Skybuck Flying <skybuckflying@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is my hypothesis about the true meaning of "planet x" which is probably an artificial object creating some kind of gravitional well.
>
> This artificial object and it's gravitional well is enough to throw off "rocks" that are thrown/slinged shotted again earth by alien civilizations, which explains why Earth has had some near misses.
>
> The aliens are unaware of the presence of "planet x" and therefore there calculations are slighty off.
>
> Bye,
> Skybuck.

Ideas are all very fine. :)

But at some point, if you are trying to be scientific about it,
you have to get some relevant data together and demonstrate there is
some evidence to support your thinking.

Of you think there is a hidden planet throwing rocks at the earth
you could try to establish the pattern of fireballs
(NASA has a great fireball database) or meteors (I havent found a great
meteor database yet but there surely must be SOME group keeping
track of the reports of rocks falling from the sky) and show the
movements of the known planets do not explain all the events seen.

Or you could follow along Avi Loeb at al's idea and show some
fireballs have an imprint on them of something totally unlike other
fireballs. His student (sorry, forgot the name :} showed there was
at least one fireball that had such a high relative velocity to
Earth that it could not have originated inside the solar system.

Looking for "planet X" objects might use some similar idea but needs
to be a bit more subtle than a 9mm to the back of the head. Cough.
So to speak.

R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote:
> Skybuck Flying <skybuckflying@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Here is my hypothesis about the true meaning of "planet x" which is probably an artificial object creating some kind of gravitional well.
>>
>> This artificial object and it's gravitional well is enough to throw off "rocks" that are thrown/slinged shotted again earth by alien civilizations, which explains why Earth has had some near misses.
>>
>> The aliens are unaware of the presence of "planet x" and therefore there calculations are slighty off.
>>
>> Bye,
>> Skybuck.
>
> Ideas are all very fine. :)
>
> But at some point, if you are trying to be scientific about it,
> you have to get some relevant data together and demonstrate there is
> some evidence to support your thinking.
>
> Of you think there is a hidden planet throwing rocks at the earth
> you could try to establish the pattern of fireballs
> (NASA has a great fireball database) or meteors (I havent found a great
> meteor database yet but there surely must be SOME group keeping
> track of the reports of rocks falling from the sky) and show the
> movements of the known planets do not explain all the events seen.
>
> Or you could follow along Avi Loeb at al's idea and show some
> fireballs have an imprint on them of something totally unlike other
> fireballs. His student (sorry, forgot the name :} showed there was
> at least one fireball that had such a high relative velocity to
> Earth that it could not have originated inside the solar system.
>
> Looking for "planet X" objects might use some similar idea but needs
> to be a bit more subtle than a 9mm to the back of the head. Cough.
> So to speak.
>

Maybe I can add this idea under here as well to get the
hypothesis testing juices going. The creative juices seem to be OK
but are not sufficient to get an audience. ;)

In a prev century when I was an undergrad doing astro of some kind
we got to use the Big Iron.

My self-assigned term project was to estimate how much dust was
hanging around the solar system. To do that I took observations of
planetary positions for the prev 100y and tried to find a gravity
law that included an extra term. I,e, f = a/r^2 + b/r.

The idea of the b/r term is INSIDE a uniform mass the strength of
gravity is just inverse from the centre rather than the a/r^2 version
for point masses.

Using the planetary positions I managed to prove statistically at least
that b was not zero and given various similar distibutions of the
"dust" concerned got some kind of total mass for it.
It was a rather low number as I remember and didn't amount to
anything even comparable to the then-estimated mass of the main
asteroid belts.

But today -- somewhat later -- we might like to think about
Dark Matter and maybe that or something similar is what the program
picked up.

--
[It's Them!]

Year Rate of Rate of
UK UFO UK ghost
sightings sightings
per yr per yr
1997 345.588 2.13739
1998 273.529 1.1976
1999 228.309 6.23676
2000 152.267 8.15795
2001 176.609 9.84617
2002 101.985 7.00046
2003 91.7647 11.3419
2004 81.4747 16.2449
2005 117.857 15.4872
2006 74.0993 21.49
2007 99.1039 19.0616
2008 185.784 16.9633
2009 672.776 24.9298

y = 0.0195663*x + 12.2173
beta in 0.0195663 +- 0.0073 90% CI
T-test: P(beta>0.000000) = 0.999969
Rank test: Pr orderings so similar < 5% i.e. 95% connected
r2 = 0.356