Neptune: FET failed to predict, but RET did so and continues to do so

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 14, 2012, 07:53:50 PM

I will tell you what I personally observe in the next couple of days. However, don't expect it to support any wild conclusions beyond the existence of Neptune, which I do believe exists but will use observation to validate my views.

Nope. Neptune is too dim and too close to the Sun for observing this month. Please us the RET-model to know where and when you can observe Neptune. Thanks.

[
According to RET, shouldn't Neptune be less dim if it's close to the Sun 

According to RET, shouldn't Neptune be less dim if it's close to the Sun 

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 15, 2012, 01:24:59 PM

According to RET, shouldn't Neptune be less dim if it's close to the Sun 

No. Please lrn2Optics.

Quote from: ClockTower on March 15, 2012, 05:40:55 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 15, 2012, 01:24:59 PM

According to RET, shouldn't Neptune be less dim if it's close to the Sun 

No. Please lrn2Optics.

So in RET an object becomes dimmer the closer it comes to a light source. Noted Clocktower.

Columbus predicted a path to China but found a new continent. Fleming was not even trying to find anything at that moment, he had just thrown some Petri dishes in the sink to wash later. Those are lucky accidents, and lucky accidents do happen. As I have said, if the lucky accident had not happened, Le Verrier or somebody else would have found Neptune just because you only have to search a 10 degree wide swath of sky to find all the planets of the Solar System.

So in RET an object becomes dimmer the closer it comes to a light source. Noted Clocktower.

Quote from: trig on March 14, 2012, 04:31:21 PM

Columbus predicted a path to China but found a new continent. Fleming was not even trying to find anything at that moment, he had just thrown some Petri dishes in the sink to wash later. Those are lucky accidents, and lucky accidents do happen. As I have said, if the lucky accident had not happened, Le Verrier or somebody else would have found Neptune just because you only have to search a 10 degree wide swath of sky to find all the planets of the Solar System.

I'm not disputing that Neptune was discovered. I'm disputing that LeVerrier or Adams (or anyone else) mathematically predicted it's presence in any meaningful sense of the term.  I'm sure that with all the sky watching that takes place these days, someone, somewhere would have found Neptune between now and then.

Quote from: Ski on March 15, 2012, 05:49:30 PM

Quote from: trig on March 14, 2012, 04:31:21 PM

Columbus predicted a path to China but found a new continent. Fleming was not even trying to find anything at that moment, he had just thrown some Petri dishes in the sink to wash later. Those are lucky accidents, and lucky accidents do happen. As I have said, if the lucky accident had not happened, Le Verrier or somebody else would have found Neptune just because you only have to search a 10 degree wide swath of sky to find all the planets of the Solar System.

I'm not disputing that Neptune was discovered. I'm disputing that LeVerrier or Adams (or anyone else) mathematically predicted it's presence in any meaningful sense of the term.  I'm sure that with all the sky watching that takes place these days, someone, somewhere would have found Neptune between now and then.

So, now we are getting somewhere. It is no problem at all for real Science that Le Verrier and/or Adams failed to do the maths right to find Neptune exactly where the perturbations of the orbit of Uranus pointed.Even the capacity to predict the existence of another planet is already a great achievement, and they both did that.

The real test for the model of the Solar System comes when predictions of the future places where the planets will be seen are verified again and again. And while real Science makes predictions within arc-seconds for years to come, RET does not even predict correctly the sightings for the rest of today.

Again, the claim that the position of Neptune was predicted through RET is false. Please read the section in Earth Not a Globe on the subject. It is required reading.

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

Ski is correct, the claim that the position of Neptune was predicted through RET is a complete farce. Please read the section in Earth Not a Globe on the subject. It is required reading.

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

Ski is correct, the claim that the position of Neptune was predicted through RET is a complete farce. Please read the section in Earth Not a Globe on the subject. It is required reading.

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

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2012, 12:33:37 AM

Again, the claim that the position of Neptune was predicted through RET is false. Please read the section in Earth Not a Globe on the subject. It is required reading.

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

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2012, 12:33:37 AM

Ski is correct, the claim that the position of Neptune was predicted through RET is a complete farce. Please read the section in Earth Not a Globe on the subject. It is required reading.

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

This whole "Neptune is bogus" story is so dumb it had to come from ENaG. Of course.

Ignorant people from the mid 19th century could well believe that Neptune does not exist because of the doubts about the methods used to discover it. Now it has been seen so many times that the details of its discovery are quite irrelevant. It has been seen by thousands of amateur and professional astronomers, its orbit (and Uranus') have been checked against computer simulations that easily solve the complexity of the non-analytical functions describing the orbits of 8 or 9 large orbiting planets plus the Sun.

Now that I know the source of the doubts about the discovery of Neptune I am most certain that the supposed errors in calculating the orbit of the then-undiscovered Neptune were just understandable imprecision in calculations that had to include some guesswork, and that they at least gave a general area to start looking.

And now that Tom Bishop has given us a reason to compare directly both models, lets look at the relative success of each: real science's model predicts the movement of the planets to within arc-seconds of a degree, for every planet, at any time in the near future. ENaG's "model" predicts the wrong place where the Sun will be at dusk tomorrow, for any place on Earth. And not by a few arc-seconds, but by tens of degrees. That is a difference of about 4 orders of magnitude.

And even if Le Verrier and Adams were totally wrong (which I now don't believe) the perturbations in the orbit of Uranus are real, well measured and well documented. They do predict the existence of at least one planet, which we now call Neptune, and that conclusion was reached by Le Verrier and Adams, and verified by peers.

But Tom Bishop should get his two state of the art, computer controlled telescopes out and punch "Neptune". He does not have to believe Le Verrier, he just has to read the manual in the page where they tell him how to set up the telescope, and then he can see that there is, in fact a celestial object where Neptune should be, and then he can check for himself that it moves with respect to the stars. Or maybe he does not have the telescopes he says he has?

"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"

Quote from: trig on March 17, 2012, 02:44:51 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2012, 12:33:37 AM

Ski is correct, the claim that the position of Neptune was predicted through RET is a complete farce. Please read the section in Earth Not a Globe on the subject. It is required reading.

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

This whole "Neptune is bogus" story is so dumb it had to come from ENaG. Of course.

Ignorant people from the mid 19th century could well believe that Neptune does not exist because of the doubts about the methods used to discover it. Now it has been seen so many times that the details of its discovery are quite irrelevant. It has been seen by thousands of amateur and professional astronomers, its orbit (and Uranus') have been checked against computer simulations that easily solve the complexity of the non-analytical functions describing the orbits of 8 or 9 large orbiting planets plus the Sun.

Now that I know the source of the doubts about the discovery of Neptune I am most certain that the supposed errors in calculating the orbit of the then-undiscovered Neptune were just understandable imprecision in calculations that had to include some guesswork, and that they at least gave a general area to start looking.

And now that Tom Bishop has given us a reason to compare directly both models, lets look at the relative success of each: real science's model predicts the movement of the planets to within arc-seconds of a degree, for every planet, at any time in the near future. ENaG's "model" predicts the wrong place where the Sun will be at dusk tomorrow, for any place on Earth. And not by a few arc-seconds, but by tens of degrees. That is a difference of about 4 orders of magnitude.

And even if Le Verrier and Adams were totally wrong (which I now don't believe) the perturbations in the orbit of Uranus are real, well measured and well documented. They do predict the existence of at least one planet, which we now call Neptune, and that conclusion was reached by Le Verrier and Adams, and verified by peers.

But Tom Bishop should get his two state of the art, computer controlled telescopes out and punch "Neptune". He does not have to believe Le Verrier, he just has to read the manual in the page where they tell him how to set up the telescope, and then he can see that there is, in fact a celestial object where Neptune should be, and then he can check for himself that it moves with respect to the stars. Or maybe he does not have the telescopes he says he has?

Please actually read the source material before posting. It isn't about Neptune's non-existence, it's about how prediction did not meet reality. Neptune was not predicted only from calculation under an RET model, long before it was seen by a telescope, as is often claimed. Its discovery is not a testament to RET, or gravity. These claims are completely false.

Again the SA article considered all of this and makes Rowbotham's argument hallow (as usual). How much longer are you going to argue that Rowbotham has merit when he can't even estimate the distance to the Sun with a decent method?

Quote from: ClockTower on March 17, 2012, 10:06:53 AM

Again the SA article considered all of this and makes Rowbotham's argument hallow (as usual). How much longer are you going to argue that Rowbotham has merit when he can't even estimate the distance to the Sun with a decent method?

Did the SA article read Earth Not a Globe and make point-by-point refutations to the subject matter? I doubt it.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2012, 10:09:41 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on March 17, 2012, 10:06:53 AM

Again the SA article considered all of this and makes Rowbotham's argument hallow (as usual). How much longer are you going to argue that Rowbotham has merit when he can't even estimate the distance to the Sun with a decent method?

Did the SA article read Earth Not a Globe and make point-by-point refutations to the subject matter? I doubt it.

I doubt it too. He made no new arguments and was never considered a reliable source based on his numerous and obvious errors.

Quote from: ClockTower on March 17, 2012, 10:12:48 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2012, 10:09:41 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on March 17, 2012, 10:06:53 AM

Again the SA article considered all of this and makes Rowbotham's argument hallow (as usual). How much longer are you going to argue that Rowbotham has merit when he can't even estimate the distance to the Sun with a decent method?

Did the SA article read Earth Not a Globe and make point-by-point refutations to the subject matter? I doubt it.

I doubt it too. He made no new arguments and was never considered a reliable source based on his numerous and obvious errors.

You doubt it? You're supposed to read your articles before posting sources and blindly referencing them. How unethical. Please stop wasting our time. Reported.

Ski is correct, the claim that the position of Neptune was predicted through RET is a complete farce. Please read the section in Earth Not a Globe on the subject. It is required reading.

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

I doubt that "the SA article read" EnaG. There's no way for me to know, is there?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2012, 12:33:37 AM

Ski is correct, the claim that the position of Neptune was predicted through RET is a complete farce. Please read the section in Earth Not a Globe on the subject. It is required reading.

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

Urbain le Verrier determined the existence of Neptune, calculated its position, astronomers found Neptune where predicted.

Where is the farce? Is it difficult to understand that data and observations wasn't as precise in 1848 than it is now?

Anyway RET predicted Neptune, not FET.

You apparently have a hard time with reading before flapping your trap like our friend ClockTower.

Please see Earth Not a Globe on the matter.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2012, 10:56:38 AM

Please see Earth Not a Globe on the matter.

Would you mind providing an excerpt where Earth Not A Globe discusses this? Sorry, I just get lost in a sea of references here.

Ski is correct, the claim that the position of Neptune was predicted through RET is a complete farce. Please read the section in Earth Not a Globe on the subject. It is required reading.

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

Quote from: ClockTower on March 17, 2012, 10:26:22 AM

I doubt that "the SA article read" EnaG. There's no way for me to know, is there?

If you had read the article you would know whether it makes point-by-point refutations to ENAG or not. Stop wasting our time.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on March 17, 2012, 12:35:47 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 17, 2012, 12:33:37 AM

Again, the claim that the position of Neptune was predicted through RET is false. Please read the section in Earth Not a Globe on the subject. It is required reading.

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

Please refrain from low content posting.

Please actually read the source material before posting. It isn't about Neptune's non-existence, it's about how prediction did not meet reality. Neptune was not predicted only from calculation under an RET model, long before it was seen by a telescope, as is often claimed. Its discovery is not a testament to RET, or gravity. These claims are completely false.

Those "perterbations" seen in Uranus were failings of the RET model to predict Uranus' position.

From my link:

Quote

"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"

Those "perterbations" are actually failings of the Round Earth model to make prediction meet reality. It was hypothezed that another planet was influencing Uranus, but the claims of being able to predict the position of the planet Neptune through calculation was false, as Ski and Samuel Birley Rowbotham have already gone over.