I definitely agree with your analysis that Delta-T is surely also related to the movement of the inner core of the Earth - it makes perfect sense. However, what causes changes in the movement of that inner core? - for example, the movement of the magnetic poles as one reflection of that movement. I definitely think that the forces are - and have to be - external, since the Earth is a part of the solar system and does not simply spin around in space on its own. Obviously, the forces of the Sun and the Moon will be important, but since I view the solar system to be just like electrons around an atom, the smaller elements may be just as important as the larger ones.

Saying that you think you knew what "cam" I come from just because I even mentioned astrology was a totally unnecessary cheap shot. Sure, most mainstream astronomers themselves would never have the courage to take the world astrology into their mouths. They more or less deny this part of their heritage. That is THEIR problem, not mine. The fact is, the history of astronomy is tightly bound with astrology and even Kepler devised his laws primarily with astrology in mind. As written at
http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/starry/keplerastrol.html

"Kepler disdained astrologers who pandered to the tastes of the common man without knowledge of the abstract and general rules, but he saw compiling prognostications as a justified means of supplementing his meagre income. Yet, it would be a mistake to take Kepler's astrological interests as merely pecuniary. As one historian, John North, put it, 'had he not been an astrologer he would very probably have failed to produced his planetary astronomy in the form we have it.'

Kepler believed in astrology in the sense that he was convinced that planetary configurations physically and really affected humans as well as the weather on earth. He strove to unravel how and why that was the case and tried to put astrology on a surer footing, which resulted in the "On the more certain foundations of astrology (1601)". In "The Intervening Third Man, or a warning to theologians, physicians and philosophers (1610)", posing as a third man between the two extreme positions for and against astrology, Kepler advocated that a definite relationship between heavenly phenomena and earthly events could be established."

So, please do not engage in unnecessary cheap personal shots just because I refer to harmonic ideas of the astrologers. I am in very good company in thinking that earthly events may somehow be related to other bodies in our solar system, even though the mechanism is not known, can not currently be proven, and may indeed even be a Chimera. That does not keep me from using some ideas borrowed from people like Kepler.

The astrologists have always argued that certain degree-dependent positions of planets lead to "harmonic" viz. "non-harmonic" relations, ideas that the "serious" astronomers have always pooh-bahed, to my mind, not always convincingly, since even a three-body problem has such harmonic problems. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RestrictedThree-BodyProblem.html

As written at http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Three-BodyProblem.html:

"The problem of computing the mutual gravitational interaction of three masses. This problem is surprisingly difficult to solve, even in the so called restricted three-body problem, corresponding to the simple case of the three masses moving in a common plane."

It is of course much more complicated for more than that number of bodies, and yet, multi-billion stellar galaxies seem to follow long distance organizational rules, surely based on gravitational forces, without great difficulty.

I would use the "straw that breaks the camels back" as the basis for my logic on these matters. If we have a weight balance perfectly balanced with gigantic weights on both sides of the balance (the large planets in motion), then adding one tiny straw to one side of that balance (a tiny planet in motion) will ultimately shift the weight in favor of that side. Thoms catastrophe theory, a segment of dynamic systems theory, and the related mathematical chaos theory of Lorenz would support my views here as to the logic of my thinking
See http://www.cmp.caltech.edu/~mcc/chaos_new/Lorenz.html
and http://www.physics.cornell.edu/sethna/teaching/sss/jupiter/Web/Chaos.htm
where they write:

"Jupiter here has a mass which is low enough (22000 Earth masses) so that the Earth's trajectory doesn't leave the solar system. This is a Poincaré section where we display a dot once each time the Earth passes Jupiter as both orbit the Sun....

Notice the chaotic orbits: the fuzzy regions filled up with dots. Trajectories in these regions are sensitively dependent on their initial conditions: at long times, one can't predict what will happen!...

Now, try looking at the trajectories. Change the View to ``Earth's Trajectory''. Clear, Reset, and Run. You may want to view a larger region: clicking the right mouse button somewhere in the viewing area gives the default view, or click and drag to zoom in. Change the default by, say, 0.001, Reset, and Run. Watch the trajectories diverge!"

Or let us take the dams currently being battered by storms through hurricanes. As long as the water, no matter how much water it is, stays below the tops of those dams, everything is fine. But once the top is reached, even an inch of water is too much, because this starts the flow of water over the dam.

Math is the science and business of putting ideas into symbols - so how would a mathematician incorporate chaos theory into the frame of reference we are talking about?

You allege that Pluto can have no effect by traditional gravitational theory, but what about all of these other theories, where small influences have disproportionate effects because they influence slightly larger things, which influence larger things, which influence even larger things. Ultimatley, you have a large effect. If we have dam that withstands 20 feet of water or 240 inches, the 241st inch is by comparison negligible, but it causes the flood so that every additional inch, no matter how small, is important. Without the 239th inch, the 241st is is the 240th, and we have no flood. Pluto could be the 241st inch.

-----Original Message-----
From: guide-user@yahoogroups.com
To: guide-user@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 23 Sep 2005 14:29:17 -0000
Subject: [guide-user] Digest Number 1289



There are 2 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. Re: Delta-T
From: Paul Schlyter <pausch@...>
2. Re: Re: Delta-T
From: Hotte.am.Weiher@...


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:51:52 +0200 (CEST)
From: Paul Schlyter <pausch@...>
Subject: Re: Delta-T



Andis Kaulins wrote:

>--- In guide-user@yahoogroups.com, Paul Schlyter <pausch@s...> wrote:
>> Andis Kaulins wrote:

>>> In my opinion, these variations are caused by planetary
>>> perturbations viz. planetary positions varying between perihelion
>>> and aphelion.
>............
>>> If that were true, then primarily responsible for the ca. 190-
>>> year cycle would be Pluto
>.............
>> You assume Pluto influences Delta-T merely because of a (very)
>> approximate coincidence in the period. Now, the tidal force on
>> the Earth due to Jupiter is some 100 million times stronger than
>> the tidal force on the Earth due to Pluto.
>>
>> If Pluto noticeably influences the Earth's rotation, how come we
>> don't see a vastly stronger variation on Delta-T due to Jupiter?
>> Such an influence could be expected to have a period of some 12
>> years, right?
>>
>> The answer is that even the tidal force from Jupiter upon the Earth
>> is far too weak to have any noticeable influence on the Earth. The
>> tidal force from the Moon (which is quite noticeable) is some 300.000
>> times stronger than the tidal force from Jupiter --- and some 30
>> trillion times stronger than the tidal force from Pluto.

> Hi Paul,
>
> I hope you realize that all that I write on this topic is highly
> speculative from my point of view, but we may be touching here upon
> important matters through that speculation.

...or we may not. That's the nature of speculation: we fumble in the
dark and don't really know what we're talking about. Occasionally
speculation can provide inspiration which later reveals important
discoveries. But most speculation are little but entertainment for
those who speculate.

> I have found an article at
> http://www.omirp.it/www/Gravitational_Waves/GW+Matter/GW_and_Matter.pd
> f (URL may not fully wrap)
> which perhaps sheds interesting light on the as yet theoretical
> gravitational waves and the rate of spin of the Earth.
>
> That is the 20 January 2003 article
> "Interaction of Gravitational Waves with Matter"
> by Primo Galletti and Aldo Aluigi
> where they write about "two Gravitational Waves of high intensity
> recorded from 16th to 23rd August 1999 and from 25th to 30th August
> 1999" which they claim might have had an effect on the rate of spin
> of the Earth. They write:

They say they RECORDED gravitational waves? That contradicts the
statement on the home page of that site http://www.omirp.it
where one can read: "Until today any attempt to detect Gravitational
Waves has not been successful."

If these people actually succeeded in recording "high intensity"
gravitational waves already six years ago, they shouldn't just post
it on Usenet but submit a report to a major scientific journal, e.g.
Nature, because that would be Big News! Of course they'd have to
submit details about how they recorded these gravitational waves
to enable others to repeat their experiment.... :-) But if they
really succeeded in detcting gravitational waves, that would be
a major breakthrough and they'd make it into science history.

> "Due to the impact with the gravitational wave, another two relevant
> phenomena are likely to be produced on the Earth:
> 1. a slowing down of the Earth rotation around its axis...."
>
> and further
>
> "The slowing down of the Earth is very likely only temporary. Later
> on and in a longer time, the Earth's rotation speed will increase
> again (due to the "cyclonic" effect) restoring the initial value, as
> cyclones and anti-cyclones continuously forming accelerate/decelerate
> the Earth rotation depending on the heat they receive from the Sun
> (it has to be kept in mind that the cyclone momentum is (always)
> higher than that of the anti-cyclone)."
>
> Galletti and Aluigi think the gravitational wave came from far outer
> space but we think it might be the planets.
>
> The most recent perihelion of Pluto occurred on Sept. 5, 1989 when it
> was inside the orbit of Neptune. Pluto crossed Neptune's orbit in
> February of 1999. It was in 1999 when we got the alleged
> gravitational waves of Galletti and Aluigi
> see http://www.space.com/reference/brit/pluto/overview.html
> at the same time (August 17 to 18, 1999), as a Grand Cross (90 degree
> x 90 degree x 90 degree x 90 degree) of planets
> see http://astrology.about.com/od/predictive/l/aa080299.htm for a

Here you point to a site which refers to astrology and Nostradamus.
I think I'm starting to understand which cam you are in..... :-/

> graph and also http://www.globalpsychics.com/lp/prophecy/maps.htm.
>
> Could gravitational waves have anything to do with Delta-T?
>
> Gravitational waves are explained at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves
> and see generally http://elmer.tapir.caltech.edu/ph237/
>
> Gravitational waves are predicted by Einstein's theories
> http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/topics/
> but have never been observed, according to the New Scientist
> http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7139
> so we must of course then ask what Galletti and Aluigi were measuring.
>
> We think that the changes in the rate of spin of the Earth, i.e.
> Delta-T may prove to be instrumental in proving Einstein's theory.
> What else, other than gravitational waves, could affect this rate of
> spin of the Earth, so that such gravitational waves must be coming
> from somewhere. We just now have to isolate where. I still think the
> planets of our solar system in motion are our best bet.
>
> I understand your arguments about mass, but perhaps there are things
> that we don't know yet.

There are definitely an enormous number of things we don't know yet!

It's very easy to speculate. However, our speculations say much more
about ourselves than about the object of our speculations. It is much
harder to determine what we actually know and what we don't know, and
to differentiate the two the best we can do, given our current knowledge.
Some of the conclusions we draw today will in the future turn out to
be wrong. That's the nature of science.

Most of our speculations will turn out to be wrong too. And those few
speculations which are right will be right only by chance.

You play two games here:

1. The "prove mw wrong" game. Many speculations cannot be proved
wrong because we know far too little about the object of speculation.
Some people then follow the logic "Since they cannot prove me wrong,
I must be right", which is a flawed logic. But if you're caught up
in wishful thinking, you might fall into that trap.

2. The "conicidence" game - "Event A happened at or near the same
time as event B, therefore there must be a causal relation between
the two". Astrologers play that game all the time to find celestial
"causes" of events in their everyday lives, and since there are
always things happening up in the sky, they'll usually be able to
find some celestial event which "explains" something in their lives.


So I'll provide you with another speculation which in my ears seems
much more reasonable than your assumption that tiny and distant Pluto
should measureably affect the Earth's rotation or even cause earthquakes!

We know very little about the interior of the Earth. We do know some
things though, for instance that the solid crust of the Earth is very
thin compared to the Earth itself: its thickness is only about one
percent of the radios of the Earth. Below that we have the interior
of the Earth which is hot and liquid or at least semi-liquid. We also
know that the interior of the Earth moves - the Earth's magnetic field
and the motion of the Earth's magnetic poles is clear evidence of that.
The (much smaller) movement of the Earth's geographical poles is another
proof.

From mechanics we know that the angular momentum of a body remains
constant unless it is subjected to external forces modifying its
angular momentum. In the case of the Earth the only known significant
force of that kind is the slow slowdown of the Earth's rotation due
to the tides by mostly the Moon but also the Sun. And in principle
all the other planets as well (including tiny Pluto), although their
influences are microscopic compared to the influences from the Sun
and the Moon.

So except the slow and smooth slowdown of the Earth's rotation the
angular momentum of the Earth remains constant. Yet we observe
small and irregular changes in the Earth's rotation - how come?

To clarify this, we must be more precise with what we mean with
"the Earth's rotation". What slows down smoothly and regularly
is the angular momentum of the entire Earth, including the Earth's
interior. But when we measure the Earth's rotation, we only
measure the rotational speed of the thin crust of the Earth,
which contains a small fraction of the entire mass of the Earth.

It is quite possible, and even probable, that the interior of the
Earth has a rotational period which is different from the surface of
the Earth - remember that the interior of the Earth is not solid!
How different they are we don't know, and we don't even know if
the interior rotates faster or slower than the crust. But it
appears unlikely that the two of them should have exactly the
same speed of rotation.

And this directly gives us a possible mechanism for small irregular
changes in the rotational speed of the surface of the Earth: mass
flow inside the Earth could easily alter the rotational speed of the
Earth: if heavier mass would sink nearer the center of the Earth,
while lighter matter would move closer to the Earth's surface, the
Earth's rotation will immediately speed up, while the angular
momentum of the Earth remains unchanged. And if the opposite would
happen - heavier matter would move upwards and lighter downwards, the
Earth will slow down a little.

We do know that matter is redistributed in the Earth's interior.
Over the short term earthquakes is clear evidence of that, and over
the long term we have the continental drift.

But we know almost nothing about how the matter is redistributed in
the Earth's interior. Therefore we cannot predict either earthquakes
or irregular small changes in the rotational period of the Earth.


This is the end of this speculation. It the clear advantage that no
"new physics" is required -- the good ol' Newtonian physics, which
works fine for macroscopic bodies moving mush slower than light, is
enough.

And you cannot disprove my speculation, just as little as I can
disprove yours.

So which of these two speculations should we choose? There's
an old rule-of-thumb here which is called "Occam's Razor", which
basically states that you should choose the simplest model which
explains the observed phenomena.

We have my speculation about a mostly-unknown interior of the Earth
where good ol' Newtonian physics is enough to explain small irregular
variations in the Earth's rotation.

And we have your speculation that the planet Pluto causes these small
variations in the Earth's rotation. Since Pluto is far too small and
distant to be able to do this through Newtonian physics (or general
relativity or quantum mechanics), you simply say "perhaps there are
things that we don't know yet". This is of course true, but it also
means that your speculation requires some kind of "new physics" of
which you cannot say anything yet. That is a clear complication.

Therefore, Occams razor clearly favor my speculation over yours,
just because my speculation does not require any "new physics".


Future advancements in science can of course prove me wrong - it
can prove any current theory wrong. But we're not there yet....




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
Date: 23 Sep 2005 09:16 GMT
From: Hotte.am.Weiher@...
Subject: Re: Re: Delta-T

Hi Paul,
Thank You for that clear distinction You explained between science and religious
speculations!

Regards, Horst Hartmann

"Paul Schlyter" <pausch@...> schrieb:

>
>
> Andis Kaulins wrote:
>
> >--- In guide-user@yahoogroups.com, Paul Schlyter <pausch@s...> wrote:
> >> Andis Kaulins wrote:
>
> >>> In my opinion, these variations are caused by planetary
> >>> perturbations viz. planetary positions varying between perihelion
> >>> and aphelion.
> >............
> >>> If that were true, then primarily responsible for the ca. 190-
> >>> year cycle would be Pluto
> >.............
> >> You assume Pluto influences Delta-T merely because of a (very)
> >> approximate coincidence in the period. Now, the tidal force on
> >> the Earth due to Jupiter is some 100 million times stronger than
> >> the tidal force on the Earth due to Pluto.
> >>
> >> If Pluto noticeably influences the Earth's rotation, how come we
> >> don't see a vastly stronger variation on Delta-T due to Jupiter?
> >> Such an influence could be expected to have a period of some 12
> >> years, right?
> >>
> >> The answer is that even the tidal force from Jupiter upon the Earth
> >> is far too weak to have any noticeable influence on the Earth. The
> >> tidal force from the Moon (which is quite noticeable) is some 300.000
> >> times stronger than the tidal force from Jupiter --- and some 30
> >> trillion times stronger than the tidal force from Pluto.
>
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > I hope you realize that all that I write on this topic is highly
> > speculative from my point of view, but we may be touching here upon
> > important matters through that speculation.
>
> ...or we may not. That's the nature of speculation: we fumble in the
> dark and don't really know what we're talking about. Occasionally
> speculation can provide inspiration which later reveals important
> discoveries. But most speculation are little but entertainment for
> those who speculate.
>
> > I have found an article at
> > http://www.omirp.it/www/Gravitational_Waves/GW+Matter/GW_and_Matter.pd
> > f (URL may not fully wrap)
> > which perhaps sheds interesting light on the as yet theoretical
> > gravitational waves and the rate of spin of the Earth.
> >
> > That is the 20 January 2003 article
> > "Interaction of Gravitational Waves with Matter"
> > by Primo Galletti and Aldo Aluigi
> > where they write about "two Gravitational Waves of high intensity
> > recorded from 16th to 23rd August 1999 and from 25th to 30th August
> > 1999" which they claim might have had an effect on the rate of spin
> > of the Earth. They write:
>
> They say they RECORDED gravitational waves? That contradicts the
> statement on the home page of that site http://www.omirp.it
> where one can read: "Until today any attempt to detect Gravitational
> Waves has not been successful."
>
> If these people actually succeeded in recording "high intensity"
> gravitational waves already six years ago, they shouldn't just post
> it on Usenet but submit a report to a major scientific journal, e.g.
> Nature, because that would be Big News! Of course they'd have to
> submit details about how they recorded these gravitational waves
> to enable others to repeat their experiment.... :-) But if they
> really succeeded in detcting gravitational waves, that would be
> a major breakthrough and they'd make it into science history.
>
> > "Due to the impact with the gravitational wave, another two relevant
> > phenomena are likely to be produced on the Earth:
> > 1. a slowing down of the Earth rotation around its axis...."
> >
> > and further
> >
> > "The slowing down of the Earth is very likely only temporary. Later
> > on and in a longer time, the Earth's rotation speed will increase
> > again (due to the "cyclonic" effect) restoring the initial value, as
> > cyclones and anti-cyclones continuously forming accelerate/decelerate
> > the Earth rotation depending on the heat they receive from the Sun
> > (it has to be kept in mind that the cyclone momentum is (always)
> > higher than that of the anti-cyclone)."
> >
> > Galletti and Aluigi think the gravitational wave came from far outer
> > space but we think it might be the planets.
> >
> > The most recent perihelion of Pluto occurred on Sept. 5, 1989 when it
> > was inside the orbit of Neptune. Pluto crossed Neptune's orbit in
> > February of 1999. It was in 1999 when we got the alleged
> > gravitational waves of Galletti and Aluigi
> > see http://www.space.com/reference/brit/pluto/overview.html
> > at the same time (August 17 to 18, 1999), as a Grand Cross (90 degree
> > x 90 degree x 90 degree x 90 degree) of planets
> > see http://astrology.about.com/od/predictive/l/aa080299.htm for a
>
> Here you point to a site which refers to astrology and Nostradamus.
> I think I'm starting to understand which cam you are in..... :-/
>
> > graph and also http://www.globalpsychics.com/lp/prophecy/maps.htm.
> >
> > Could gravitational waves have anything to do with Delta-T?
> >
> > Gravitational waves are explained at
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves
> > and see generally http://elmer.tapir.caltech.edu/ph237/
> >
> > Gravitational waves are predicted by Einstein's theories
> > http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/topics/
> > but have never been observed, according to the New Scientist
> > http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7139
> > so we must of course then ask what Galletti and Aluigi were measuring.
> >
> > We think that the changes in the rate of spin of the Earth, i.e.
> > Delta-T may prove to be instrumental in proving Einstein's theory.
> > What else, other than gravitational waves, could affect this rate of
> > spin of the Earth, so that such gravitational waves must be coming
> > from somewhere. We just now have to isolate where. I still think the
> > planets of our solar system in motion are our best bet.
> >
> > I understand your arguments about mass, but perhaps there are things
> > that we don't know yet.
>
> There are definitely an enormous number of things we don't know yet!
>
> It's very easy to speculate. However, our speculations say much more
> about ourselves than about the object of our speculations. It is much
> harder to determine what we actually know and what we don't know, and
> to differentiate the two the best we can do, given our current knowledge.
> Some of the conclusions we draw today will in the future turn out to
> be wrong. That's the nature of science.
>
> Most of our speculations will turn out to be wrong too. And those few
> speculations which are right will be right only by chance.
>
> You play two games here:
>
> 1. The "prove mw wrong" game. Many speculations cannot be proved
> wrong because we know far too little about the object of speculation.
> Some people then follow the logic "Since they cannot prove me wrong,
> I must be right", which is a flawed logic. But if you're caught up
> in wishful thinking, you might fall into that trap.
>
> 2. The "conicidence" game - "Event A happened at or near the same
> time as event B, therefore there must be a causal relation between
> the two". Astrologers play that game all the time to find celestial
> "causes" of events in their everyday lives, and since there are
> always things happening up in the sky, they'll usually be able to
> find some celestial event which "explains" something in their lives.
>
>
> So I'll provide you with another speculation which in my ears seems
> much more reasonable than your assumption that tiny and distant Pluto
> should measureably affect the Earth's rotation or even cause earthquakes!
>
> We know very little about the interior of the Earth. We do know some
> things though, for instance that the solid crust of the Earth is very
> thin compared to the Earth itself: its thickness is only about one
> percent of the radios of the Earth. Below that we have the interior
> of the Earth which is hot and liquid or at least semi-liquid. We also
> know that the interior of the Earth moves - the Earth's magnetic field
> and the motion of the Earth's magnetic poles is clear evidence of that.
> The (much smaller) movement of the Earth's geographical poles is another
> proof.
>
> >From mechanics we know that the angular momentum of a body remains
> constant unless it is subjected to external forces modifying its
> angular momentum. In the case of the Earth the only known significant
> force of that kind is the slow slowdown of the Earth's rotation due
> to the tides by mostly the Moon but also the Sun. And in principle
> all the other planets as well (including tiny Pluto), although their
> influences are microscopic compared to the influences from the Sun
> and the Moon.
>
> So except the slow and smooth slowdown of the Earth's rotation the
> angular momentum of the Earth remains constant. Yet we observe
> small and irregular changes in the Earth's rotation - how come?
>
> To clarify this, we must be more precise with what we mean with
> "the Earth's rotation". What slows down smoothly and regularly
> is the angular momentum of the entire Earth, including the Earth's
> interior. But when we measure the Earth's rotation, we only
> measure the rotational speed of the thin crust of the Earth,
> which contains a small fraction of the entire mass of the Earth.
>
> It is quite possible, and even probable, that the interior of the
> Earth has a rotational period which is different from the surface of
> the Earth - remember that the interior of the Earth is not solid!
> How different they are we don't know, and we don't even know if
> the interior rotates faster or slower than the crust. But it
> appears unlikely that the two of them should have exactly the
> same speed of rotation.
>
> And this directly gives us a possible mechanism for small irregular
> changes in the rotational speed of the surface of the Earth: mass
> flow inside the Earth could easily alter the rotational speed of the
> Earth: if heavier mass would sink nearer the center of the Earth,
> while lighter matter would move closer to the Earth's surface, the
> Earth's rotation will immediately speed up, while the angular
> momentum of the Earth remains unchanged. And if the opposite would
> happen - heavier matter would move upwards and lighter downwards, the
> Earth will slow down a little.
>
> We do know that matter is redistributed in the Earth's interior.
> Over the short term earthquakes is clear evidence of that, and over
> the long term we have the continental drift.
>
> But we know almost nothing about how the matter is redistributed in
> the Earth's interior. Therefore we cannot predict either earthquakes
> or irregular small changes in the rotational period of the Earth.
>
>
> This is the end of this speculation. It the clear advantage that no
> "new physics" is required -- the good ol' Newtonian physics, which
> works fine for macroscopic bodies moving mush slower than light, is
> enough.
>
> And you cannot disprove my speculation, just as little as I can
> disprove yours.
>
> So which of these two speculations should we choose? There's
> an old rule-of-thumb here which is called "Occam's Razor", which
> basically states that you should choose the simplest model which
> explains the observed phenomena.
>
> We have my speculation about a mostly-unknown interior of the Earth
> where good ol' Newtonian physics is enough to explain small irregular
> variations in the Earth's rotation.
>
> And we have your speculation that the planet Pluto causes these small
> variations in the Earth's rotation. Since Pluto is far too small and
> distant to be able to do this through Newtonian physics (or general
> relativity or quantum mechanics), you simply say "perhaps there are
> things that we don't know yet". This is of course true, but it also
> means that your speculation requires some kind of "new physics" of
> which you cannot say anything yet. That is a clear complication.
>
> Therefore, Occams razor clearly favor my speculation over yours,
> just because my speculation does not require any "new physics".
>
>
> Future advancements in science can of course prove me wrong - it
> can prove any current theory wrong. But we're not there yet....
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an empty email to:
> guide-user-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________


To unsubscribe from this group, send an empty email to:
guide-user-unsubscribe@egroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links




------------------------------------------------------------------------


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]