any more than standing in a garage makes you a Maserati

So much for your peer reviewed papers on non dot.com sites

WTF?
you know, until you actually know WTF that even means, perhaps you should comment only about your religious belief and hope no one can break your delusion too harshly

you have offered the exact same evidence for your planets and delusions as there is for:
Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Wood Nymphs and unicorns who fart skittles

Nibiru is a comet swarm or cluster, not a planet...

@yaridanjo You are obviously not widely read. Don't infer from what I'm about to post is also my belief. It isn't! It's just for your benefit and about how the term came about. According to one (pseudo scientific) author Nibiru was the supposed home planet of the Anunnaki which had an orbital period of 3600 (Earth) years. In the story it is Enki who travels to Earth searching for gold which is essential for solving Nibiru's problems. This story is very long one indeed.
However, mainstream archaeology does not follow this myth and it would seem that Ancient Sumerians indulged in very little astronomy. Ni-bru was an ancient Sumerian city which the Akkadian's pronounced Ni-ip-pu-ru. Sumerian ni-bi-ru means ' it/they offer/give.' The term is more likely to have come from Babylonian times however tablets are obscure and Nibiru could mean, constellation, the planet Jupiter, a point in the sky etc. Do some research before posting.

With mentions of Nemesis, Vulcan, and Nibiru, I don't understand why no one has brought up Velikovsky. Let the flame wars begin! ;^) (I did find both Worlds in Collision and Earth in Upheaval fascinating reads).

I see a reference to events every 27 million years, but when was the last one. Was it 27 million years ago? Are we going to get slammed with a comet storm next Tuesday?

- tear88
Yes, both books are fascinating - but have been ridiculed by mainstream scientists. Fortunately for us, there are enough telescopes (tax money well spent) and other instruments to give scientists a "heads-up" IF and when a comet storm approaches. They will calculate possibilities of being hit. However, the BIG question would be: Will scientists WARN the people of Earth that these objects are coming and to prepare for them? Or will they decide that it's every man for himself, while scientists and engineers will have to be saved from destruction but not the hoi polloi? Simple Eugenics

Research is an ongoing thing, and evidences that are not available today may, in fact, be available in the future. Archaeologists are digging up the past to find those ancient artifacts that can be validated as physical evidences of past events, cultures and beliefs, whether they are of what has been considered as mythical or actual. It is foolish to regard a biblical story as impossible, when all the facts have still not been excavated and found.
Archaeologists are now theorizing that in a hidden room next to King Tut's tomb may be the tomb of Nefertiti. They are using modern instruments to determine that there is something there that is organic.
IF and when they find the evidence, then they will publish it. But until then, it is still conjecture.

It is the same with yaridanjo's assertions. To ask him/her to give peer-reviewed evidence is the height of stupidity and arrogance, when it is STILL in the conjecture stage and is still being researched in order to validate it.

Captain Stumpy, I am sorry to challenge your faith based belief in the peer review process that does not work. Specifically, in this very message thread, others have pointed out that the Nemesis theory has been debunked. A passing star would interact with body leading to its eventual orbit destabilization resulting from its ejection from our solar system.

Your faith based trust in the peer review process also has failed for Dr. Brown's proposed orbit. His proposed orbit carries planet nine's location beyond the safe region for a planet in our solar system. Eventually, a passing star would destabilize its orbit and it would also be ejected by Jupiter.

I have given you the essence of this region of stabilization, but have not cited my sources. They are from professional astronomers who are experts in this matter and I have publications.

But since this information is available, you also should have access to it. Provide data that supports Dr. Brown's orbit as being stable.

Mimath 224, I am familiar with Sitchen's work and I agree it is not supportable by current astronomical theory. He proposed that there was a large planet in the outer solar system that was in a comet like orbit of 3600 years.

However, astronomers have found a planet in such a comet like orbit around a distant star.

http://www.huffin...576.html

That does not mean that a planet like this can exist in our solar system.

Sitchen's comet like orbit value is close to our comet swarm 3313 +/- a few hundred year orbit. Their orbit changes due to Vulcan's presence in the outer solar system.

I suspect Sitchen's work spurred the deployment of the IRAS system among others astronomical space based systems. The place to look for a distant planet nine is in the military arena where minds are not closed as they are in the astronomical and archeological fields.

G Hancock's new book caught my attention by the two separate cometary/asteroid impacts he proposed at 13,000 and 11,000 y ago. While it is not impossible, I feel the answer may be an asteroid or cometary impact at the 13,000 y ago causing the sudden drop in temp creating the Younger Dryas but that the sudden onset of global warming ending the Younger Dryas has a more earthly start. I propose that the Cayman Trench sea floor erupted with a sudden and violent explosion of pressurized gases accumulating over time from the 13,000 y event where the northern hemisphere was slowed in its rotation while the southern hemisphere continued. This stretched out the Yucatan Peninsula from N America creating the Sigsbee Deep. It allowed the heated rocks to become more viscous allowing gases to flow into the area. It disorganized the Greater and Lesser Antilles. The gas blowout itself forced Cuba north toward N America. The masses of gases destabilized the atmosphere, global death followed.

Captain Stumpy, I am sorry to challenge your faith based belief in the peer review process that does not work

@yari
1- i have no faith, except in the flying spaghetti monster of AAaarrgh...
2- this comment you made demonstrates more than anything else that you are a crackpot and cannot understand what the scientific method is

it also demonstrates that you can't comprehend the difference between a faith based belief in something (which, by definition, is the belief without evidence)
and the evidence based belief of anything

thanks for demonstrating what pseudoscience and crackpottery really is

Captain Stumpy: it appears to me that all you can do is denigrate others and you apparently have no access to factual data. When challenged about Forbes, I cited a reference. Can you not do the same when I cited the maximum safe distance for a proposed planet in the outer solar system?

I am challenging your faith based reliance on the so called peer review process that you have so often cited. I understand that you have faith in the peer review process. Freedom of religion is protected in this country, the USA.

You may want to consider thinking for yourself and not just following the preaching of your religion. One can solve a lot of scientific problems that way.

I wish you and your 'peer review' church well. It sometimes works.

Captain Stumpy: it appears to me that all you can do is denigrate others

@yari
that is your belief, but you offer only conjecture based upon a faith and not evidence so... it deserves to be ridiculed as lacking of evidence, as noted in the links i left above

and you apparently have no access to factual data

you mean, except for all those links i left which are factual evidence that demonstrate how science works and why our religious preoselytizing isn't welcome as a scientific argument??

uhm... whatever, girl!

I am challenging your faith based reliance on the so called peer review process

if you could challenge the peer review process, you would have already redefined the education system today
but you can't do that without evidence, which is a requirement of the peer review process

crying wont help you, because you have no evidence

Tell me, what are the statistics of peer review?
can you post the number of retracted to validated studies?

@yari cont'd

You may want to consider thinking for yourself and not just following the preaching of your religion

Chica... i was going to tell you the same thing

tell you what... if you want to challenge the peer review system, lets start right here!!!

but we need to start with a few facts to establish a baseline!

***
1- post the stats on peer review
2- post the number of retractions vs the total publications per year
3- post the number of technological off-shoots of all peer reviewed papers

****
then post the same for you
1- number of retractions vs publications (must be a reputable source, not a biased religious tome like the linked above BS you already put up)
2- post the number of technological off-shoots of all your forward thinking papers that people made $$ off of

start simple

I can wait

Katesisco: The Younger Dryas was initiated by a comet (fragment?) impact 12896 +/- 138 years before y2k (2000 AD) from comet swarm B sub cluster a. The weather changed in one (varve) year. Earth was taken out of the Younger Dryas 11703 +/- 20 years b2k according to Dr. Steffensen's ice core data. Using Dr. Baillie's tree ring dates and the resonance interval of 9938 years, we get 11702 years b2k.

http://www.barry....S.html#f

Dr. Baillie's tree ring data is most accurate. We have an estimated +/- 11 year year uncertainty on our two Vulcan period resonance interval. Our estimated error budget is dominated by that one sigma uncertainty. Both Baillie and Steffensen are correct to measurement error.

@yaridanjo

why so silent?

.

.

.

.

.

so that's a no, then eh?

.

can't do it?
no evidence at all?

read these then...

http://phys.org/n...nce.html

http://phys.org/n...nce.html

https://en.wikipe...oscience

Forgot to mention, the Younger Dryas was caused by a stony core comet (sir Fred Hoyle's theory) and Earth was taken out of the Younger Dryas by a metal core comet (Swarm A). The impact from one of Swarm A comets appears to be in the Caribbean Sea as you seem to be suggesting. It did cause shifting of the Caribbean plate. A city off the western edge of Cuba (the seas were lower during the Younger Dryas) seems to have been pushed 2000+ feet down into the 9200 feet deep Yucatan channel.

Captain Stumpy: there are others making intelligent comments that are worth responding to. You are free to keep your faith in your 'peer review' religion. If you have some facts about the region of planet orbital stability in the outer solar system from passing stars, I will respond in kind.

Captain Stumpy: there are others making intelligent comments that are worth responding to

@yari
no, there are people posting about subjective faith based conjecture like yourself who don't require evidence and you want to redirect to them as if it actually substantiates your claims of something

as this is a science site, it behooves those who think critically and have logic to request evidence for the claims being made. this is how things work in real life unless you have a religion
see also: https://www.youtu...EwjBXlZE

allowing you to post pseudoscience without pointing out that you have no evidence and can't substantiate your claim would mean you may have a valid point, which you don't, because you are posting *religion* on a science site

that is how evidence based peer reviewed science works

.

.

.

.

and you claimed the peer review process was a religion, whereas the statistics say it is not
so...

Prove it, girly-crank

Facts on orbital stability in the outer solar system from passing stars please!

as this is a science site,

Very astute of you

it behooves those who think critically and have logic to request evidence for the claims

It would behoove you to call in a REAL scientist to do the requesting

this is how things work in real life unless you have a religion

...says the anti-religionist

allowing you to post pseudoscience without pointing out that you have no evidence

Allowing? Who are you to allow OR deny what can or can't be posted?

and can't substantiate your claim would mean you may have a valid point, which you don't

Did researchers somehow cease their researching so that YOU can be proven right?

because you are posting *religion* on a science site

Science originated from hypotheses and questioning AND the first religions
Alchemy to change a substance into gold. The Sun as the giver of life. etc.

that is how evidence based peer reviewed science works

Provided that the "peers" don't exhibit "Confirmation Bias" to help their friends/colleagues gain funding or a Nobel Prize. Independent research prevents such Bias when the Independents don't stand to gain from it.

Resolved: physorg doesn't just subborn nut cases, This is a worthless, discredited theory and a favorite hobby horse of the nut fringe.

And those who make online threats that they'd like to drag into an alley & commit acts of physical violence against those in disagreement with you as you did on me on the Dark Matter Signature article. But you & Schneib don't think that makes you:

"subborn nut cases" or "hobby horse of the nut fringe".

Yeah, you along with Schneib thinks that places you right into the mainstream of a science culture in which neither of you carry the demeanor science professionals.

"I have a recurring dream where I'm in a bar and overhear someone saying something that identifies them as one of the regular trolls, like benni, and I follow them out into a dark alley and beat some respect into their empty heads" chileastro

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

@obutthead

It would behoove you to call in a REAL scientist

1- Rule 37
2- you aint one, and that has been proven already

Who are you to allow OR deny what can or can't be posted?

i see your reading and comprehension skills haven't improved, b/c you missed a whole lot of that post & cherry picked
guess you didn't click the link either, eh?
so much for your critical thinking skills

AND the first religions

science is completely different from religion and this is proven by all the wonderful things science gave us while under the thumb of religion... as opposed to what it gave us recently when religion was taken out of the picture as the ruling force

care to add to that? tell me about the anti-gravity machines of atlantis that used death rays to kill while talking to moses via wifi?

can you "prove" alchemy actually changed a substance to gold?

why do all the nut-jobs and religious want attention for their lies?

But you & Schneib don't think that makes you

@benji
1- i didn't vote, moron
2- there isn't a single real educated person on this site who hasn't felt the same desire to pummel the blatantly obvious liar like yourself who can't actually substantiate their claim but floods the site with random interjections of OT stupidity about words that they have no knowledge of, and demonstrably so

neither of you carry the demeanor science professionals

well, idiot bot - i am not a science professional nor have i ever claimed to be one

unlike you, who has made a lot of claims which can't be proven or even slightly substantiated, from your analytical and math skills to your engineering prowess failures, you are the poster girl for "rule 37"

Now, does either you or obutthead have actual evidence that peer review or the scientific method agree with vulcan-atlantis.noah gorl above?

no?

didn't think so

there isn't a single real educated person on this site who hasn't felt the same desire to pummel the blatantly obvious liar like yourself

well, idiot bot - i am not a science professional nor have i ever claimed to be one

By your own admission of not being an "educated" science professional, by what rationale do you justify your presence on any science site?

Look at your postings, all are either name calling rants or Copy & Paste links to topics of which you have no comprehension of it's scientific content.

@Benni I am a layman...are you suggesting that I need to 'justify' my presence on a science site too?

By your own admission of not being an "educated" science professional

@banji
can't read still?
my, my... i would have thought you would have changed that in the past few dozen decades
i said i wasn't a science professional (as in scientist)
i never said i wasn't a professional, nor did i insinuate i wasn't educated

besides, you should revise that considering i have proven you to be a chronic lying delusional geriatric, so that would make you.... what, exactly?

by what rationale do you justify your presence on any science site?

by my love of science and my need to follow the evidence
you know, like scientists do

so wait... you consider being able to actually validate a claim a bad thing?
but you call yourself an engineer and versed in science?
ROTFLMFAO

ok, thanks for that benji

BTW - last post for you, since you can't even comprehend the scientific method and the necessity of an evidence based argument over speculations and faith, pseudoscience girl

Facts on orbital stability in the outer solar system from passing stars please!

"... it is predicted that ~12 stars pass within 1 pc of the Sun every Myr". Earlier work suggests flybys within 0.25 pc happen even less frequently: ~ 0.1/Myr. See The Closest Known Flyby of a Star to the Solar System

See also "Stability of the solar system" (J. Laskar, Scholarpedia)

This article is usula applied shamanism product of the occult bratherhood. Mass extinction happened because of the flood as recorded in the Bible. But this fact is not politicaly correct in interset of golden calf idolatry.

Those who understand more of mathematics can calculate with eight people starting group at the beginning after the flood occurred nearly 4000 years ago and with an average growth rate of world population, regardless of wars, disasters and diseases, what will show the results of calculations for today's date.

Becasue the result of such calculatuions are near to the rеality, the golden calf shamans need several mass extinsion with unbiblical nature. And here the fairy tales begins.

Just FYI Lenni, I never take you off ignore so I can't vote you up or down. I occasionally respond to your insane rants out of boredom or to attack particularly pernicious pieces of your paranoid reasoning, but I don't vote your posts up or down; I can't.

Idiot.

Just FYI Lenni, I never take you off ignore so I can't vote you up or down. I occasionally respond to your insane rants out of boredom or to attack particularly pernicious pieces of your paranoid reasoning, but I don't vote your posts up or down; I can't. Idiot.

........but then you gave chileastro a 5 Star for his post below:

"I have a recurring dream where I'm in a bar and overhear someone saying something that identifies them as one of the regular trolls, like benni, and I follow them out into a dark alley and beat some respect into their empty heads" chileastro

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

C'mon Schneibo, what is it with you? What you still don't get is the fact I don't care if you never read my posts, it's all the unregistered guests who never login but who read what myself & others discuss about what obnoxious neophytes you & the Stump are who have no compunction what you make yourselves out to be with all your psycho-babble.

Ummm, the extinction of the dinosaurs wasn't a "shower of comets." It was *one* comet, if it was a comet and not a carbonaceous chondrite, which landed in the Gulf of Mexico northwest of the Yucatan.

Let's try to keep the speculation to a minimum, particularly when we have a well-accepted explanation supported by data from multiple scientific fields, shall we? Thanks in advance.

LOL, speculation at a minimum as he states with certainty dinosaurs died of his way!

Becasue the result of such calculatuions are near to the rеality, the golden calf shamans need several mass extinsion with unbiblical nature. And here the fairy tales begins.

viko_mx – your "religion" is ~ 6000 year old Egyptian astrology that your ancestors hijacked to suit their own purposes. You could do your own research to learn this, or you can watch this 1/2-hour clip that exposes it (Zeitgeist – Religion) and then do your own fact-checking. The original astrology is historically and culturally fascinating – your version is like a bastardized, mangled 3rd-rate copy of it. Please get your facts and story straight, because lying to yourself in public on a science site makes you look quite foolish and maladjusted in the eyes of all who know better. If you truly seek an omnipotent god, you should seek harder, elsewhere, and stop proselytizing for a lesser mythical god.

This article is usula applied shamanism product of the occult bratherhood. Mass extinction happened because of the flood as recorded in the Bible

You forgot the 's' at the end of 'mass extinction'.

But this fact is not politicaly correct in interset of golden calf idolatry

-which cannot be compared to golden chair idolatry.

I give you - the Holy Chair of St Peter!
http://stlouisrev...st-peter

-Suitable for an ass which lays golden eggs and shits tutti-frutti.

@Protoplasmixnot

More observant people see everywhere in physical world the signs of the Creator. My faith is based on them and hundreds prophecies that God has given to us in the Bible that run throughout whole human history with supernatural accuracy. At last on the fundamental level the life need supernatural Creator without begining and endWho never change that can suport it and the principles of life - the love and the truth for eternity, because life make sence only when is ethernal.
Fill gaps in your knowledge of history. It is easy to be mediocre but is not useful for your personal development.

Why are you here? Who are you? Why are you so nasty and offensive? … hiding behind a pseudonym?

Sounds like you're upset that you can't use ad hominem. If you can't refute the content, and you can't attack the person, is your "Plan C" really to usurp someone's first amendment rights? In all your experience, how many fires have you extinguished by pouring gasoline on them? These questions are rhetorical.

... because life make sence only when is ethernal.

Ah, so you're trying to makes sense of things. Good for you, you're in for some pleasant surprises when you get 'round to studying quantum mechanics...

It seems like Captin Stumpy job on this message board is to destroy any possible rational discussion of an issue by hurling insults at people trying to carry on a technical discussion. This poster tries to redirect the conversation in another direction so as to prevent an honest evaluation of a given point. I am wondering if this person is a paid troll?

"Ah, so you're trying to makes sense of things. "

Every inteligent being who is not in serious nihilistic condition associated with severe depression or disease of the central nervous system, will try tо make sence of things.
Is there anybody who will claim that understand the quantum world and can make correct conclusions for it? Does anyone would be so reckless to claim that the macro and micro cosmos is knowable to us without the help of the Creator?

Does anyone would be so reckless to claim that the macro and micro cosmos is knowable to us without the help of the Creator?

-More incontrovertible proof that our species is the result of domestication. Humans were unnaturally selected over the course of 1000s of generations to forego rational thought in favor of THIS.

I'm sure that the Creator is as real to viko as the sun is to the rest of us. Some believers may even get stigmatory sunburn from standing in His holy presence.

For me real thing are real things. For you fаiry tales are real things and non sence have huge sence. Like the idea that universe began without reason and purpose from something unknown but very microscopic and by magic became so huge and presicely constructed with finely tuned physical laws, constants and fundamental force. Because for people with sanity whose do not have disease of the central nervous system is obvious that such things do not happen by chance, one of the modern shamans visionaries decided that there are countless universes despite there is no facts for such a claim, and we are lucky to run into this highly organized universe.

Back in the 1982/1983 time frame, the laws of astronomy were such that a stable planetary orbit in our solar system was was about 50 billion miles. A planet or tiny dark star or planet as big as Jupiter was stable in an orbit that carried it 50 billion miles away

http://rabbithole...news.php

So planets whose orbit carries it 490 (Pluto's aphelion) to 538 AU (50 billion miles) are at risk of being EJECTED FROM ORBIT BY A PASSING STAR.

That was then, now is now! AND THE LAWS OF PHYSICS HAVE CHANGED!

http://www.space....ons.html

DON'T BLAME 'PLANET NINE' FOR EARTH'S MASS EXTINCTIONS - January 25, 2016
Planet Nine likely has an elliptical orbit, coming within 200 to 300 astronomical units (AU) of the sun at its closest approach and getting as far away as 600 to 1,200 AU.

This work Was PEER reviewed!

It seems like Captin Stumpy job ... trying to carry on a technical discussion

@yaki バカ
well, you aren't making a technical argument when you post false claims that are not only debunked, but not supported by any facts (you know, like atlantis or noah floods)

SO... since you want technical:
lets talk about evidence and why you've not been able to supply anything except opinion, conjecture and false claims (like your links)

oh, and linking to a dot-com as evidence, or claiming the laws of physics have changed without *any* evidence means you are not talking technical, but religion (AKA- belief without evidence)

http://www.auburn...ion.html

https://en.wikipe...evidence

This work Was PEER reviewed

not if you're talking about your last link
that is called an article
not a study

perhaps you should read my links this time?
learn a little about what evidence actually means?

@yaridanjo 'That was then, now is now! AND THE LAWS OF PHYSICS HAVE CHANGED!' No, I don't think so.Our conception of the LoP might change but that isn't the same thing.

Of course the laws of physics have not changed!

Remember Tom Van Flanderen? He worked at the Naval Observatory and was interested in a possible planet in our outer solar system. His expertise was celestial mechanics.

You might want to check out what he said on page 313 of his book; Dark Matter, Missing Planets & New Comets (paperback edition). It's in the chapter "implications For Neptune, Pluto and Planet X". His statement is relavent to Dr. Brown's orbit for Planet Nine which carries it from 200 to 300 AU out to 600 to 1200 AU. This is relavent to the stability of Dr. Brown's orbit.

then check out how my Vulcan's orbit does as well.

yaridanjo 'That was then, now is now! AND THE LAWS OF PHYSICS HAVE CHANGED!'
then
'Of course the laws of physics have not changed!
Seems you have though. You might like video 'Massive Rogue Object Caught Behind The Sun? 3/27/16', too

"That was then, now is now! AND THE LAWS OF PHYSICS HAVE CHANGED!"

Are you sure? I think that the people understanding of the laws of physcic that support the originaly etsablished order in the universe change with time. Your existance is supported by this orginally established order.

@viko_mx quite so. yaridanjo has quoted that they HAVE and they HAVEN'T. Maybe you know what yaridanjois is on about 'cos I don't, Ha!

If you trust the PEER review process, the laws of physics have to be changed. If the laws of physics have not changed in the last 33 years, Dr. Brown's orbit is unsupportable.

Choose one or the other. You can't have both.

If you trust the PEER review process, the laws of physics have to be changed. If the laws of physics have not changed in the last 33 years, Dr. Brown's orbit is unsupportable.

Choose one or the other. You can't have both.

Ah...no peer review is a human subjective process (as are laws of a nation etc.) and the laws of physics are quite independent. Your argument is illogical. You can argue about peer review if you so wish or you can argue about the laws of physics. If you can show evidence that the peer review process is faulty or some peer review has claimed a change in physical laws then that's fine too but this then is arguing about the peer review and not physical laws. So I don't have to choose one or the other because your conclusion is based on incorrect reasoning. So try again...you might want to read a book on Logic first though.

I personally do not believe that the laws of physics have changed in the last 33 years. Therefore I claim that Dr. Brown's orbit for planet Nine is not supportable by the current laws of physics as cited in the reference I provided. You can look up the reference if you choose to and determine if I am correct or not. I believe what this astronomer, who is an expert in the field of celestial mechanics, has provided, and he told me that this conclusion is commonly known to others in his field and it is so documented. Thus I offer this as proof that your often cited peer review process is pure BS. I also claim that the therotical orbit I have deduced passes this requirement, but that does not verify my orbit. My orbit period has been verified.

We live in a choice and consequence of choice universe. What you choose to do with this information is up to you.

Phys1: since you have chosen to make insults, I will not respond to any of your posts even if cogent questions are ask. The same applies to Captian Stumpy. Bad manners are not acceptable. This is a consequence of your choice.

You might want to check out what he said on page 313 of his book; Dark Matter, Missing Planets & New Comets … You can look up the reference if you choose to and determine if I am correct or not ...

Here's a link to amazon's top critical review of your source – if after reading it you still say you'd purchase the book, what parts of the review do you disagree with? There is much wrong with your source.

What you choose to do with this information is up to you.

Bad manners are not acceptable

@@yar-yar バカ
lets talk about bad manners for a minute!

in the scientific method, when attempting to justify a position about reality, it is required to argue a point from evidence, not a belief

you come to a science site to argue your point of view, and i tried (at first) to nicely point out that your reasoning was flawed and your arguments were not based in evidence (especially when you quote known debunked myths as evidence - like noah/atlantis)

in the real world, this is the worst manners, but then to continue to ignore the evidence requirement and drive the point home without evidence still using a "mystical" approach to argue Science...

your manners are absolutely horrible and your posts prove you were not raised by an honest, intelligent family with any integrity at all

you still can't comprehend evidence and logic trumps emotional faith based belief

that is how cows or pigs live
heathens
not real men or scientists

Protoplasmix: no link sent.

Van Flandern was in on the search for a planet in the outer solar system when he was at the Naval Observatory. Ignore him at your peril.

Perhaps you guys have picked a wrong time to be rude.

@yar-yar バカ

Perhaps you guys have picked a wrong time to be rude

funny... i was thinking the same thing about your posts

huh

Ignore him at your peril.

so, you want us to accept the evidence based upon the author?
that is argument from authority, not from evidence

if you would post the reputable peer reviewed paper with evidence (or it's validation study), we can talk technical and specifics, but your point is one from the specific author, or argument from authority

this is really bad manners and demonstrates my point above

so- thanks for making my point for me

Dr. Brown is no fool. He knows of this 50 billion mile 538 AU maximum stable orbit limit. Yet he made his postulated orbit go from 200-300 AU to 600-1200 AU anyway and said this:

http://www.space....ons.html
DON'T BLAME 'PLANET NINE' FOR EARTH'S MASS EXTINCTIONS - January 25, 2016
Don't Blame 'Planet Nine' for Earth's Mass Extinctions But Planet Nine — a newly proposed but not yet confirmed world perhaps 10 times more massive than Earth that's thought to orbit far beyond Pluto — probably could not have triggered such "death from the skies" events, researchers said.
"I suspect it has something like zero effect on us," said Mike Brown of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena.

Vulcan does trigger Ice Ages.

Protoplasmix: no link sent.

If you click anywhere on the words "amazon's top critical review" in my last post, you'll see the link is embedded. Here it is again without the embedding for your convenience: http://www.amazon...EVOEX939

Van Flandern was in on the search for a planet in the outer solar system when he was at the Naval Observatory. Ignore him at your peril.

I haven't ignored him, or you. Refusing to accept pseudoscience has never been perilous.

Perhaps you guys have picked a wrong time to be rude.

I haven't been rude. I even spent time checking on star flybys and solar system stability like you asked, did you not see that post? You're welcome. And it isn't rude to say again, there is much wrong with your source. If you want discuss what was said on page 313, consider paraphrasing it.

BTW, worth mentioning that the Wikipedia article for Nibiru has been proposed for deletion.

Protoplasmix: I got it to work. I am working from an iPad now and it did not seem to work the last time. About the review, there is nothing that I saw in there that addresses Van Flandern's main skill in celestial mechanics. This is what he was an expert in. I think he got his exploding planet theory from another source that is not relavent to this current discussion and I do not want to get sidetracked on another issue. What he explained in his book is why the maximum bound for the stability of a planetary orbit in the outer solar system is about 490 AU. This has been 'rounded up by others in this area of expertise to 50 billion miles (538 AU).

Van Flandern further clarified his comment. " Orbits at large distances are unstable over the solar system's lifetime. (This is not just my opinion, but standard dynamical astronomy based on the statistics of passing stars.)

Dr. Brown's orbit is not viable, and in my opinion, he knows it. That is what is important here.

Sorry, forgot to mention that the comet swarms do come through the inner solar system, and fragments usually hit earth when they pass. Thus, this creates weather changes. The nominal comet swarm period is 3313 years, but they change a little due to Vulcan's presence in the outer solar system. There are four or five such comet swarms. Measure the interval between a sequence of three of them and you have a stable one that is twice Vulcan's period. Madam Blavadsky named this thin Vulcan and it appears that maybe Forbes thought this thing was his planer. His parameters come close to mine

Are you out of your Vulcan mind?
https://www.youtu...zsDUSNtg

No, I think he means 'Live long and prosper' along with the 'V' sign of course.

@yaridanjo 'I personally do not believe that the laws of physics have changed in the last 33 years.' What about the rest of history? Or by Charles Lutwidge Dodgson that could be 9 or 121 and I think that where your arguments belong too.

Planet X is about 10 times the mass of Earth and could currently be up to 1,000 times more distant from the sun...[or] between one and five times the mass of Earth, and about 100 times more distant from the sun...

There are strong observational constraints (distances are lower bounds):
For brown dwarf (mass similar to Jupiter), nothing out to ~ 26000 AU
For Jupiter-like planets, nothing out to ~ 82000 AU
For Saturn-like planets, nothing out to ~ 28000 AU
For Super-Earth ice-rock planets with twice Earth's mass, nothing out to 496 – 570 AU
For Super-Earth ice-rock planets with 15x Earth's mass, nothing out to 970 – 1111 AU
If New Horizons' range residuals are no more than 10 meters, it will mean no ice-rock planet >0.7x Earth's mass out to ~ 4700 AU
See http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.0258

@yaridanjo – where did you say Vulcan was again?

Protoplasmix:

Vulcan is about 444 AU away from the Sun according to my orbit. It is in a highly inclined orbit where astronomers almost never look for planets. It's far away from the ecliptic. They are expecting planets to be near the ecliptic and that is where most of these small new objects have been found.

I estimate the mass of Vulcan to be about 141 Earth masses, but since there is no orbiting body, I have no hard evidence. Nor do I know what Vulcan is made of, but I would expect it to be Kuiper Belt red or jet black ice, rock or metal.

I am aware of the study you are citing. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially far off the ecliptic. Astronomers missed Pluto when it was on their plates in 1919. Bottom line is I just don't believe their study.

A NEW SUBMM SOURCE WITHIN A FEW ARCSECONDS OF ? CENTAURI: ALMA DISCOVERS THE MOST DISTANT OBJECT OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM - 8 Dec 2015
A New Submm Source Within A Few Arcseconds Of ? Centauri ALMA Discovers The Most Distant Object Of The Solar System
4.2. A new member of the solar system: an ETNO?
One may expect the distribution of the Oort cloud TNOs (Trans Neptunian Objects)initially to be isotropic. However, the vast majority of known TNOs are not very far off the ecliptic. For instance, Sedna is at i ~ 12o, and other Sedna-like objects, Biden (2012 VP113) and V774104 (10 November 2015, Science, DOI:10.1126/science.aad7414) are at i = 24o and within 15o, respectively. This is certainly due to observational bias, as one generally scans the sky around the ecliptic
http://arxiv.org/...52v1.pdf

A NEW SUBMM SOURCE WITHIN A FEW ARCSECONDS OF ? CENTAURI: ALMA DISCOVERS THE MOST DISTANT OBJECT OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM - 8 Dec 2015
A New Submm Source Within A Few Arcseconds Of ? Centauri ALMA Discovers The Most Distant Object Of The Solar System
4.2. A new member of the solar system: an ETNO?
One may expect the distribution of the Oort cloud TNOs (Trans Neptunian Objects)initially to be isotropic. However, the vast majority of known TNOs are not very far off the ecliptic. For instance, Sedna is at i ~ 12o, and other Sedna-like objects, Biden (2012 VP113) and V774104 (10 November 2015, Science, DOI:10.1126/science.aad7414) are at i = 24o and within 15o, respectively. This is certainly due to observational bias, as one generally scans the sky around the ecliptic
http://arxiv.org/...52v1.pdf

I like how every "loony" who believed this world-renowned story to be true - BEFORE - it was accepted by the mainstream communities was shunned.

A NEW SUBMM SOURCE WITHIN A FEW ARCSECONDS OF α CENTAURI: ALMA DISCOVERS THE MOST DISTANT OBJECT OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM - 8 Dec 2015

A second version of the paper was uploaded to arXiv. It was subsequently withdrawn until further data is available. The abstract is still there and it has been revised from v1 to say, "However, based on only one epoch, further analysis and preferably new data are needed, before publication of an article in which the nature of the new source can be discussed." See http://arxiv.org/....02652v2

The value of the paper I uploaded twice was to point out that only the region near the ecliptic is being searched for TNOs.

Vulcan is in a highly inclined orbit and near aphelion. Van Flanderen said this also. Like Brown's orbit, it seems to just come out of thin air or does it?

http://www.biblio...s_31.htm
PLANET X, 1841-1992
Soon their views diverged. van Flandern thought the tenth planet had formed beyond Neptune's orbit, while Harrington believed it had formed between the orbits of Uranus and Neptune. van Flandern thought more data was needed, such as an improved mass for Neptune furnished by Voyager 2. Harrington started to search for the planet by brute force -- he started in 1979, and by 1987 he had still not found any planet. van Flandern and Harrington suggested that the tenth planet might be near aphelion in a highly elliptical orbit. If the planet is dark, it might be as faint as magnitude 16-17, suggests van Flandern.

The value of the paper I uploaded twice was to point out that only the region near the ecliptic is being searched for TNOs.

Wrong. You missed this from your own link:
"An extremely cool brown dwarf at a distance of nearly 20000 AU may be a viable candidate for the new object's identification. However, like the Y2-source, the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE, 2009-2011) should have picked it up, unless the moderate angular resolution of WISE (> 6.0") prevented its detection close to the very bright α Cen AB." [WISE data is all-sky]

And you missed this from my link:
"Concerning the direct observability of the hypothesized perturber of terrestrial type, Trujillo & Sheppard (2014), who did not mention the all-sky WISE survey by Luhman (2014), remarked that if the albedo of a super-Earth at 250 AU were low enough, it would escape from detection in current all-sky surveys (Sheppard et al. 2011)."

Stumpy---you would do much better if you stopped calling everyone baka (for those of you who don't now, it is Japanese for fool) in your posts. Name-calling has no place in real scientists' lives. Please grow up, and if you can't be polite, please just stop posting.

Thanks.

When someone know as little about science as he does, there's little else left for him to say when mingling with those so far beyond his level of comprehension of the subject material.

Protoplasmix: Thanks for pointing that out to me. I had a horrible time posting that stuff.

I think there are two types of astronomers. Type A that are pretty conservative and play by the book. Type B that are more outside the box. Van Flandern is Type B, Brown is also type B but pretending to be Type A. Neither are fools. Here is one that got his work published in a Children's Enclyopedia.

http://www.barry....om/2.jpg

Here is the same guy in Science Digest.

http://www.barry....gest.jpg

Note what is out 50 billion miles and who this guy worked for.