Study links periodic mass extinctions to "Planet X"

a reply to: HawkeyeNation

No guys, this is how the real world works.. Its awesome with ideas, and theories.. But the main fact still remains, always prove them..
Its to many theories that isnt even substantial..

a reply to: sosruko

You do know that literally everything science has ever done and discovered has come from an idea that went from

idea->hypothesis->theory.

a reply to: sosruko

You do know that Neptune was heavily predicted and theorized about before we actually found it right?

Discovery of Neptune

The planet Neptune was mathematically predicted before it was directly observed.

originally posted by: sosruko
a reply to: HawkeyeNation

No guys, this is how the real world works.. Its awesome with ideas, and theories.. But the main fact still remains, always prove them..
Its to many theories that isnt even substantial..

Clearly you don't know what the definition of a scientific theory is either.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So was Pluto (also know as Planet X back in the early 20th century).

a reply to: TerryDon79

Show me the evidence, hearsay is not evidence... Do you have the education to actually confirm the claims?

Its great he has the credibility and isnt biased, hopefully he can elaborate even further in the realm science..

exactly my quote above.. Dont know if that wasnt enough?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I know the foundation for a theory at work, comes with the foundation of philosophical work of Kant and Popper.. Im sure you are familiar to both?

Im asking for physical evidence, not a blind faith in men who tries to sell books..

a reply to: sosruko

Yes there is EVIDENCE (as I already pointed out).

Bodies on the outer reaches of our solar system have been reacting to an unknown force. First they thought they were reacting with each other, but the reactions are too great in force to be one asteroid/comet reacting with another. That's where the idea for a planet came in.

Now, no one is saying that it's 100% true as its just a hypothesis, but the indications are strong for a planet.

(BTW Planet X does not equal Nibiru)

originally posted by: sosruko
Im asking for physical evidence, not a blind faith in men who tries to sell books..

What exactly is your problem with the hypothesis? Actual reasons explaining what your problem with it would be nice, instead of just dismissing it.

originally posted by: sosruko
Im asking for physical evidence, not a blind faith in men who tries to sell books..

From the article itself

Caltech inferred its existence based on orbital anomalies seen in objects in the Kuiper Belt

So how was Neptune discovered

Neptune was the first planet to be discovered by using mathematics. After the discovery of Uranus in 1781, astronomers noticed that the planet was being pulled slightly out of its normal orbit.

coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu...

While yes the Planet X (unknown planet) is purely hypothesized at this time we do have physical evidence that fully supports what we've seen in the past.

a reply to: sosruko

Have a read of this CALTECH link and all the data linked from that link.

originally posted by: sosruko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I know the foundation for a theory at work, comes with the foundation of philosophical work of Kant and Popper.. Im sure you are familiar to both?

Well when you say things like this, "No guys, this is how the real world works.. Its awesome with ideas, and theories.. But the main fact still remains, always prove them..
Its to many theories that isnt even substantial.." it makes it seem like you don't understand that for a scientific idea to reach theoretical status, it has been proven MANY times over by many different sources.

“Planet X” triggers comet showers linked to mass extinctions on Earth at intervals of approximately 27 million years.

So when is it supposed to come around again? They left out the most important piece of info.

a reply to: HawkeyeNation

I live in the western world, so i have to agree with your statement of 1781.. I have a great book on my bookshelf written about 2400 years ago.. By an astronomer called Ptolemy.. Great work, you should buy it..

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief

“Planet X” triggers comet showers linked to mass extinctions on Earth at intervals of approximately 27 million years.

So when is it supposed to come around again? They left out the most important piece of info.

I don't actually understand that part of the article as the supposed orbit of Planet X is 10,000 years and goes nowhere near the Kuiper belt.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

First rule, always object.. Visible object.. otherwise its theoretics.. The line isnt that hard to see.

originally posted by: sosruko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

First rule, always object.. Visible object.. otherwise its theoretics.. The line isnt that hard to see.

Can you see Antarctica from where you are?
No? Must not exist then.

a reply to: TerryDon79

I dont think it works that way, but an A+ for effort..

originally posted by: sosruko
a reply to: TerryDon79

I dont think it works that way, but an A+ for effort..

It's funny how you have yet to provide any reason why you believe the hypothesis to be wrong/flawed beyond saying it is.