What it all comes down to...

Quote from: 3 Tesla on September 24, 2008, 02:09:41 AM

Incomplete it may have been, but it was good enough to facilitate the discovery of Neptune:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune

And just where would we be without Neptune?

Ask an astrologer!

(And while you are at it, ask them why they don't use Ophiuchus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiuchus.)

:-)

Quote

Incomplete it may have been, but it was good enough to facilitate the discovery of Neptune:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune

Covered in Earth Not a Globe:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za60.htm

Not the most reliable of sources, especially given that it gets Babinet's initial wrong (it was J.):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Babinet

Babinet was a well-respected physicist, but Le Verrier denounced Babinet's hypothesis, saying, "[There is] absolutely nothing by which one could determine the position of another planet, barring hypotheses in which imagination played too large a part."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planets_beyond_Neptune#Early_speculation

[Edit: paste quote better]

Not the most reliable of sources, especially given that it gets Babinet's initial wrong (it was J.)

Unless the M. stands for monsiuer, I suppose.

Quote

Incomplete it may have been, but it was good enough to facilitate the discovery of Neptune:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune

Covered in Earth Not a Globe:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za60.htm

RET (and Newtonian gravitation) was able to predict the existence of another planet, and predict its position to within 1° accuracy (second paragraph). FET has so far predicted nothing, and doesn't even have a working model for the solar system.

Tom, you are not going to win this debate.

RET (and Newtonian gravitation) was able to predict the existence of another planet, and predict its position to within 1° accuracy (second paragraph). FET has so far predicted nothing, and doesn't even have a working model for the solar system.

Tom, you are not going to win this debate.

Wikipedia isn't a valid source for information. Wikipedia is written by amature members of the public. Some person of the public who wrote that Neptune was predicted with a degree of accuracy without reference does not make it so. There is no reference for that claim. It isn't even clear what the Wiki article even means by "a degre of accuracy." S.B.Rowbotham does give us references for his claims however, as well as direct quotes.

The fact remains that the predictions did not match the observations. Under no pretense were the original predictions accurate in any property - size, distance, location, or orbital period. The only thing which was "predicted" was that there were other planets beyond Uranus, which doesn't really mean anything since people are always predicting the existence of extra-terra planets.

Covered in Earth Not a Globe:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za60.htm

This is a valid point (about a contemporary dispute).

I have, therefore, added it to the relevant Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune#Contemporary_disputes

However - the latest data on the masses and orbits of Uranus and Neptune appear to be in good agreement with gravitational theory:

[In 1993], Myles Standish used data from Voyager 2's 1989 flyby of Neptune, which had 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 - to recalculate its gravitational effect on Uranus. 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_x#Planet_X_disproved

Quote

RET (and Newtonian gravitation) was able to predict the existence of another planet, and predict its position to within 1° accuracy (second paragraph). FET has so far predicted nothing, and doesn't even have a working model for the solar system.

Tom, you are not going to win this debate.

Wikipedia isn't a valid source for information. Some person of the public who wrote that Neptune was predicted within a degree of accuracy without reference does not make it so. There is no reference for that claim. S.B.Rowbotham does give us references for his claims however, as well as direct quotes.

The fact remains that the predictions did not match the observations. Under no pretense were the original predictions accurate in any property - size, distance, location, or orbital period. The only thing which was "predicted" was that there were other planets beyond Uranus, which doesn't really mean anything since people are always predicting the existence of extra-terra planets.

All references I've seen, not just Wikipedia, recount the same events regarding the discovery of Neptune. Are you claiming that it happened differently?

Wikipedia isn't a valid source for information.

I know a few people who say that, but I think that their objections arise mostly due to snobbery.

I think that Wikipedia is impecably democratic and if disputes or controversies arise these are clearly pointed out - something that you never get with printed reference books.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2008, 03:10:42 AM

Wikipedia isn't a valid source for information.

I know a few people who say that, but I think that their objections arise mostly due to snobbery.

I think that Wikipedia is impecably democratic and if disputes or controversies arise these are clearly pointed out - something that you never get with printed reference books.

Wikipedia might be fine for your claim if there was an ACTUAL SOURCE to go along with the claim that Neptune was predicted with a "degree of accuracy" (whatever that means).

However, there is no source for that information.

Let me know when you have something proper to back up your unsubstantiated claims.

Quote from: 3 Tesla on September 24, 2008, 03:27:47 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2008, 03:10:42 AM

Wikipedia isn't a valid source for information.

I know a few people who say that, but I think that their objections arise mostly due to snobbery.

I think that Wikipedia is impecably democratic and if disputes or controversies arise these are clearly pointed out - something that you never get with printed reference books.

Wikipedia might be fine for your claim if there was an ACTUAL SOURCE to go along with the claim that Neptune was predicted with a "degree of accuracy" (whatever that means).

However, there is no source for that information.

Let me know when you have something proper to back up your unsubstantiated claims.

The planet was found within one degree of its predicted position, which is a remarkable degree of accuracy.

RET (and Newtonian gravitation) was able to predict the existence of another planet, and predict its position to within 1° accuracy (second paragraph). FET has so far predicted nothing, and doesn't even have a working model for the solar system.

Tom, you are not going to win this debate.

The reference for this is given as:

Hamilton, Calvin J. (August 4, 2001). "Neptune". Views of the Solar System.

Quote from: 3 Tesla on September 24, 2008, 03:27:47 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2008, 03:10:42 AM

Wikipedia isn't a valid source for information.

I know a few people who say that, but I think that their objections arise mostly due to snobbery.

I think that Wikipedia is impecably democratic and if disputes or controversies arise these are clearly pointed out - something that you never get with printed reference books.

Wikipedia might be fine for your claim if there was an ACTUAL SOURCE to go along with the claim that Neptune was predicted with a "degree of accuracy" (whatever that means).

However, there is no source for that information.

Let me know when you have something proper to back up your unsubstantiated claims.

Tom, perhaps you missed this part of the Wikipedia article:

References

   1. ^ Danjon, Prof. André (Director of the Paris Observatory) (1946). "Le centenaire de la découverte de Neptune". (in French) Ciel et Terre (journal) (1946) vol.62, p.369. (unknown, France). Retrieved on 2008-01-23.
   2. ^ Hirschfeld, Alan (2001). Parallax:The Race to Measure the Cosmos. New York, New York: Henry Holt. ISBN 0-8050-7133-4.
   3. ^ Littmann, Mark; Standish, E.M. (2004). Planets Beyond: Discovering the Outer Solar System. Courier Dover Publications. ISBN 0-4864-3602-0.
   4. ^ Unknown author, Did Galileo See Neptune?, Science News, Vol. 118, No. 15, (Oct. 11, 1980), pp. 231.
   5. ^ Sheehan, William & Baum, Richard, Neptune's Discovery 150 Years Later, Astronomy, September 1996, p.48.
   6. ^ Ibid.
   7. ^ Bouvard (1821)
   8. ^ [Anon.] (2001) "Bouvard, Alexis", Encyclopaedia Britannica, Deluxe CDROM edition
   9. ^ a b Kollerstrom, N. (2001). "A Neptune Discovery Chronology". The British Case for Co-prediction. University College London. Retrieved on 2007-08-23.
  10. ^ a b c Kollerstrom, N. (2001). "Challis' Unseen Discovery". The British Case for Co-prediction. University College London. Retrieved on 2007-08-23.
  11. ^ Sampson (1904)
  12. ^ a b c d e f g h [Anon.] (1911) "John Couch Adams, Encyclopaedia Britannica
  13. ^ a b c d e f g h Hutchins, R. (2004). "Adams, John Couch (1819–1892)". 'Oxford Dictionary of National Biography'. Oxford University Press.
  14. ^ a b c d e Sheehan, W. et al. (2004). "The Case of the Pilfered Planet — Did the British steal Neptune?". Scientific American. Retrieved on 2008-02-08.
  15. ^ a b Rawlins, Dennis (1992). "The Neptune Conspiracy".
  16. ^ Dennis Rawlins, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, volume 16, page 734, 1984 (first publication of British astronomer J.Hind's charge that Adams's secrecy disallows his claim).
  17. ^ Robert Smith, Isis, volume 80, pages 395–422, September, 1989
  18. ^ Smart (1947) p.59
  19. ^ Adams, J.C., MA, FRAS, Fellow of St Johns College, Cambridge (1846). "On the Perturbations of Uranus (p.265)". Appendices to various nautical almanacs between the years 1834 and 1854 (reprints published 1851) (note that this is a 50Mb download of the pdf scan of the nineteenth-century printed book). UK Nautical Almanac Office, 1851. Retrieved on 2008-01-23.
  20. ^ Danjon, Prof. André (Director of the Paris Observatory) (1946). "Le centenaire de la découverte de Neptune". (in French) Ciel et Terre (journal) (1946) vol.62, p.369. (unknown, France). Retrieved on 2008-01-23.
  21. ^ a b c Morton Grosser (1964). "The Search For A Planet Beyond Neptune". Isis 55 (2): 163–183. Retrieved on 2008-08-26.

[edit] Bibliography

    * Airy, G. B. (1847). "Account of some circumstances historically connected with the discovery of the planet exterior to Uranus". Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society 16: 385–414.
    * Airy, W. (ed.) (1896). The Autobiography of Sir George Biddell Airy. Cambridge University Press.  from Project Gutenberg
    * [Anon.] (1911) "John Couch Adams, Encyclopaedia Britannica
    * [Anon.] (2001) "Bouvard, Alexis", Encyclopaedia Britannica, Deluxe CDROM edition
    * Baum, R. & Sheehan, W. (1997). In Search of Planet Vulcan: The Ghost in Newton's Clockwork Universe. Plenum.
    * Bouvard, A. (1821), Tables astronomiques publiées par le Bureau des Longitudes de France, Paris, FR: Bachelier
    * Chapman, A. (1988). "Private research and public duty: George Biddell Airy and the search for Neptune". Journal for the History of Astronomy 19(2): 121–139.
    * Dieke, S. (1970). "Heinrich Louis D' Arrest". Dictionary of Scientific Biography 1. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 295–296. ISBN 0684101149.
    * Doggett, L. E. (1997) "Celestial mechanics", in Lankford, J. (ed.) (1997). History of Astronomy, an Encyclopedia, 131–40.
    * Dreyer, J. L. E. & Turner, H. H. (eds) [1923] (1987). History of the Royal Astronomical Society [1]: 1820–1920, 161–2.
    * Grosser, M. (1962). The Discovery of Neptune. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674212258.
    * — (1970). "Adams, John Couch". Dictionary of Scientific Biography 1. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 53–54. ISBN 0684101149.
    * Harrison, H. M (1994). Voyager in Time and Space: The Life of John Couch Adams, Cambridge Astronomer. Lewes: Book Guild, ISBN 0-86332-918-7
    * Hughes, D. W. (1996). "J. C. Adams, Cambridge and Neptune". Notes and Records of the Royal Society 50: 245–8. doi:10.1098/rsnr.1996.0027.
    * Hutchins, R. (2004) "Adams, John Couch (1819–1892)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, accessed 23 August 2007 (subscription or UK/ Ireland public library membership required)
    * J. W. L. G. [J. W. L. Glaisher] (1882–3). "James Challis". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 43: 160–79.
    * Kollerstrom, Nick (2001). "Neptune's Discovery. The British Case for Co-Prediction.". Unuiversity College London. Archived from the original on 2005-11-11. Retrieved on 2007-03-19.
    * Moore, P. (1996). The Planet Neptune: An Historical Survey before Voyager. Praxis.
    * Nichol, J. P. (1855). The Planet Neptune: An Exposition and History. Edinburgh: James Nichol.
    * O'Connor, J. J. & Robertson, E. F. (1996). "Mathematical discovery of planets". MacTutor History of Mathematics archive. University of St. Andrews. Retrieved on 2007-09-17.
    * Rawlins, Dennis (1992). "The Neptune Conspiracy". DIO, the International Journal of Scientific History 2 (3): 115–142.
    * Rawlins, Dennis (1994). "Theft of the Neptune papers". DIO, the International Journal of Scientific History 4 (2): 92–102.
    * Rawlins, Dennis (1999). "British Neptune Disaster File Recovered". DIO, the International Journal of Scientific History 9 (1): 3–25.
    * Sampson, R.A. (1904). "A description of Adams’s manuscripts on the perturbations of Uranus". Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society 54: 143–161.
    * Sheehan, W. & Baum, R. (1996). "Neptune's Discovery 150 Years Later". Astronomy September: 42–49.
    * Sheehan, W. & Thurber, S. (2007). "John Couch Adams's Asperger syndrome and the British non-discovery of Neptune". Notes and Records of the Royal Society 61(3): 285–299. doi:10.1098/rsnr.2007.0187.
    * Sheehan, W. et al. (2004). The Case of the Pilfered Planet — Did the British steal Neptune? Scientific American
    * Smart, W. M. (1946). "John Couch Adams and the discovery of Neptune". Nature 158: 829–830. doi:10.1038/158648a0.
    * — (1947). "John Couch Adams and the discovery of Neptune". Occasional Notes of the Royal Astronomical Society 2: 33–88.
    * Smith, R. W. (1989). "The Cambridge network in action: the discovery of Neptune". Isis 80(303): 395–422. doi:10.1086/355082.
    * Standage, T. (2000). The Neptune File. Penguin Press.
    * Unknown. (October 11, 1980). "Did Galileo See Neptune?". Science News 118 (15): 231.

Maybe Tom the bot does not have time to read all of those references.  Did you ever think of that?? Hmmmm??

Maybe Tom the bot does not have time to read all of those references.  Did you ever think of that?? Hmmmm??

I don't care if he reads any of those references.  I only want him to acknowledge that Wikipedia articles do indeed cite verifiable references.  Yes, I suppose that I'm an optimist. 

The planet was found within one degree of its predicted position, which is a remarkable degree of accuracy.

Semi-minor axis of Neptune's orbit (in RET): 4.503 * 10¹² m
Semi-major axis of Earth's orbit (in RET): 1.496 * 10¹¹ m

Shortest possible distance between Earth and Neptune: 4.353 * 10¹² m
Circumference of a circle with this radius: 2.735 * 10¹³ m

Distance subtended by one degree of arc at this distance: 7.597 * 10¹⁰ m

Or, to use units that may be more familiar to you, over 47 million miles. That's over 3000 times Neptune's radius. That doesn't sound very accurate to me.

That doesn't sound very accurate to me.

Seems pretty good when you are predicting the position of a body based entirely on its gravitational effect on another body.

Or, to use units that may be more familiar to you, over 47 million miles. That's over 3000 times Neptune's radius. That doesn't sound very accurate to me.

Seems quite accurate to me. It's 0.16% the Sun-Neptune distance. That means 18th century astronomers were able to predict the radius of Neptune's orbit to better than 0.16% without the benefit of any computer models.

I think that's pretty good, don't you? When has FET ever predicted anything that well?

Tom, perhaps you missed this part of the Wikipedia article:

Yes, there are a few references for the various claims in the article. But there is no reference for the "accurate within a degree of accuracy" claim in the second paragraph. There's no reference to go along with the sentence. If there's no reference, that statement is just something someone wrote without research.

Let me know when you have something proper to back up your unsubstantiated claims.

Let me know when you have something proper to back up your unsubstantiated claims.

Good thing that it discusses that very point later in the article...

Meantime, Le Verrier by letter urged Berlin Observatory astronomer Johann Gottfried Galle to search with the observatory's refractor. Heinrich d'Arrest, a student at the observatory, suggested to Galle that they could compare recently drawn chart of the sky in the region of Le Verrier's predicted location with the current sky to seek the displacement characteristic of a planet, as opposed to a fixed star. The very evening of the day of receipt of Le Verrier's letter, Neptune was discovered, September 23, 1846, within 1° of where Le Verrier had predicted it to be, and about 12° from Adams' prediction. Challis later realized that he had observed the planet twice in August, failing to identify it owing to his casual approach to the work.

and there are references at the end of that section.

and there are references at the end of that section.

The source for that paragraph seems to be a short BBC news article which has zero references and zero sources.

Great reference there. 

It just goes to show the absolute trash Wikipedia articles are.

It just goes to show the absolute trash Wikipedia articles are.

"Absolute trash", eh?

Do you have any references to back up that (outrageous) unsubstantiated claim?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2008, 12:27:26 PM

It just goes to show the absolute trash Wikipedia articles are.

"Absolute trash", eh?

Do you have any references to back up that (outrageous) unsubstantiated claim?

Anyone can update it without a reference.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-441432/Wikipedia--accurate-online-encyclopedia.html

Anyone can update it without a reference.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-441432/Wikipedia--accurate-online-encyclopedia.html

What kind of expertise does being a "Professor of Theology" give a person, anyway?

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on September 24, 2008, 12:44:29 PM

Anyone can update it without a reference.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-441432/Wikipedia--accurate-online-encyclopedia.html

What kind of expertise does being a "Professor of Theology" give a person, anyway?

Uh...Theology.  Have you been drinking?

Quote from: 3 Tesla on September 24, 2008, 12:34:18 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2008, 12:27:26 PM

It just goes to show the absolute trash Wikipedia articles are.

"Absolute trash", eh?

Do you have any references to back up that (outrageous) unsubstantiated claim?

Anyone can update it without a reference.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-441432/Wikipedia--accurate-online-encyclopedia.html

I was being sarcastic.

(Which is rather hard to convey over the web.)

Try blue letters or this (  )

Uh...Theology.  Have you been drinking?

And what use is that to an encyclopedia? What use is it to anybody?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2008, 12:27:26 PM

It just goes to show the absolute trash Wikipedia articles are.

"Absolute trash", eh?

Do you have any references to back up that (outrageous) unsubstantiated claim?

Read the top of this page and tell me what you think now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception

Read the top of this page and tell me what you think now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception

Nice.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on September 24, 2008, 12:50:05 PM

Uh...Theology.  Have you been drinking?

And what use is that to an encyclopedia? What use is it to anybody?

The encylopedia's entry on theology or someone wanting to expand their mind and learn about theology.  Man you suck at this.