Re: Planet X/12th Planet Retrograde Orbit

Article: <[email protected]> 
Subject: Re: Planet X/12th Planet Retrograde Orbit
Date: 13 Apr 1998 14:41:36 GMT

In article <[email protected]> Johnn Ladasky writes:
>> It does not have to hold together logically?  It does not have to
>> stand against your other theories and not CONTRADICT them?
>
> Not quite.  The first priority is that a theory must accomodate
> all the relevant observations.  The second priority is an esthetic
> one. Scientists are fond of the *simplest* theories to explain
> everything they see.  Therefore they don't invoke imaginary,
> invisible, distant  planets and unknown forces to explain one
> millisecond variations in the length of Earth's day.  They don't
> postulate narrow energy beams radiating from the Sun, which
> they can't observe, are moving the planets, when the assumption 
> of a gravity field will do.

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Oh please.  Dark Matter?  The quark?  Solar wind?  Black holes?  NONE
of these has been captured and observed by you.  ALL of these are
postulations invoking imaginary, invisible, things.  

What is YOUR explaination for why the planets orbit in a plane?  A
gravity field?  How did they line up that way, all in a plane?  Why do
they remain that way?  They all came in formation, like so many planes
in a military formation?  Nice and neat, and explains why this is the
USUAL formation in solar systems elsewhere too, we presume.  Are you
saying the Sun's core has no motion, and even if it did, that this
would have no effect on the sun's planets?
(End ZetaTalk[TM])