As I said before, PX is a bunch of BS and thank ..... uh someone/something that there are people that see it's BS.

As I'm going through my arsenal of "Facts" when talking about PX I usually get stuck by one occurrence. The one issue that gets me every time is the picture of PX in the "New Science and Invention" Encyclopedia. Supposedly, there was an encyclopedia that supported the existence of and the orbit of PX (http://www.planet-x.150m.com/encyclopedia.html).

I need more ammo,, what’s the explanation behind this?

Thanks!!!!

Actually, I have looked for that encyclopedia, but haven't found it yet. I have a strong suspicion that the text that goes with the picture will show it's something innocuous. However, without seeing it I am not willing to jump to any conclusions.

I'll keep looking around my area for it in libraries.

Actually, I used to have an old encyclopedia from about 1978 (World Book I think, but not sure) that I remember having an entry for Barnard's Star, which was then considered to be a possible 10th planet. Could this be what they were referring to?

An astronomer named Van de Kamp did years of observation and believed that do to a perceived slight wobble, Barnard's star must have a planet 1&1/2 times the size of Jupiter. Later it was found (by an astronomer named Heitz) that there was a flaw in the telescope with regard to its lens placement after cleaning. This gave the illusion of a wobble in the star. Also later comparisons with different independent telescopes proved that Barnard's star had no Jupiter-like planet. However, Van de Kamp is partially vindicated simply by the idea that large extra-solar Jupiter-like planets could exist, and could effect a star's wobble over time. Many extra-solar planets were eventually discovered using better equipment and methods.

While we're on Barnard's Star, was there not something unusual about its apparent motion? That is was not moving with the same relative motion as other stars?

Barnard's star is a red dwarf, and has a fast apparent motion indicating it is "only" 5.97 light years away. In 8,000 years it will be "only" 4 light years from us. More info.

|sarcasm|disinformation agents...of course PX is not a bunch of b-s...

We can't explain gravity and 12th grade orbital mechanics, that's why everything in the past such as Atlantis, the Great Flood, etc. have been blamed on this PX, which comes to Earth EXACTLY every 3600 years. And Sumerians have stated on their tablets that the last crossing was 1597 B.C. LOOK AT ALL THIS SCIENTIFIC AND HISTORICAL EVIDENCE! Why does everyone say that Planet X cannot be real? If you still don't believe me, look at the images on zetatalk.com and tell me what you think!
|/sarcasm|

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dschon on 2002-11-20 18:00 ]</font>

http://www.planet-x.150m.com/encyclopedia.html

best regards,

Dana

Notice how they so conveniently cropped the imige to remove any mention that this is only how it works to detect a new planet/star/other massive object, thus making it apear they did detect such an object.

Sorta like taking a picture of a supercharged hot rod and saying that all cars come stock with superchargers...(although I wish they did [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] .

__________________
"Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it." — Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man

441!!!! :)

And where is Planet X mentioned in an encyclopedia besides THIS one? Surely there must be another one "leaking" out information.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dschon on 2002-11-29 23:21 ]</font>

Some additional BS for you all:

http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...J.....96.1476H

That paper is 14 years old. Since then, more accurate calculations have been done. There is no need to invoke a 10th planet to account for the motions of the outer planets.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Those numbers were recrunched after Voyager 2 gave us more accurate info during its flyby. I remember reading it here that the "perturbations" vanished when the proper data were used.

Here's a heads-up. It looks like the site with the children's encyclopedia page linked to above has managed to obtain full scans of the pages in question. Strangely, the text does not even mention the tenth planet or the dead star.

http://www.planet-x.150m.com/encyclopedia.html

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere