Re: 10th Planet / Pioneer Probes / Dead Star Enyclopedia Diagram

There you go again, Jimmy Joe, the BLACK SHEEP among the flock!
THINKING again.  (Damn.)  Just when the Shepherds of the Sheep thought
they had the flock white-washed, erm, or is that the story
white-washed.  Maybe NASA can come out and explain itself.  After all,
it took almost a decade for them to concoct this story and they hoped
you’d be asleep by then, waiting for the explanation of where Planet X
went to.

What I find interesting is that if the mass of the planets is COMPUTED
in the first place, from their perturbations upon one another, then you
can’t back INTO the mass being different to explain away the
perturbations!  The perturbations STILL EXIST.  Example:

    John (Planet X) falls out the window, but is caught by
    Sam (Neptune), who leans (perturbs) out the window to
    grab him.  Harry (Harrington and others) walks into
    the room and notes that John is leaning out the window.
    Harry knows that John weighs 200 lbs, and concludes that
    WHATEVER he is holding onto weighs 175 lbs based on
    the sweat breaking out on John’s face and the tension in
    his shoulders.  Noso (NASA) says “not to worry” as he
    has added 50 lbs to John’s weight and added a gram or
    two to the weight of the dust in the room, and that
    explains it all.  Huh?

In Article <207ngto6g125ruk3tbs42jcs8hf4tv1dk0@4ax.com> Jimmy Joe wrote:

> What I don't understand and hope someone can clarify,
> and it's possibly due to specific astronomical terminology
> of 'perturbations' and 'residuals', is:
> 1) HOW can more accurate masses of outer planets 'explain
>     away' a century of observational data by many prior and
>     well established astronomers?
>
>                       OR
>
> 2) Do the now more accurate masses of the outer planets due
>      to Voyager flybys explain WHY the orbits of Uranus and
>      Neptune STILL perturb?
>
> 3) And if 2) is correct, why is it said that the 'residual'
>     positions or the 'residuals' disappeared?