What it all comes down to...

  • 92 Replies
  • 15564 Views
*

E349

  • 68
  • Velociraptor Exterminator
What it all comes down to...
« on: September 22, 2008, 12:14:41 PM »
is that both the flat earth theory and the round earth theory are erroneous theories in certain aspects. The round earth theory is based off of gravity, something which, despite all of its subsequently derived theories, remains unproven. At the same time, the flat earth theory is based upon the supposition that the entire wealth of astronomical data which has been accumulated since 1962 is actually a load of shit. Thus, the round earth theory falls short in its failure to provide an explanation for its most fundamental force, and the flat earth theory falls short in its inability to (scientifically) disprove the science behind the round earth theory (and explain why the flat earth is perpetually accelerating). Both theories can merely argue their case, leaving the reader to decide which side (or neither) that they will take.
If not responding is a win, then FET has won many times. You just won a small battle yourself.
Hooray! I am WIN

*

E349

  • 68
  • Velociraptor Exterminator
Re: What it all comes down to...
« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2008, 12:16:10 PM »
What I am getting at is…
because both theories contain their errors, I believe that the narcissism which exists in this site (whose ramifications are evident in the Angry Ranting section) is entirely unnecessary. Neither side can argue that they are ‘right’ and the other ‘wrong’, only that their theory is an acceptable alternative. For this reason I believe that petty insults should be filtered from this site (except for use in the condemnation of Neanderthals).
If not responding is a win, then FET has won many times. You just won a small battle yourself.
Hooray! I am WIN

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: What it all comes down to...
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2008, 12:26:55 PM »
Let them insult each other. It gives others entertainment.

By the way this is the FE debate section.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

E349

  • 68
  • Velociraptor Exterminator
Re: What it all comes down to...
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2008, 12:32:22 PM »
By the way this is the FE debate section.

No, this is the dabate and DISCUSSION section. This is a topic that is open for discussion.
If not responding is a win, then FET has won many times. You just won a small battle yourself.
Hooray! I am WIN

Re: What it all comes down to...
« Reply #4 on: September 22, 2008, 02:17:05 PM »
...At the same time, the flat earth theory is based upon the supposition that the entire wealth of astronomical data which has been accumulated since 1962 is actually a load of shit.

Actually, it disregards all most all of the astronomical data that was accumulated before then as well.


Quote
Thus, the round earth theory falls short in its failure to provide an explanation for its most fundamental force,

Well, I would say for the most part, RE has good explanations for most of its fundamentals.


Quote
and the flat earth theory falls short in its inability to (scientifically) disprove the science behind the round earth theory (and explain why the flat earth is perpetually accelerating).

Well, there are other things as well like their inability to explain the simple geography of their model.


Quote
Both theories can merely argue their case, leaving the reader to decide which side (or neither) that they will take.

I think that most of us come to this with our minds already made up.

Re: What it all comes down to...
« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2008, 02:30:54 PM »
Thus, the round earth theory falls short in its failure to provide an explanation for its most fundamental force

This is not a failing of RET, this is a failing of modern physics. RET theory attempts to describe the shape of the Earth, and is 100% succesful.

*

E349

  • 68
  • Velociraptor Exterminator
Re: What it all comes down to...
« Reply #6 on: September 22, 2008, 03:28:48 PM »
Thus, the round earth theory falls short in its failure to provide an explanation for its most fundamental force

This is not a failing of RET, this is a failing of modern physics. RET theory attempts to describe the shape of the Earth, and is 100% succesful.

How can you say that the RET is '100% successful' at describing the shape of the earth when gravity, a very critical part of the theory, has yet to be proven? The RET without gravity would make no sense and, subsequently, it can be said with certainty to possess a critical flaw. The RET is simply a detailed elaboration on a circumstantial piece of evidence and, as a result, should be treated as no more.

(Note: I am a strong believer in the RET and merely attempt to get others to question the facts which they accept without proof)
If not responding is a win, then FET has won many times. You just won a small battle yourself.
Hooray! I am WIN

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: What it all comes down to...
« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2008, 03:43:39 PM »
The round earth theory is based off of gravity, something which, despite all of its subsequently derived theories, remains unproven.

But we *do* know why gravity happens - mass bends space-time so that objects follow curved paths along it (Einstein).

And in the every-day world this is indistinguishable from a "force" which causes masses to attract each other (Newton).

And even if we *didn't* know why gravity happens, that wouldn't invalidate the scientific theory of how gravity acts.

You are allowed to have basic premises in science.

Newton noted that massive objects attract each other and he was happy to leave it at that.

With his theory - an incomplete  one, I grant you - he was able to explain the motion of the planets around the Sun in the Solar System.

With his theory - an incomplete  one, I grant you - we have been able to send men to The Moon and back safely.

"But the Moon Landings were faked by the conspiracy!", I hear you cry.

"B*ll*cks to your conspiracy theory!", say I because there is a host of independent evidence to back up my claim:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

E349

  • 68
  • Velociraptor Exterminator
Re: What it all comes down to...
« Reply #8 on: September 22, 2008, 04:40:33 PM »
The round earth theory is based off of gravity, something which, despite all of its subsequently derived theories, remains unproven.

But we *do* know why gravity happens - mass bends space-time so that objects follow curved paths along it (Einstein).

And in the every-day world this is indistinguishable from a "force" which causes masses to attract each other (Newton).

And even if we *didn't* know why gravity happens, that wouldn't invalidate the scientific theory of how gravity acts.

You are allowed to have basic premises in science.

Newton noted that massive objects attract each other and he was happy to leave it at that.

With his theory - an incomplete  one, I grant you - he was able to explain the motion of the planets around the Sun in the Solar System.

With his theory - an incomplete  one, I grant you - we have been able to send men to The Moon and back safely.

"But the Moon Landings were faked by the conspiracy!", I hear you cry.

"B*ll*cks to your conspiracy theory!", say I because there is a host of independent evidence to back up my claim:

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

First of all, as I stated before, I am not a proponent of the flat earth theory and do not believe in the conspiracy regarding the forgery of the lunar landings. Secondly, I did not state that gravity does not or cannot exist. Rather I merely suggested that the lack of definitive *proof* leaves the potential for other explanations. Lastly, just because Newton took the attraction of physical masses at face value does not mean that society should. I believe that the scientific comminity should continue to endeavor to explain gravity, lest we begin to accept without questioning the theories which govern the natural world.

Now, if you don't mind, I must get back to photoshopping '60s cameras into images of the lunar landings.
If not responding is a win, then FET has won many times. You just won a small battle yourself.
Hooray! I am WIN

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: What it all comes down to...
« Reply #9 on: September 23, 2008, 06:48:00 AM »
The round earth theory is based off of gravity, something which, despite all of its subsequently derived theories, remains unproven.

But we *do* know why gravity happens - mass bends space-time so that objects follow curved paths along it (Einstein).

And in the every-day world this is indistinguishable from a "force" which causes masses to attract each other (Newton).

And even if we *didn't* know why gravity happens, that wouldn't invalidate the scientific theory of how gravity acts.

You are allowed to have basic premises in science.

Newton noted that massive objects attract each other and he was happy to leave it at that.

With his theory - an incomplete  one, I grant you - he was able to explain the motion of the planets around the Sun in the Solar System.

With his theory - an incomplete  one, I grant you - we have been able to send men to The Moon and back safely.

"But the Moon Landings were faked by the conspiracy!", I hear you cry.

"B*ll*cks to your conspiracy theory!", say I because there is a host of independent evidence to back up my claim:

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

First of all, as I stated before, I am not a proponent of the flat earth theory and do not believe in the conspiracy regarding the forgery of the lunar landings. Secondly, I did not state that gravity does not or cannot exist. Rather I merely suggested that the lack of definitive *proof* leaves the potential for other explanations. Lastly, just because Newton took the attraction of physical masses at face value does not mean that society should. I believe that the scientific comminity should continue to endeavor to explain gravity, lest we begin to accept without questioning the theories which govern the natural world.

Now, if you don't mind, I must get back to photoshopping '60s cameras into images of the lunar landings.

""But the Moon Landings were faked by the conspiracy!", I hear you cry.

"B*ll*cks to your conspiracy theory!", say I because there is a host of independent evidence to back up my claim:"

That wasn't aimed directly at you, OK?

No offence meant.
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: What it all comes down to...
« Reply #10 on: September 23, 2008, 07:45:06 AM »
...Thus, the round earth theory falls short in its failure to provide an explanation for its most fundamental force,

True.  However it does provide good models that describe and predict behaviour (for given constraints).

...the flat earth theory is based upon the supposition that the entire wealth of astronomical data which has been accumulated since 1962 is actually a load of shit.
...and the flat earth theory falls short in its inability to (scientifically) disprove the science behind the round earth theory
...(and explain why the flat earth is perpetually accelerating)

True.

leaving the reader to decide which side (or neither) that they will take.

Mmmm.  Its a close one, be RET has it by a nose.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11857
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: What it all comes down to...
« Reply #11 on: September 23, 2008, 07:46:48 AM »
The round earth theory is based off of gravity, something which, despite all of its subsequently derived theories, remains unproven.

But we *do* know why gravity happens - mass bends space-time so that objects follow curved paths along it (Einstein).

What about objects with no mass?  What about at the sub atomic level?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: What it all comes down to...
« Reply #12 on: September 23, 2008, 07:48:01 AM »
What about objects with no mass?  What about at the sub atomic level?

Motion on the subatomic level is dominated by the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: What it all comes down to...
« Reply #13 on: September 23, 2008, 07:58:02 AM »
What about objects with no mass?  What about at the sub atomic level?

Motion on the subatomic level is dominated by the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces.

Yeah, and quantum mechanics has absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with the shape of The Earth and the nature of The Solar System.

Please stop trying to confuse the issue.

Edit: "objects without mass" such as what, for example?
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11857
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: What it all comes down to...
« Reply #14 on: September 23, 2008, 08:06:57 AM »
Yeah, and quantum mechanics has absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with the shape of The Earth and the nature of The Solar System.

Please stop trying to confuse the issue.

Edit: "objects without mass" such as what, for example?

Photons.

What do you mean when you say the nature of the solar system?  I think quantum mechanics have alot to do with it.

What about objects with no mass?  What about at the sub atomic level?

Motion on the subatomic level is dominated by the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces.

Only in FET. 

Interweb quote: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/quantum_gravity_020117.html

Researchers have measured the quantum effects of gravity for the first time, a significant breakthrough in the understanding of an enigmatic force at tiny scales.

The work is reported in the Jan. 17 issue of the journal Nature.

Gravity is relatively easy to observe in the everyday world of orbiting planets and falling apples. Yet even the smartest physicists don't know where gravity actually comes from. And on very small scales, in the so-called quantum realm of subatomic particles, the effect of gravity is so weak that its effects have never been seen.

Theory says gravity should be at work there, nonetheless.

Quantum mechanics lays out rules for how electrons and other particles inside atoms (the quantum world) must behave. For example, an electron can only move from one position to another -- changing quantum states -- by jumping; it cannot slide smoothly from one position to another.

In theory, this rule applies to all matter under the influence of nature's four fundamental forces: electromagnetism, the so-called strong and weak nuclear forces, and gravity.

But with gravity, it's hard to tell, because things at the subatomic level are in constant motion. It's a frenetic place, really, full of what scientists call kinetic energy -- not unlike a very, very small version of a typical first-grade class just before recess.

So the researchers, led by Valery Nesvizhevsky at the Laue-Langevin Institute in Grenoble, France, isolated hundreds of neutrons from all major effects except gravity, then watched them in a special detector as gravity pulled them down.

It was not a smooth fall. As expected, the neutrons fell in quantum jumps.

"The work of Nesvizhevsky and colleagues could provide physicists with a new probe of the fundamental properties of matter," writes Thomas Bowles of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in an accompanying analysis in Nature.

Bowles said the new observational technique might allow scientists to figure out why quantum mechanics is at odds with Einstein's theory of general relativity, which describes how gravity treats large objects in the universe.

It might even solve a most elusive goal in helping researchers understand out what actually creates gravity, he said.




*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: What it all comes down to...
« Reply #15 on: September 23, 2008, 08:14:21 AM »
I didn't say there weren't gravitational effects on the subatomic level, I said that motion was dominated by other interations.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: What it all comes down to...
« Reply #16 on: September 23, 2008, 09:20:47 AM »
Yeah, and quantum mechanics has absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with the shape of The Earth and the nature of The Solar System.

Please stop trying to confuse the issue.

Edit: "objects without mass" such as what, for example?

Photons.

Photons don't bend space-time ...

But they do follow paths around curved spece-time.

And this proves that the Earth is flat how, exactly?


What do you mean when you say the nature of the solar system?  I think quantum mechanics have alot to do with it.


Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with the Universe on scales that we experience day-to-day.

Planets and people are objects made up of millions of sub-atomic particles so all of the quantum fluctuations and permutaions 'average out' to give classical physics.

[Edit: permeabilities  -> permutations]
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: What it all comes down to...
« Reply #17 on: September 23, 2008, 09:21:32 AM »
Photons don't bend space-time ...

They produce a gravitational field.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: What it all comes down to...
« Reply #18 on: September 23, 2008, 09:24:46 AM »
Photons don't bend space-time ...

They produce a gravitational field.

Since photons contribute to the stress-energy tensor, they exert a gravitational attraction on other objects, according to the theory of general relativity. Conversely, photons are themselves affected by gravity; their normally straight trajectories may be bent by warped spacetime, as in gravitational lensing ...

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

Fascinating (as Spock would say)!

Thanks for teaching me something new.

But again: how does this prove that the Earth is flat?
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: What it all comes down to...
« Reply #19 on: September 23, 2008, 09:26:24 AM »
Thanks for teaching me something new.

No problem.

But again: how does this prove that the Earth is flat?

Er, I wasn't trying to prove that the Earth is flat. I was just responding to your statement.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: What it all comes down to...
« Reply #20 on: September 23, 2008, 09:30:57 AM »
But again: how does this prove that the Earth is flat?
Er, I wasn't trying to prove that the Earth is flat. I was just responding to your statement.

Sorry - I get confused as to who is on which side sometimes.

It doesn't help that some people appear to switch sides for fun!

:-)
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

E349

  • 68
  • Velociraptor Exterminator
Re: What it all comes down to...
« Reply #21 on: September 23, 2008, 04:44:16 PM »
Sorry - I get confused as to who is on which side sometimes.

It doesn't help that some people appear to switch sides for fun!

I got that same impression when the following was stated:

What about objects with no mass?  What about at the sub atomic level?

Motion on the subatomic level is dominated by the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces.

Only in FET. 
If not responding is a win, then FET has won many times. You just won a small battle yourself.
Hooray! I am WIN

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11857
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: What it all comes down to...
« Reply #22 on: September 23, 2008, 04:49:54 PM »
Sorry - I get confused as to who is on which side sometimes.

It doesn't help that some people appear to switch sides for fun!

I got that same impression when the following was stated:

What about objects with no mass?  What about at the sub atomic level?

Motion on the subatomic level is dominated by the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces.

Only in FET. 

What are you implying?

Re: What it all comes down to...
« Reply #23 on: September 23, 2008, 04:57:19 PM »
Objective reality is determined by observation.  For a theory to work it must account for what is actually observed. 

Round Earth accounts for all observations, flat Earth accounts for almost none. 

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Video proof that the Earth is flat!

Run run, as fast as you can, you can't catch me cos I'm in the lollipop forest and you can't get there!

*

E349

  • 68
  • Velociraptor Exterminator
Re: What it all comes down to...
« Reply #24 on: September 23, 2008, 05:18:14 PM »
Sorry - I get confused as to who is on which side sometimes.

It doesn't help that some people appear to switch sides for fun!

I got that same impression when the following was stated:

What about objects with no mass?  What about at the sub atomic level?

Motion on the subatomic level is dominated by the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces.

Only in FET. 

What are you implying?

I am not implying anything, my message (or so I see it) is clear. I am merely pointing out that the response which you gave, "Only in FET", gave me the the impression that you did not believe the aforementioned information. This, combined with my observation that you frequently take a pro-FE stance, confused me with regard to you alignment in this discussion regarding gravity.
If not responding is a win, then FET has won many times. You just won a small battle yourself.
Hooray! I am WIN

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: What it all comes down to...
« Reply #25 on: September 23, 2008, 07:22:31 PM »
Newton noted that massive objects attract each other and he was happy to leave it at that.

Not true, he knew his theory was incomplete.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: What it all comes down to...
« Reply #26 on: September 23, 2008, 07:42:05 PM »
"It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must do, if gravitation, ...., be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason, why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another, at a distance through vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it."
                                                                                                                                      -Newton
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: What it all comes down to...
« Reply #27 on: September 24, 2008, 02:09:41 AM »
Newton noted that massive objects attract each other and he was happy to leave it at that.

Not true, he knew his theory was incomplete.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: What it all comes down to...
« Reply #28 on: September 24, 2008, 02:10:43 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?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: What it all comes down to...
« Reply #29 on: September 24, 2008, 02:14:46 AM »
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

    THE PLANET NEPTUNE.

    FOR some years the advocates of the earth's rotundity, and of the Newtonian philosophy generally, were accustomed to refer, with an air of pride and triumph, to the supposed discovery of a new planet, to which the name of "Neptune" was given, as an undeniable evidence of the truth of their system or theory. The existence of this luminary was said to have been predicated from calculation only, and for a considerable period before it was seen by the telescope. The argument was, "That the system by which such a discovery was made, must, of necessity, be true." An article which appeared in the "Illustrated London Almanack," for 1847, contained the following words:--

    "Whatever view we take of this noble discovery, it is most gratifying, whether at the addition of another planet to our list, whether at the proving the correctness of the theory of universal gravitation, or in what view soever, it must be considered as a splendid discovery, and the merit is chiefly due to theoretical astronomy. This discovery is perhaps the greatest triumph of astronomical science that has ever been recorded."

    If such things as criticism, experience, and comparative observation did not exist, the tone of exultation in which the above-named writer indulges might still be shared in by the astronomical student; but let the following summary of facts and extracts be carefully read, and it will be seen that such a tone was premature and unwarranted.

    "In the year 1781, Uranus was discovered by Sir William Herschel. . . . Between 1781 and 1820, it was very frequently observed; and it was hoped that at the latter time sufficient data existed to construct accurate tables of its motions. . . . It was found utterly impossible to construct tables which would represent all the observations. . . . Consequently it was evident that the planet was under the influence of some unknown cause. Some persons talked of a resisting medium, others of a great satellite which might accompany Uranus; some even went so far as to suppose that the vast distance Uranus is from the sun caused the law of gravitation to lose some of its force; others thought of the existence of a planet beyond Uranus, whose disturbing force caused the anomalous motions of the planet; but no one did otherwise than follow the bent of his inclination, and did not support his assertion by any positive considerations. Thus was the theory of Uranus surrounded with difficulties, when M. Le Verrier, an eminent French mathematician, undertook to investigate the irregularities in its motions. . . . The result of these calculations was the discovery of a new planet in the place assigned to it by theory, whose mass, distance, position in the heavens, and orbit it describes round the sun, were all approximately determined before the planet had ever been seen, and all agrees with observations, so far as can at present be determined." 1

    The first paper by M. Le Verrier appeared on the 10th of November, 1845, and a second on June 1st, 1846; and "on the 23rd of September, Dr. Galle, at Berlin, discovered a star of the eighth magnitude, which was proved to be the planet," so it was thought; and hence, had it been true, the Newtonian philosophers had good cause to be proud of the theory which had apparently led to such grand results; and, as in the other "great discovery" by the celebrated French mathematician, M. Foucault, of the earth's motion by the vibrations of a pendulum, the peals of triumph rung by mathematicians were for months ringing in the ears of the whole civilised community. The whole of this scientific rejoicing was, however, suddenly arrested by the appearance, two years afterwards, of a paper by M. Babinet, read before the French Academy of Sciences, in which great errors in the calculations of M. Le Verrier were disclosed, as will be seen by the following letter:--

    "Paris, September 15, 1848.

    "The only sittings of the Academy of late in which there was anything worth recording, and even this was not of a practical character, were those of the 29th ult., and the 11th inst. On the former day M. Babinet made a communication respecting the planet Neptune, which has been generally called M. Le Verrier's planet, the discovery of it having, as it was said, been made by him from theoretical deductions which astonished and delighted the scientific public. What M. Le Verrier had inferred from the action on other planets of some body which ought to exist was verified--at least, so it was thought at the time--by actual vision. Neptune was actually seen by other astronomers, and the honour of the theorist obtained additional lustre. But it appears, from a communication of M. Babinet, that this is not the planet of M. Le Verrier. He had placed his planet at a distance from the sun equal to thirty-six times the limit of the terrestrial orbit. Neptune revolves at a distance equal to thirty times of these limits, which makes a difference of nearly two hundred millions of leagues! M. Le Verrier had assigned to his planet a body equal to thirty-eight times that of the earth; Neptune has only one-third of this volume! M. Le Verrier had stated the revolution of his planet round the sun to take place in two hundred and seventeen years; Neptune performs its revolutions in one hundred and sixty-six years! Thus, then, Neptune is not M. Le Verrier's planet, and all his theory as regards that planet falls to the ground! M. Le Verrier may find another planet, but it will not answer the calculations which he had made for Neptune.

    "In the sitting of the 14th, M. Le Verrier noticed the communication of M. Babinet, and to a great extent admitted his own error. He complained, indeed, that much of what he said was taken in too absolute a sense, but he evinces much more candour than might have been expected from a disappointed explorer. M. Le Verrier may console himself with the reflection that if he has not been so successful as he thought he had been, others might have been equally unsuccessful; and as he has still before him an immense field for the exercise of observation and calculation, we may hope that he will soon make some discovery which will remove the vexation of his present disappointment." 1

    "As the data of Le Verrier and Adams stand at present, there is a discrepancy between the predicted and the true distance, and in some other elements of the planet. . . . It 'would appear from the most recent observations, that the mass of Neptune, instead of being, as at first stated, one nine thousand three hundredth, is only one twenty-three thousandth that of the sun; whilst its periodic time is now given with a greater probability at 166 years, and its mean distance from the sun nearly thirty. Le Verrier gave the mean distance from the sun thirty-six times that of the earth, and the period of revolution 217 years." 2

    Thus we have found that "a discovery which was incontestably one of the most signal triumphs ever attained by mathematical science, and which marked an era that must be for ever memorable in the history of physical investigation," and which "some years ago excited universal astonishment," 3 was really worse than no discovery at all; it was a great astronomical blunder. An error of six hundred millions of miles in the planet's distance, of two thirds in its bulk, and of fifty-one years in its periodic time, ought at least to make the advocates of the Newtonian theory less positive, less fanatical and idolatrous--for many of them are as greatly so as the followers of Juggernauth--and more ready to acknowledge what they ought never to forget--that, at best, their system is but hypothetical, and must sooner or later give place to a practical philosophy, the premises of which are demonstrable, and which is, in all its details, sequent and consistent. Will they never learn to value the important truth, that a clear practical recognition of one single fact in nature is worth all the gew-gaw hypotheses which the unbridled fancies of wonder-loving philosophers have ever been able to fabricate?
    Footnotes

    330:1 "Illustrated London Almanack" for 1847.

    332:1 "Times" Newspaper of Monday, September 18, 1848.

    332:2 "Cosmos," by Humboldt, p. 75.

    332:3 "How to Observe the Heavens," by Dr. Lardner, p. 173.[/li]