Re: Planet X/12th Planet Retrograde Orbit

Article: <6glve0$4rt@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com> 
Subject: Re: Planet X/12th Planet Retrograde Orbit
Date: 10 Apr 1998 20:28:48 GMT

In article  <6girgj$qeg$2@news.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim Scottie writes:
>> In this matter the burden of proof is on US?  We will place our 
>> explanation of why a retrograde orbit is taken by the the rogue 
>> planet that is termed Planet X .. along side your explanation of 
>> why the known planets in your Solar System all circle in the 
>> same direction any day!  You're ON, and just because your 
>> explanation is not NEW is no reason for the burden of proof 
>> not to be upon YOU TOO.  The theory that the Earth is flat is 
>> older than your current model of the Solar System, but does age 
>> grant it immunity from scrutiny?  
>
> That's the way science works.  And your theory better be able to 
> stand up to all the same observations that the conventional theory 
> has as well as make predictions which can be used to confirm the 
> theory, and it better do so better than what we use today.  Study 
> the current theories of the formation of the solar system and you'll 
> see what we have to say about this.  

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Oh, observations are what PROVE a theory?  It does not have to hold
together logically?  It does not have to stand against your other
theories and not CONTRADICT them?  Simply observations?  Well, in that
case, the Earth is still flat!  So sayethe Jim Scotti!  The 2 year old
living next door, who observes the Sun going round and round his world,
and the horizon appearing flat, no matter where he is driven in his
father's car.  His observation support this theory!  In fact, he can
even predict that the Sun will rise again in the same place in the sky,
and that the horizon will appear, overall, FLAT!  His theory supports
his predictions!

YOUR observations and their resulting theories cannot hold together
logically when placed together, and contradict each other!  Why is this
dismissed!  You have addressed NONE of the contradctions we presented,
repeatedly.  This is because you CANNOT address them, they expose
contradictions in your smug theories and rules.  Where you state you
are independent and can speak freely, you dare not step into THIS
swamp, apparently, for fear of offending you fellows who are also smug,
the stuffy professors at the University you work for.  So much for your
independence, Jim. We will ask our emissary, Nancy, to repeat the two
of the Contractions that are based on theory alone, not recent findings
that may not be available to the readership, so you can demonstrate
your independence by addressing these contradictions.  
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

As requested, 2 of the 3 Contradictions posted over a year ago.  
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
The long elliptical orbit stands in contradiction to human trajectory
theories, which have a trajectory curve downward mirroring the
trajectory curve upward. Repeating comets are going in an essentially
straight line away from the Sun, a line parallel and very close to the
one that would be drawn from the very center of the Sun. Human theories
of such trajectories on Earth state that an object going in an
essentially straight upward path returns from the same place, plunging
straight downward with a curvature mirroring its upward path. In
contradiction to this explanation, complacent humans find nothing
strange when comets reenter the Solar System at a great distance from
where they left. The explanations given by humans for this
contradiction in their logic is the Magical Ellipse explanation. The
ellipse needs no explanation, it just is. When asked to describe the
forces that control an elliptical path, humans proffer a technical
description of an ellipse. They describe it, not explain it. 

The long elliptical orbit stands in contradiction to human
gravitational theories, which has the gravitational tug rapidly
diminishing with distance. Where the temporary orbit around the Sun has
an explanation in the steady gravity tug from the Sun, this same
explanation is given for the curve they claim is instituted by the
repeating comet at a great distance. Essentially, humans refuse to even
address this contradiction, falling again into the Magical Ellipse
explanation. Their response, like the cat which falls to licking itself
when it is discombobulated, is to proffer greater and greater detail on
the math they use to draw or describe an ellipse. 
(End ZetaTalk[TM])