Re: Planet X: Alternative Explanation 2

JTRIV wrote:
> 
> So are you saying you don't believe the sightings from earlier this year? They were in
> reasonably small scopes, 18" and 16". They were not in inaccessible locations, but in
> Flagstaff and Vancouver.

Well, I'm not sure about Vancouver, but the ambient light at night in
Flagstaff is very low for a metropolitan area.  But anyway, Yes, that is
exactly what I'm saying: I don't "believe" the sightings from earlier
this year.  Surprised?

I believe in gravity because I don't wander off into space and have run
simple experiments to demonstrate its characteristics.  I believe in the
electron because I have dissembled a CRT and taken a look at the
insides.  In science class an explanation is offered and I can look at a
CRT and note that this is essentially the same "Cathode Ray" experiment
that was done by J.J. Thompson, only with a lot more technology.  It
makes sense.

I believe in stars and planets because I can see them, see pictures of
them and they do not look faked.  The accumulated data has a certain
self consistency to it.

I believe in the existence of the soul for reasons I won't get into, but
let it simply be said that the reasons satisfied my scientific
curiosity.

I do not believe in UFOs because I have never seen one.  Never the less,
I do not discount other people's experiences, nor do I blindly accept
them.  It would not be reasonable to me that we were alone in this vast
universe, a colossal accident.  (Mistake?)

The reported sightings you refer to are all a bit too fuzzy and "trust
me".  One has a tendency to see (or not) things one wants to (or
doesn't).  For me, what distinguishes "reality" from fantasy or
imagination is a shared experience.  I look at something and notice that
someone else also looks at it.  We see (more or less) the same thing. 
THIS is what forms my reality.  I notice that in those sightings, there
were no images forthcoming.  This makes me naturally suspicious.

What I am saying is simple:

1) I want data.  Not opinions, not second hand reporting.  Data that I
   can test myself.

2) The universe is a remarkable and complex place.  It seems
   inconceivable to me that we, for all of our understanding and
   technology, have even begun to scratch the surface of what is knowable. 
   The universe holds a virtually infinite degree of complexity (but I'll
   admit I take this on faith).  All experiments and astronomical
   observations have only ever increased the apparent size of the universe,
   we have not seen an end, we have not even seen it "slow down".  Today's
   scientific dogma will become tomorrow's joke.  I understand the
   difference between the model and the reality.  I understand that the map
   is not the territory.

3) I have an open mind.  This does not mean I accept any bunch of crap
   that comes along just because somebody says so.  It means that I do not
   discount somebody who says "I saw a UFO" Just Because.  I look at all of
   the data, the credibility, the actual story content, and how it all fits
   together.  I try an determine what might be in it for that person to see
   if there might be a second agenda.  If someone makes a small mistake in
   their story (like slightly screwing up the time line or remembering a
   "red" dress rather than a blue flowered one, or miscalculating
   magnitude), I am willing to look beyond it.  Truth does not require an
   infallible messenger.  An air-tight and entirely self-consistent story
   is not necessarily true.

4) I do not trust You to tell me it is not there.  I do not know you or
   what agendas you might be hiding.  I do not trust someone in Flagstaff,
   Vancouver or France to tell me it *is* there for the exact same
   reasons.  It does however seem quite reasonable that one would have a
   clear agenda to hide the data if PX really exists.


> 
> You are really starting to stretch to find reasons why no one can see the phantom planet.

Nope. No stretch at all: No data.  No data that says it is there, no
data that says it isn't.

> 
> Sill searching for that ZOOM knob on my scope...

To find the ZOOM knob on the scope, start at the framastat and drop down
2".  Behind the door to the wigilator and to the left is the ZOOM knob. 
That or pull out your eyepiece and drop in a Barlow.

> 
> Jim
> 
> The Small Kahuna wrote:
> 
>>Magnus Nyborg wrote:
>>>
>>> "Nancy Lieder" <zetatalk@zetatalk.com> wrote in message
>>> news:3B8E74C4.D6FC8533@zetatalk.com...
>>> [...]
>>
>>>> OBSERVATORY SCOPES COST WHAT THEY DO BECAUSE THEY DO THINGS YOUR HOME
>>>> SCOPE CANNOT! They filter out or limit light pollution, they magnify,
>>>
>>> Scopes do not filter out light pollution!
>>
>> No, altitude does in combination with distance from the polluting
>> source.  Putting a large telescope in an inaccessible location is yet
>> another thing that adds to the cost of "observatory class" telescopes.
>> If it didn't matter, they would just put the damn thing in downtown LA
>> where it was easy to get to.
>>
>> Sure many amateurs live in mountainous locations, but mostly near
>> population centers.  It remains a pain in the butt to lug a large
>> telescope to high altitude far from light sources.

The Small Kahuna