Re: Planet X Cover-Up: Rationale?

In article <heDD6.930$vT5.62928@weber.videotron.net>, Greg Neill wrote:
>JosX <joshb@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:9bmtl2$otq$1@news1.xs4all.nl...
>> In article <j6CD6.882$vT5.50946@weber.videotron.net>, Greg Neill wrote:
>> >The poster is 20 years out of date.  The masses of the outer planets
>> >(save tiny Pluto) have now been measured more directly and quite
>> >precisely by the passing Voyager probes.  It is these accurate
>> >measurements which put to rest the Planet X theory.  All that's
>> >left that orbital dynamics allows is the rather smaller Kuiper Belt
>> >objects, and perhaps some minor Oort Cloud detritus.  No major unknown
>> >masses are perturbing the outer planets, to the precision of measurement.
>> hmmmm:
>> There were `QUIRKS' in the orbits of those outer planets.
>There were perturbations that could not be accounted for.
>A perturbation is not a wobble, it is a change in trajectory
>due to external influences (other than the primary, i.e., the
>Sun).  The trajectories calculated for these planets with using
>the pre-Voyager uncertain masses showed tiny discrepancies when
>compared to careful positional measurements.

I don't understand why, when you know what your error-margin is, can't
explain an anomaly in the orbit, that you suddenly can eplain if you
enhance your precision. When you lack precision, you have an error-margin
to play with (catch my drift?).

>Once the accurate masses were obtained for the outer planets,
>a recalculation of the orbits (same model, better masses) showed
>that the perturbations had gone.

see above

>> I suppose you want to argue that the mass that was determined more
>> accurately by Voyager disapears and apears at will on the surface of the
>> planets, to account for the WOBBLE ?
>Upon what do you base this ludicrous premis?  Please cite a refereed
>reference which indicates that there is a "WOBBLE".

I have always understood it as there being an /anomaly/ in the orbits of
Uranes and Neptune. That anomaly being an acceleration in the neighbourhood
of the presumed undiscovered planet, and a deceleration when past it.
That would warant searching for a planet in an orbit outside Neptune.

>> Or is that wobble because a giant icecream-man is doing bisnis on pluto,
>> every now and again serving Uranes a 4 to 10 earthmasses icecream
>> (depending on the lust for ice of Uranes).
>You're being silly.  If you are genuinely interested in gaining
>some insight into these things, you should try to make an effort.
>Otherwise, it is the work of a moment to introduce one's killfile
>to your particulars.

Yeah, sorry. I was fighting trolls in another NG and a bit fed-up with
the unending negativity of the guys there, then I came here and read
"voices in your head" and all that kind of insults again, I guess I
couldn't control myself enough.

Jos