I thought this was a forum to discuss facts when all the post are slandering the man.
Am I missing something or do we have different definitions for facts and slander?
Nobody has really posted any facts one way or the other.
It's one thing to assert that, it's quite another to prove it. If you can point out where anyone and everyone has erred, please do so.
Most of the images from space that we see are colored by NASA to show us contrast or the spectrums of light or radiation.
Those published online and in magazines, sure. Track down the actual data sometime (there are literally hundreds of thousands of images from both ground and space based observatories free and open to the public to search through - some people even take Hubble data and recolour it themselves, just to create artwork from it), you'll see a world of difference.
I know that most of the post refer to Pen and Teller and I have to laugh, because you would quote a show of 2 growm men playing at being magicians versus somebody who knows science like Robert S. Harrington who support the Nibiru or planet x theory.
If Bobo the Clown presented significant evidence to the contrary, would you ignore him just because he is a clown? No, you wouldn't (you'd be a clown to do so), you'd look at his evidence and determine whether it was stronger than the previous standard.
Penn and Teller, and more accurately their researchers, found evidence to the contrary of these wacky claims, as have many people - from armchair astronomers to scientists across many fields, even the likes of historians give some quizzical looks, knowing that the body of evidence known to mankind does not agree with anything proponents claim.
So remember we used to think the earth was the center of the universe and discovered that it isn't.
Though that's technically true, we're more or less in the centre of the observable universe, and seeing as space is expanding away from itself in every direction at every point, you can say that any single spot in the Universe is the centre. To the point of it becoming a meaningless phrase. So why you use it as an example is a bit puzzling, but nothing major.
We know very little about space and when we think we do know it, it changes to show us we know nothing.
I do loathe this kind of reasoning. Not knowing what dark matter is has no bearing on 400 years of mathematics showing us how the solar system is affected by gravity, to the point where we don't even need the multiple full sky surveys conducted from both ground and space based observatories, in multiple wavelengths of light too, to find fault with proponents claims.
We don't even have to physically see a hypothetical object in order to observe its effects, and unfortunately for all proponents out there, we see neither any object, or any effect.
We don't need to know what dark matter is to know there isn't a planet hurtling towards us. Don't mix up complete unknowns with easily testable claims.
If you do not believe then look for yourself and make your own educated theory; that my friends is the beauty of science
Uhh, no… The beauty of science is that something is concluded to exist or not, in this case. There is no room for wishful thinking, and there is certainly no room for picking and choosing, which is what proponents and even the figureheads of their movement that you and others list do on a regular basis. Meanwhile, the rest of science gets on with actually doing science, regardless of who they are or where they came from. That is the beauty of science.