Freek: dzięki za wyjaśnienie już wiem o jakiej perturbacji mówisz, poszukałem i proszę
Planet X disprovedHarrington died in January 1993, without having found Planet X.[34] That same year, Myles Standish used data from Voyager 2's 1989 flyby of Neptune, which had revised the planet's total mass downward by 0.5%—an amount comparable to the mass of Mars[34]—to recalculate its gravitational effect on Uranus.[35] When Neptune's newly determined mass was used in the Jet Propulsion Laboratory Developmental Ephemeris (JPL DE), the supposed discrepancies in the Uranian orbit vanished.[3] Moreover, there are no discrepancies in the trajectories of any space probes such as Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 that can be attributed to the gravitational pull of a large undiscovered object in the outer Solar System.[36] As of 2008, the overwhelming consensus among astronomers is that Planet X, as Lowell defined it, does not exist.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planets_beyond_Neptune#Planet_X_disproved" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planets_beyon...net_X_disproved
</a>
Ja nie mówię, że Nibiru nadciąga - a zarazem nie neguje tego.
Ja też staram się być wyrozumiały i staram się ocenić szansę na istnienie tego obiektu na podstawie faktów.
W linkach które podałeś:
5. Does your theory prove the existence of planet X?
No, the theory I propose *suggests* the existence of a massive and distant planet in the outer solar system. Only the planet’s detection by future observations will be able to confirm the theory.
Sam autor nie daje głowy, że tam coś może być. I spójrzcie na szkic orbity... To nie jest Nibiru:
In other words, a massive object (e.g., a planet) crossing the orbits of known planets in the solar system or passing near the Earth does NOT exist.
Sądzę, że to ostatecznie wyjaśnia możliwości istnienia Nibiru...
