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

Quote from: Pongo on March 12, 2012, 08:59:44 PM

I believe this image was meant to convey the concept, not be a literal representation of celestial movement.

If the concept involves celestial bodies that change direction without the influence of varying external forces, then it is entirely incorrect. This is Newton's first law of motion.

Newton's laws are very good at describing the movement of things that was can see and touch. They break down quite quickly when things get too massive, too small, too fast, or otherwise outside our realm of direct perception. Newton's laws are good to know so you do smart things like wear seatbelts, but they should be looked at as more guide lines or rules of thumb, not in serious debate.

Quote from: iconoclast on March 12, 2012, 11:24:54 PM

Quote from: Pongo on March 12, 2012, 08:59:44 PM

I believe this image was meant to convey the concept, not be a literal representation of celestial movement.

If the concept involves celestial bodies that change direction without the influence of varying external forces, then it is entirely incorrect. This is Newton's first law of motion.

Newton's laws are very good at describing the movement of things that was can see and touch. They break down quite quickly when things get too massive, too small, too fast, or otherwise outside our realm of direct perception. Newton's laws are good to know so you do smart things like wear seatbelts, but they should be looked at as more guide lines or rules of thumb, not in serious debate.

So if external forces aren't making the planets move around like that, what is?

So if external forces aren't making the planets move around like that, what is?

That's a good question, Cat Earth Theory. I wouldn't disclude the possibility of external forces acting on them, just not in the way Newton described them. It's not Newton's fault for creating incomplete laws, we just have the benefit of centuries more knowledge than he had available.

Quote from: iconoclast on March 12, 2012, 11:24:54 PM

Quote from: Pongo on March 12, 2012, 08:59:44 PM

I believe this image was meant to convey the concept, not be a literal representation of celestial movement.

If the concept involves celestial bodies that change direction without the influence of varying external forces, then it is entirely incorrect. This is Newton's first law of motion.

Newton's laws are very good at describing the movement of things that was can see and touch. They break down quite quickly when things get too massive, too small, too fast, or otherwise outside our realm of direct perception. Newton's laws are good to know so you do smart things like wear seatbelts, but they should be looked at as more guide lines or rules of thumb, not in serious debate.

This is a legitimate answer, but only when extremities of speed and mass are infinite or infinitesimal. Newtonian physics are used for explicit calculation, whereas something (for example) that is infinitesimally small is calculated implicitly via probability modeling. A planet is still something with finite mass, so it obeys Newton's laws of motion.

I believe this image was meant to convey the concept, not be a literal representation of celestial movement.

When you have an alternative theory to something that has been tested to extremely good precision, and you only show a diagram, an image that conveys the concept is little more than nothing.

The epicycles, painted this way, are far worse than no epicycles at all. They create movements of the planets towards the North and South that just don't exist in real life. This is just the wild imagination of somebody who is far too lazy to actually look at the planets, and yet thinks he knows more than the people who have. He could have just as easily painted a tornado and said that his tornado is his model, and he would have failed just as badly.

Well said Thork, you are quite right that Neptune is at best a wild fantasy and at worst a malicious globularist hoax.  There is no such body in the sky; it was fabricated as a ploy by Newtonian fundamentalists to "prove" the existence of gravity, which modern science has shown to be a farcical lie.

No number of fuzzy pictures of coloured blobs will substantiate the bizarre myth of Neptune.  I might just as well take a photograph of a Malteser and claim it was a planet.

didnt Voyager 2 fly by Neptune?

Well said Thork, you are quite right that Neptune is at best a wild fantasy and at worst a malicious globularist hoax.  There is no such body in the sky; it was fabricated as a ploy by Newtonian fundamentalists to "prove" the existence of gravity, which modern science has shown to be a farcical lie.

No number of fuzzy pictures of coloured blobs will substantiate the bizarre myth of Neptune.  I might just as well take a photograph of a Malteser and claim it was a planet.

Typical FE cherry picking! You ignore how GR predicts where Neptune will appear for hundreds of years, and has done so accurately, and that FET fails to even predict anything based on its model. Yet you argue that several species of non-avian dinosaurs developed a civilization with capabilities to husband other flora and fauna and to cross the Atlantic and Indian Oceans--without a single direct observation.

I guess we just need to learn to accept your capricious logic and not expect an open-minded approach from you.

didnt Voyager 2 fly by Neptune?

Yes, in the Summer of 1989.



Reference: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/vg2_p34632.html

How many weeks gone are you ClockTower? I think I can see its head.

Keep it serious, Thork.

Well said Thork, you are quite right that Neptune is at best a wild fantasy and at worst a malicious globularist hoax.  There is no such body in the sky; it was fabricated as a ploy by Newtonian fundamentalists to "prove" the existence of gravity, which modern science has shown to be a farcical lie.

No number of fuzzy pictures of coloured blobs will substantiate the bizarre myth of Neptune.  I might just as well take a photograph of a Malteser and claim it was a planet.

I ask Thork AGAIN and now James: what are we actually looking at when we think we're looking at Neptune, if it doesn't exist?
And I ask James a seperate question too: IF Neptune DID exist, how would you prove it? Use the Antimoon as an example of a celestial body you "believe" exists, but the rest of us don't.
I ask the rest of you, as an aside: do you think James is for real? Because I don't.

I find this whole thread to be hilarious. Denying the existence of the outer planets because no days of the week were named after them? Hilarious! Ludicrous! Despite the fact that you can use round earth models and predictions to see exactly where Neptune is supposed to be, and then look for yourself to see your very own fuzzy blue dot in the sky! Right where RET says it will be! Flat earthers can do this for themselves, although I know they won't (thork and james) because they know it would fly in the face of their made up theories.

But all the models stop at Saturn. The days of the week just confirm the obvious.

   

The seven day week stems from middle eastern religious beliefs, so how does that confirm the obvious?

The seven day week stems from middle eastern religious beliefs, so how does that confirm the obvious?

You should read this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week-day_names
Please direct me to the bit about Uranus or Neptune should you stumble upon it.

It will tell you how and why the days were named as they are. It beats stabbing wildly in the dark as you have just done.

Days of the week from the Roman period have been both named after the seven planets of classical astronomy and numbered, beginning with Sunday.

The seven day week stems from middle eastern religious beliefs, so how does that confirm the obvious?

Thork is trolling.  He knows perfectly well that this isn't evidence of anything.

Quote from: EireEngineer on March 13, 2012, 05:49:52 PM

The seven day week stems from middle eastern religious beliefs, so how does that confirm the obvious?

You should read this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week-day_names
Please direct me to the bit about Uranus or Neptune should you stumble upon it.

It will tell you how and why the days were named as they are. It beats stabbing wildly in the dark as you have just done.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week-day_names

Days of the week from the Roman period have been both named after the seven planets of classical astronomy and numbered, beginning with Sunday.

So that somehow means that there con ONLY be seven planets.....how again?
That is so rediculous. Th

Quote from: EireEngineer on March 13, 2012, 05:49:52 PM

The seven day week stems from middle eastern religious beliefs, so how does that confirm the obvious?

You should read this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week-day_names
Please direct me to the bit about Uranus or Neptune should you stumble upon it.

It will tell you how and why the days were named as they are. It beats stabbing wildly in the dark as you have just done.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week-day_names

Days of the week from the Roman period have been both named after the seven planets of classical astronomy and numbered, beginning with Sunday.

Using that highly informative link you provided, I read this, "Between the 1st and 3rd centuries the Roman Empire gradually replaced the eight day Roman nundinal cycle with the seven-day week.", and you're correct, Uranus and Neptune are missing.

Doing another search however, one is directed to this information, Uranus was discovered in 1781, and Neptune was discovered in 1846. 

So why am I not suprised they weren't used back in the 3rd century for naming more days?

Asked my question three times, Thork has not responded despite continued posting here. Thork has proved he is trolling.

Thork may be trolling but, my goodness, this was hilarious:

Neptune does not exist.

Quote from: Thork on December 21, 2011, 02:34:32 AM

There are two facts that are important. The first is that Saturn in the last planet anyway. Neptune, Uranus, Pluto if you call it a planet, doesn't matter; they are all made up. I know this to be a fact because there are only 7 days in a week. It is confirmed by most European languages.
Sunday             Sun day                   
Monday             Moon day
Tuesday            Mars day            Mardi in French             Martes in Spanish         
Wednesday      Mercury day        Mercredi in French        Miércoles in Spanish
Thursday          Jupiter day          Jeudi in French             Jueves in Spanish
Friday               Venus day           Vendredi in French       Viernes in Spanish
Saturday          Saturn day

English has a few Bastardisations because of our German/Norse language roots (Frisian) so instead of calling Mercury, Mercury we have Wednesday from Wodin. Thursday from Thor instead of Jupiter. Same God/planet.

Conclusion: There are the sun + moon + 5 planets. Otherwise there would be more days in the week. There is no Neptune day or Uranus day. It shows they just added those at a time when they wanted to get people excited about RET, gifting them new and magical fantasy planets.

You will notice in diagrams like this below from Ptolemy, he doesn't add any of the made up planets either.

Typical FE cherry picking! You ignore how GR predicts where Neptune will appear for hundreds of years, and has done so accurately, and ...

I'm going to assume that since GR has not existed for a single century, never-you-mind several to justify "hundreds of years" that you are once more attempting to sound much smarter than you are by using phrases and acronyms you don't fully understand.

More to the point:

"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."

"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."

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," 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?

Using that highly informative link you provided, I read this, "Between the 1st and 3rd centuries the Roman Empire gradually replaced the eight day Roman nundinal cycle with the seven-day week.", and you're correct, Uranus and Neptune are missing.

Doing another search however, one is directed to this information, Uranus was discovered in 1781, and Neptune was discovered in 1846. 

So why am I not suprised they weren't used back in the 3rd century for naming more days?

As the only person to have made a valid point, yours is the post I shall reply to.

What you are saying in essence, is that in 1781 they discovered a new planet and decided to rewrite every chart of our solar system and astrology/astronomy book that had ever been written. They decided it also should follow the naming convention of planets and be named after a Roman god, and they would update all texts relating to this. But they decided not to rename the days of the week to keep them accurate?
What?
And so with the naming convention.
The name Uranus was chosen as the logical addition to the series: for Mars (Ares in Greek) was the son of Jupiter, Jupiter (Zeus in Greek) the son of Saturn, and Saturn (Cronus in Greek) the son of Uranus. So then Neptune doesn't fit. He's not the father of Uranus. He's the son of Saturn and brother of Jupiter. It makes absolutely no sense. RET has yet again driven itself into a position of defying all the rules of logic. This again demonstrates the simplicity and perfection of FET and shows what a mess RET is. Go RErs with your messed up 9 day week and ponder how a man's son should be his father. RET is just nasty.

I'm going to assume that since GR has not existed for a single century, never-you-mind several to justify "hundreds of years" that you are once more attempting to sound much smarter than you are by using phrases and acronyms you don't fully understand.

More to the point:

Thank you for that chilling expose of errors made by some guy over 150 years ago.

Let's see how this compares to the zeteticists' predictions about neptune:

Oh wait, what's that?  They made no such prediction and played no part in its discovery?

Quote from: 29silhouette on March 13, 2012, 06:56:33 PM

Using that highly informative link you provided, I read this, "Between the 1st and 3rd centuries the Roman Empire gradually replaced the eight day Roman nundinal cycle with the seven-day week.", and you're correct, Uranus and Neptune are missing.

Doing another search however, one is directed to this information, Uranus was discovered in 1781, and Neptune was discovered in 1846. 

So why am I not suprised they weren't used back in the 3rd century for naming more days?

As the only person to have made a valid point, yours is the post I shall reply to.

What you are saying in essence, is that in 1781 they discovered a new planet and decided to rewrite every chart of our solar system and astrology/astronomy book that had ever been written. They decided it also should follow the naming convention of planets and be named after a Roman god, and they would update all texts relating to this. But they decided not to rename the days of the week to keep them accurate?
What?
And so with the naming convention.
The name Uranus was chosen as the logical addition to the series: for Mars (Ares in Greek) was the son of Jupiter, Jupiter (Zeus in Greek) the son of Saturn, and Saturn (Cronus in Greek) the son of Uranus. So then Neptune doesn't fit. He's not the father of Uranus. He's the son of Saturn and brother of Jupiter. It makes absolutely no sense. RET has yet again driven itself into a position of defying all the rules of logic. This again demonstrates the simplicity and perfection of FET and shows what a mess RET is. Go RErs with your messed up 9 day week and ponder how a man's son should be his father. RET is just nasty.

Neptune was chosen as a name for its blue hue. Neptune is the Roman god of the Sea. Why would scientists rename a whole week for one planet? Days are something we deal with everyday. It affects us directly. Astronomy is different. Sure it's interesting, but it really has no effect in our day to day lives (except if something major occurs, like a solar storm).

Quote from: ClockTower on March 13, 2012, 10:22:14 AM

Typical FE cherry picking! You ignore how GR predicts where Neptune will appear for hundreds of years, and has done so accurately, and ...

I'm going to assume that since GR has not existed for a single century, never-you-mind several to justify "hundreds of years" that you are once more attempting to sound much smarter than you are by using phrases and acronyms you don't fully understand.

More to the point:
<meaningless quotes snipped>

Why do you think the GR has not existed for a single century? If you mean, it's only been documented since 1907, you'd be right. Why would a theory have to be documented to predict where Neptune appeared? You are surely aware that a scientific prediction does not have to be about a future event, just making a statement without knowing if it's correct. For example, the site ephermis.com makes a prediction for Neptune's declination  on 1/1/1700:  - 0°14'38" and for 1/1/2500:  -11°27'38", so GR makes 800 years of predictions. If we can find observations from before Neptune's discovery and find the GR's predictions matches those (and as the SA article explain, we have) then GR made correct predictions.

Also the linked SA article makes your quotes quite meaningless. Neptune is real. Deal with it. Whining that Le Verrier didn't get the volume of Neptune right in his predictions is 1) understandable (He'd have no way of knowing Neptune's density.) and 2) irrelevant (Discovery was successfully based on the predicted RA and Dec.)

Neptune was chosen as a name for its blue hue.

Well Neptune isn't made of water and Uranus was the god of the sky. Uranus would be a correct and logical selection by virtue of linage, but when we reduce it to - "it looks blue and the sea is blue" ... well that's a bit of a mess. This is what I mean. Its all a bit of a bodge. It doesn't fit properly.

Neptune is the Roman god of the Sea. Why would scientists rename a whole week for one planet? Days are something we deal with everyday. It affects us directly. Astronomy is different. Sure it's interesting, but it really has no effect in our day to day lives (except if something major occurs, like a solar storm).

Days of the week are derived because of religion. God took 6 days to make earth and had the 7th day off, defining a week. If God had known about Uranus and Neptune he could have taken his sweet time or made some more cool animals for us ...
On the 7th day God made the unicorn and the dragon, on the 8th day he made the Cyclops people and a species of chocolate donkey and on the 9th day (now known as Nepday) he rested. Go forth and give thanks on the sabbath once every 9 days.

RET has made a mess of everything with the stupid fantasy planets. It flies in the face of all kinds of things from a simple 7 day week to contradicting religious texts.

Quote from: GoldenLily on March 14, 2012, 10:24:09 AM

Neptune was chosen as a name for its blue hue.

Well Neptune isn't made of water and Uranus was the god of the sky. Uranus would be a correct and logical selection by virtue of linage, but when we reduce it to - "it looks blue and the sea is blue" ... well that's a bit of a mess. This is what I mean. Its all a bit of a bodge. It doesn't fit properly.

Quote from: GoldenLily on March 14, 2012, 10:24:09 AM

Neptune is the Roman god of the Sea. Why would scientists rename a whole week for one planet? Days are something we deal with everyday. It affects us directly. Astronomy is different. Sure it's interesting, but it really has no effect in our day to day lives (except if something major occurs, like a solar storm).

Days of the week are derived because of religion. God took 6 days to make earth and had the 7th day off, defining a week. If God had known about Uranus and Neptune he could have taken his sweet time or made some more cool animals for us ...
On the 7th day God made the unicorn and the dragon, on the 8th day he made the Cyclops people and a species or chocolate donkey and on the 9th day (now known as Nepday) he rested. Go forth and give thanks on the sabbath once every 9 days.

RET has made a mess of everything with the stupid fantasy planets. It flies in the face of all kinds of things from a simple 7 day week to contradicting religious texts.

Did you have any argument without appealing to religion or your sense of nature?

It makes absolutely no sense. RET has yet again driven itself into a position of defying all the rules of logic. This again demonstrates the simplicity and perfection of FET and shows what a mess RET is. Go RErs with your messed up 9 day week and ponder how a man's son should be his father. RET is just nasty.

And where in your flat world did you find an expectation of neatness in nature? And, since Science is the study of nature, why should Science be neat, at least according to your sense of neatness?

Nothing is much messier than Quantum Physics, and yet you and I are using computers right now, computers that would be impossible without the messiness of Quantum Physics. And the Solar System is not created to fulfill anyone's expectations. It has radiation that could kill our astronauts, asteroids chaotically orbiting between Mars and Jupiter, asteroids that periodically hit Earth, and a whole Oort belt that we are just starting to study.

But the only thing that is ugly as sin is your inability to make even the most elemental predictions. You cannot even predict where the Sun will be today at dusk from your location using FE "theories".

You cannot even see that people don't care whether the Solar System has anything to do with the days of the week. In fact, tomorrow is Thursday, and your religious ancestors from the times of the Roman Empire did not even bother to put the name of a planet to Thursday. They used the name of the god Thor.

And the Germans did not even bother to dedicate Wednesday to a god or a planet, they simply called it Mittwoch, or middle of the week, as did the Russians and many others. In fact, the Portuguese, who are among the most religious people you might encounter, did not put names of gods or planets to any day of the week whatsoever.

Quote from: GoldenLily on March 14, 2012, 10:24:09 AM

Neptune was chosen as a name for its blue hue.

Well Neptune isn't made of water and Uranus was the god of the sky. Uranus would be a correct and logical selection by virtue of linage, but when we reduce it to - "it looks blue and the sea is blue" ... well that's a bit of a mess. This is what I mean. Its all a bit of a bodge. It doesn't fit properly.

Quote from: GoldenLily on March 14, 2012, 10:24:09 AM

Neptune is the Roman god of the Sea. Why would scientists rename a whole week for one planet? Days are something we deal with everyday. It affects us directly. Astronomy is different. Sure it's interesting, but it really has no effect in our day to day lives (except if something major occurs, like a solar storm).

Days of the week are derived because of religion. God took 6 days to make earth and had the 7th day off, defining a week. If God had known about Uranus and Neptune he could have taken his sweet time or made some more cool animals for us ...
On the 7th day God made the unicorn and the dragon, on the 8th day he made the Cyclops people and a species of chocolate donkey and on the 9th day (now known as Nepday) he rested. Go forth and give thanks on the sabbath once every 9 days.

RET has made a mess of everything with the stupid fantasy planets. It flies in the face of all kinds of things from a simple 7 day week to contradicting religious texts.

Thork, when people are looking at what they think is Neptune, what are they looking at? 4th time I have asked this.
Same goes for looking at Uranus. (No jokes please).

RET is nasty?

[/quote]

That is nasty.