Is Nibiru confirmed to exist?

[paddoboy]

Non-sequitur

No fact.
You are confusing evidence [but appear not aware of what that evidence is] but it is not observational evidence.
Although, now you are doing some back tracking and softening your approach.
The simple fact is as everyone has been telling you, all your peers: We have not yet observed any hypothetical planet 9.
And you are unable to show anywhere, despite your usual obfuscating and back tracking, where NASA or anyone else for that matter, say we have confirmed it or that it has been observed.

 

[paddoboy]

I have a quibble. Observation is evidence, not the reverse.

Saint has no evidence, or it would have posted links.

I'll accept that quibble.
He has no observational evidence, which is what I should have said.

 

[river]

I have a quibble. Observation is evidence, not the reverse.

Saint has no evidence, or it would have posted links.

Disagree

The evidence of a hurricane coming , is the increase of wind .

 

[paddoboy]

Disagree

The evidence of a hurricane coming , is the increase of wind .

Funny that...Where I am, we have just experienced an increase in wind speed...it ain't a hurricane though,
Again, we have no observational evidence of any 9th planet, in fact at this time the evidence is scant and mainly consists of computer simulations, just as NASA and the scientists are saying.

 

[DaveC426913]

The evidence of a hurricane coming , is the increase of wind .

We've seen this kind of naivete before.

Does anyone else get the feeling Riv is feeling the absense of MR, and feels that someone needs to champion MR's bizarre idea of logic in his stead? Sort of keep a candle burning in the window?

 

[DaveC426913]

Riv, you've crossed a line from speculation to assertion. In your desire to win a battle against Pad et al, you've gotten in over your head science-wise.

You don't know what solar tilt is.
You claim that NASA has "observed" a 9th planet when they haven't.
You link to pages that have no content, then post a statement as if it's a quote from the page.
You claim that evidence is synonymous with observation.
You invent a bizarre analogy that implies the increase in wind speed that Pad just felt is tantamount to an observation of a hurricane.

Don't do this.

 

[exchemist]

We've seen this kind of naivete before.

Does anyone else get the feeling Riv is feeling the absense of MR, and feels that someone needs to champion MR's bizarre idea of logic in his stead? Sort of keep a candle burning in the window?

Yes indeed.

I've sometimes wondered if river is a sock of MR, designed to look more stupid - and thus different - but really promoting the same antiscience silliness. But I ignore both, so cannot study this hypothesis in depth.