FE and the discovery of Neptune.

When Uranus was discovered in 1781 it was observed that there were deviations in it's orbit from what were predicted by the theory of gravity.Now you could say damn gravity was a good theory but this clearly proves it false. What we really did was what science is all about. Checked every possibility. On June 1, 1846, the French mathematician Urbain Le Verrier published a calculation that explained the discrepancies by predicting the existence of a transuranian planet, and its expected location in the sky. Based on his prediction, the German astronomer Johann Galle and his student, Heinrich Louis d'Arrest, discovered Neptune just after midnight on the night of September 23, 1846.

This entire historical record presents major problems for FE. You must accept that a) Time traveling wizards exist who like to point out planets. b) Gravity exists the way modern science says it does. c) He somehow guessed the location of Neptune. D) The space conspiracy somehow stretches back to the 18th century.

I'm curious which of these four points each of the FE supporters will fall under.

   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."

"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? 

 -- ENaG, Dr. S.B. Rowbotham

Wow, an emotive letter from a charlatan written almost two centuries ago. That's basically as good as rational investigation.

We'll take his figures to be accurate, though I don't know whether or not they are. The prediction of Neptune's position was based on early 19th century observations spanning at most 20 years, probably less, or about 10% of Neptune's orbit. With that limited data, his predictions were good. Good enough to find the planet, crucially.

Given the modern record of observations of Uranus, even a mid 19th century mathematician working without a computer would probably have come up with a pretty accurate prediction. Given a computer, even only using 1850s theory, his prediction would have been exceptionally close.

As a fun experiment to illustrate how accurate (or as Parallax suggests above - how laughably inaccurate) 19th century understanding of gravitation was. Take the table of observations of Uranus, you can use modern ones if you can't find the ancient ones. Next try to infer the position of an unknown perturbing body using only FE theory.

If you get closer than Adams, post a write up!

Wow, an emotive letter from a charlatan written almost two centuries ago. That's basically as good as rational investigation.

The only thing irrational is your complete dismissal of the facts contained therein.  The only part written by Rowbotham was the beginning paragraph and the concluding paragraph. The rest came from the Times and the eminent scholar Alexander von  Humbolt.

As I hold a form of celestial gravitation exists (as do most FE believers of whom I am personally aware) based on available evidence, I would have no truck with Le Verrier's claim, if only it were true. As it stands, the story is a farce. It has been taught mindlessly in classrooms in the mode of "Christopher Columbus proved the earth is round" and "humans only use 10% of their brain".

Maybe Le Verrier stuck to the Titius-Bode law too much.

(I fixed your link for you)

At anyrate, he was clearly influenced by Bodes law, but it was essentially an "accidental" discovery -- not one based on maths. Neptune, happily for the myth, happened to be at the right (wrong?) place at the right time. 

From Cosmos without (attractive) Gravitation:

The greatest triumph of the theory of gravitation was the discovery of the planet Neptune, the position of which was calculated simultaneously by Adams and Leverrier from the perturbations experienced by Uranus. But in the controversy which ensued concerning the priority in announcing the existence of Neptune, it was stressed that neither of the two scholars was the real discoverer, as both of them calculated very erroneously the distance of Neptune from the orbit of Uranus. Yet, even if the computations were correct, there would be no proof that gravitation and not another energy acts between Uranus and Neptune. The gravitational pull decreases as the square of the distance. Electricity and magnetism act in the same way. Newton was mistaken when he ascribed to magnetism a decrease that follows the cube of the distance (Principia, Book III, Proposition V, Corr. V).


Here is the barometer pressure paradox, a clear defiance of attractive gravity:

The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.

It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

The greatest triumph of the theory of gravitation was the discovery of the planet Neptune,

I would say its greatest triumph is in accurately predicting almost every related motion, celestial or otherwise for several centuries. But the discovery of Neptune was a pretty good moment.

there would be no proof that gravitation and not another energy acts between Uranus and Neptune

Is this a serious suggestion that there is an vast, electrostatic attraction between Neptune and Uranus? Or am I misreading it?

The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.

Nonsense, they're tidal effects predicted entirely by gravitation.

The only thing irrational is your complete dismissal of the facts contained therein.  The only part written by Rowbotham was the beginning paragraph and the concluding paragraph. The rest came from the Times and the eminent scholar Alexander von  Humbolt.

If you'll recall, I took the facts as read and didn't so much as question them, let alone dismiss them. I dismissed -with good reason- the conclusions. With imperfect observations covering only a small part of a single orbit of a very distant planet, a man working alone and without a computer iterated by hand several possible places for this unseen perturbing body. He thought he'd found a pretty good guess, so he went with it. The guess turned out to be close enough that the body was observed.

He got closer than our "eminent scholar" Alexander von Humbolt got (to the best of my knowledge), for example. There are newer observations, of course, that fully agree with gravitation, we don't have to live in the 19th century.

As I hold a form of celestial gravitation exists (as do most FE believers of whom I am personally aware)

That's interesting, most of the locals I've talked to around here prefer to dismiss gravitation. Presumably you think the earth is a large or infinite plane then, with linear gravity, rather than a small one with a UA beneath it?

Also, point of interest: I think you're using that phrase incorrectly. To have truck with something is to accept it. You seem to be saying that you would have no agreement with his ideas if they were true. Which is a bit frank even around here.

That's interesting, most of the locals I've talked to around here prefer to dismiss gravitation. Presumably you think the earth is a large or infinite plane then, with linear gravity, rather than a small one with a UA beneath it?

Many people believe in gravitation without believing in gravity.  This concept if fairly common. 

Indeed? That's the opposite of the impression I've gotten from reading these boards.

So the idea that the same thing is responsible for things falling off tables, the moon causing tides and Jupiter being where we expect it to be, that's generally accepted here? You could have (and did) fool me.

If you'll recall, I took the facts as read and didn't so much as question them, let alone dismiss them. I dismissed -with good reason- the conclusions. With imperfect observations covering only a small part of a single orbit of a very distant planet, a man working alone and without a computer iterated by hand several possible places for this unseen perturbing body. He thought he'd found a pretty good guess, so he went with it. The guess turned out to be close enough that the body was observed.

The guess was pure luck as any real examination of the "facts" would show you.

He got closer than our "eminent scholar" Alexander von Humbolt got (to the best of my knowledge), for example. There are newer observations, of course, that fully agree with gravitation, we don't have to live in the 19th century.

I'm sure you have no idea who von Humbolt was, so I'll ignore your dismissive tone. Whether new observations agree with some form of celestial gravitation (which noone is arguing at the moment) is completely irrelevant to the claim that Neptune was somehow discovered by a model of it.

That's interesting, most of the locals I've talked to around here prefer to dismiss gravitation. Presumably you think the earth is a large or infinite plane then, with linear gravity, rather than a small one with a UA beneath it?

I don't think you should use gravity and gravitation interchangeably.

The guess was pure luck as any real examination of the "facts" would show you.

Nothing in what you posted even suggests that. He was well within an order of magnitude on all counts and the proof of the pudding is in the eating: the planet was found due to his prediction:
"Neptune was discovered just after midnight,[1] after less than an hour of searching and less than 1 degree from the position Le Verrier had predicted"
so any whinging about how the one-man hand-calculated estimate was only 80% of the true orbital axis or whatever, seems a little petty.

I'm sure you have no idea who von Humbolt was, so I'll ignore your dismissive tone. Whether new observations agree with some form of celestial gravitation (which noone is arguing at the moment) is completely irrelevant to the claim that Neptune was somehow discovered by a model of it.

It's entirely relevant, because they agree with the same version of gravitation that he was using. Newton was right in the 17th century and is still right now (in context). What could be more relevant? It goes to show that he was using the correct theory but that his final accuracy was inevitably hampered by the limits of the computing power available and the range and accuracy of observational data to use as a basis. My point, which stands, is that it is those limits that caused the inaccuracies, not some fundamental problem with the theory, and that, even so the inaccuracies were not significant enough to prevent the discovery.

I don't think you should use gravity and gravitation interchangeably.

Until a scrap of evidence exists to suggest that they aren't interchangeable, I expect I'll continue to do so. Do you any such evidence?

What do you believe causes things to fall to the ground if not gravitation, btw? I think I asked before but it got lost in there somewhere.

the clown wrote:

Nonsense, they're tidal effects predicted entirely by gravitation.

Now, here is the correct station pressure data as it is measured all around the world.

First reference.


NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm

Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.


Second reference.

GRAPHS SHOWING THE DAILY SEMIDIURNAL BAROMETRIC PRESSURE CHANGES AT 10:00 AM/10:00 PM (MAXIMUMS) AND 4:00 PM/4:00 AM (MINIMUMS):

http://www.geografia.fflch.usp.br/graduacao/apoio/Apoio/Apoio_Elisa/flg0355/textos/Ahrens_cap9.pdf (PG. 211)


Third reference.

A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. While the amplitude of these waves may vary greatly with latitude, with elevation, and with location, whether over the sea or over the land, the local times of maxima and minima are very constant.

http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinobserv06terruoft/bulletinobserv06terruoft_djvu.txt
(Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)


A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes.

ALL LATITUDES, no exception recorded.

EVER.


Fourth reference.

It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.


Lord Rayleigh himself did not deny the phenomenon at all: he simply was not able to find an explanation.


Fifth reference.

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The variations are primarily the result of the combined effects of the sun's gravitational attraction and solar heating, with solar heating being the major component.

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001


THIS REFERENCE EVEN HAS A GRAPH ATTACHED WHICH DOES SHOW THE 10:00 AM AND 10:00 PM MAXIMUMS (PAGE 569).


The best reference from Soil Engineering.

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.


Sixth reference.

The barometric pressure curve shows a portion of the normal twice-daily oscillation that occurs due to solar and lunar gravitational forces (atmospheric tides), with high pressures at approximately 10:00 AM and PM, and low pressures at 4:00 AM and PM.

http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF


Seventh reference.


http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/diurnal.html

Surface pressure measurements in Taiwan (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.


Eighth reference.


http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false

THIS IS REAL SCIENCE: DAILY SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETER PRESSURE READING.

Maximums at 10:00 am and 10:00 pm, and minimums at 4:00 am and 4:00 pm.



To deny this body of very clear evidence means to leave the realm of science and enter the field of psychiatry.


Ninth reference.

Humboldt carried a barometer with him on his famous South American journeys of 1799-1804. In his book Cosmos he remarked that the two daily maxima at about 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. were so regular that his barometer could serve somewhat as a clock.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/29_Atmos_Tides.pdf



U.S. Weather Bureau, “Ten-Year Normals of Pressure Tendencies and Hourly Station Pressures for the United States,”
Technical Paper No. 1, Washington, D.C. 1943.

Semidiurnal variations: maximums at 10:00 am/10:00 pm and minimums at 4:00 pm/4:00 am




Surface pressure exhibits a remarkably stable semidiurnal oscillation with maxima at 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. and minima at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. local time. This semidiurnal oscillation in surface pressure is a universal phenomenon observed worldwide and can be identified even in disturbed weather conditions.

http://amselvam.webs.com/SEN1/bio2met.htm



READ CAREFULLY:

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.


A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. (Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)


ALL LATITUDES, no exception recorded.

Surface pressure exhibits a remarkably stable semidiurnal oscillation with maxima at 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. and minima at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. local time. This semidiurnal oscillation in surface pressure is a universal phenomenon observed worldwide and can be identified even in disturbed weather conditions.


One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m.

The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations.

If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


Lord Rayleigh: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’


It cannot be explained at all: your vickypedia reference is useless, as it does not address the paradox itself -



One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m.

The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations.

If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

Wow. First off, if you have 10 sources for the same information, especially if it's thoroughly uncontentious information just give one. Please 

Right. So on further reading, it's actually much more interesting than just a tidal effect. Your references and other authors describe primarily a 24hr cycle of regular pressure changes around the world but also a smaller 12hr cycle overlaid on that and other variations further overlaid on those. You claim that they happen at "ALL LATITUDES, no exception recorded." which they sort of do, except they are much stronger at the equator than at the poles. The atmosphere is a single fluid body, and the causes: daylight and tidal forces act globally, not just at a single latitude, so of course the effects are observed globally. These effects are strongest at the equator (specifically the latitude directly facing the sun) and weakest at the poles, though. There's a clue in there.

There's a ton of information out there and it seems as though the short answer is that there is one major cause, which is sunlight. This is (obviously) mostly a 24hr pattern, but harmonic effects cause smaller 12hr cycles and other even shorter cycles as well. On top of that, there are local variations which don't migrate steadily with the sun illustrated in this epic gif, they are caused by the landscape and prevailing weather patterns lower in the atmosphere and so on. Sadly it was built on newer information than was available to Lord Rayleigh, so it's probably inadmissible here. On top of all that there is a small lunar tide and many other variables besides.

So, the question is, if every expert on earth (even the ones you reference) is happy that these patterns are commonplace and caused primarily by sunlight then complicated a little by harmonics and some other things

-The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun
-The barometric pressure curve shows a portion of the normal twice-daily oscillation that occurs due to solar and lunar gravitational forces (atmospheric tides)
-and so on and so forth

how is it that you personally conclude instead that:

The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations.

I (and every expert I've read from in your references and elsewhere) don't jump to that conclusion. But you do. Furthermore, you jump again:

If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

And from there you jump again to describing it as a:

paradox ... a clear defiance of attractive gravity

Your conclusion is your own, I suppose. May it bring you much joy.

I am interested, however, in whether your own cosmology offers some predictive model which you find more satisfying. Does the earth being flat or some other totally legit premise explain these things in a way that's more to your liking? Or are you mostly interested in finding things in the |OFFICIAL ACCOUNT| that you don't understand and concluding whatever you like, so long as it's not what |THEY| want you to think?

Lord Rayleigh: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’

Lord Rayleigh does jump directly to that conclusion.


If the Sun had any effect on the semidiurnal atmospheric tide, it would be observable as follows:

Maximum barometer pressure : 2:00 - 4:00 am

Minimum barometer pressure: 12:00 - 2:00 pm


However, the barometer pressure paradox contradicts this data.

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m.

The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations.

Therefore,

If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


It is as basic as this: your discourse (cleverly) avoided discussing these very facts.



Please do your homework.


Dr. T. Henry Moray:

During the Christmas Holidays of 1911, I began to fully realize that the energy I was working with was not of a static nature, but of an oscillating nature. Further I realized that the energy was not coming out of the earth, but instead was coming to the earth from some outside source. These electrical oscillations in the form of waves were not simple oscillations, but were surgings --- like the waves of the sea --- coming to the earth continually, more in the daytime than at night, but always coming in vibrations from the reservoir of colossal energy out there in space.


While investigating the output of his device, he discovered a feature of the natural static energy, which had somehow been overlooked by other aerial battery designers. The electrostatic power had a flimmering, pulsating quality to it. He learned of this "static pulsation" while listening through headphones, which were connected to telephone wires. The static came in a single, potent surge. This first "wave" subsided, with numerous "back surges" following. Soon thereafter, the process repeated itself. The static surges came "like ocean waves". Indeed, with the volume of "white noise" which they produced, they sounded like ocean waves!

These peculiar waves did not arrive with "clock precision". Just like ocean waves, they arrived in schedules of their own. Dr. Moray was convinced that these were world-permeating waves. He came to believe that they represented the natural "cadence of the universe". This intriguing characteristic suggested that small amounts of pulsating electrostatic charge might be used to induce large oscillations in a large "tank" of charge.


It is these very telluric waves/strings which do cause what we call terrestrial gravitation, and the barometer pressure paradox.


Dayton Miller proved long ago the existence of periodic waves of telluric currents (ether):



PERIODICITY OF GLOBAL ETHER-DRIFT, from Dayton Miller's Mount Wilson Ether-Drift Experiments, 1925-26. The Top Graph above plots data from four separate months or epochs, measured at different times of the year and organized by sidereal time, showing a definite periodic curve. The heavy line is the mean of all four epochs. The Bottom Graph (above) plots the same data organized by civil clock time coordinates; here, the plotted data spreads out along the graph, without apparent periodicity. This demonstrates, the detected axis and periodicity of ether drift is the same for different times of year, but can only be seen when the data is viewed within a cosmological, sidereal coordinate system. (From Miller 1928, p.362)

"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

Dayton Miller's 1933 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics details the positive results from over 20 years of experimental research into the question of ether-drift, and remains the most definitive body of work on the subject of light-beam interferometry.


 As a graduate of physics from Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society and Acoustical Society of America, Chairman of the Division of Physical Sciences of the National Research Council, Chairman of the Physics Department of Case School of Applied Science (today Case Western Reserve University), and Member of the National Academy of Sciences well known for his work in acoustics, Miller was no "outsider". While he was alive, he produced a series of papers presenting solid data on the existence of a measurable ether-drift, and he successfully defended his findings to not a small number of critics, including Einstein.


I am interested, however, in whether your own cosmology offers some predictive model which you find more satisfying. Does the earth being flat or some other totally legit premise explain these things in a way that's more to your liking? Or are you mostly interested in finding things in the |OFFICIAL ACCOUNT| that you don't understand and concluding whatever you like, so long as it's not what |THEY| want you to think?

My cosmology is based on the correct model of the atom, namely this:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27426.msg1424161#msg1424161


SUBQUARK ETHER PHYSICS:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27426.msg1424613#msg1424613


HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, QUARKS AND STRINGS:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf (Dr. Stephen Phillips, UCLA, Cambridge)

So, more early 1900s references? Excellent. I do so hate all human knowledge learned after 1940. So gauche.

Even Rayleigh didn't actually jump to that conclusion. He only said the fact that the change in pressure didn't correspond directly and immediately to the change in incident sunlight was a mystery to him. None of your other sources, particularly the modern ones seem surprised by this. It seems to be a long settled curiosity that if you have a huge square(ish) wave, such as the amount of incoming sunlight on a point on the earth which does lead directly to a corresponding change in pressure (the one Rayleigh was expecting) then you will inevitably get harmonic or sympathetic waves overlaid as well. They'll mostly have half the period of the primary wave, which is where the smaller amplitude, 12hr cycle comes from, but there are also other ones, smaller still  with 6 or 8 hour periods. These are detectable as well, as are the effect of the gravity of the sun and moon.

Lord Rayleigh, at the end of the 19th century, was surprised that daily pressure changes didn't look like a simple sine wave synced up with the sun.

That is hardly enough to conclude that "the same mass of air gravitates with changing force" and then to conclude that the extra energy comes from the ether. If you're really convinced that there are great truths being missed by the establishment, become a meteorologist, or at least talk to a living one, or at the very least read something written by a published researcher still employed this century.

Dayton Miller proved long ago the existence of periodic waves of telluric currents (ether)

Dayton Miller did no such thing. Not only have his results never been replicated (through no lack of trying as experiments regarding relativity would have shown relevant results) but his peers and his colleagues and his detractors, and later scientists and statisticians to this day agree that even his own results support the null hypothesis.

1955: Robert S. Shankland, S. W. McCuskey, F. C. Leone, and G. Kuerti noted that the "signal" that Miller observed in 1933 is actually composed of points that are an average of several hundred measurements each, and the magnitude of the signal is more than 10 times smaller than the resolution with which the measurements were recorded. Miller's extraction of a single value for the measurement is statistically impossible.

2006: This paper presents a complete explanation for his anomalous result by:
a) showing that his results are not statistically significant
b) describing in detail how flaws in his analysis procedure produced a false signal with precisely the properties he expected
c) presenting a quantitative model of his systematic drift that shows there is no real signal in his data

Absolutely anyone, even those of the highest integrity will find results in their experiments that aren't there. Especially if they're certain of them before they begin. That is the fundamental reason that experiments are subject to peer review.

Or, if you don't think that one man can be mistaken about something he believes passionately in, how would you explain relativity's predictive success and use in functioning engineering compared to the disappearance of ether and the existence of no real world applications for its predictions?

I tried to read everything in those links, I really did. But it degenerated so rapidly into vague claims about ESP predicting the next stage in particle physics that I couldn't do more than skip read it. Same question though, I suppose. Why is it that real physics is agreed on by any experiment from any independent researchers (in a simple sense) and that their findings can then be used by anyone else to actually predict  things or make things while this more "true" physics of yours isn't and can't?

Quote from: Ski on May 23, 2014, 12:44:41 PM

The guess was pure luck as any real examination of the "facts" would show you.

Nothing in what you posted even suggests that. He was well within an order of magnitude on all counts and the proof of the pudding is in the eating: the planet was found due to his prediction:

It's entirely relevant, because they agree with the same version of gravitation that he was using. Newton was right in the 17th century and is still right now (in context). What could be more relevant?

The faith with which you cling to the stories told to you, is admirable if misplaced. It is a myth, and was even acknowledged as such at the time. Why it perpetuates to this day, like the legends of Columbus, I'll let you decide, but the facts are undeniable; it was a fluke, not a mathematically predicted discovery.

The eccentricity of Venus is 0-007, the smallest before known; that of Neptune is 0 005.
If we admit for the moment that my views are correct, then LeVerrier's announcement of March 29th is in perfect accordance with that of Professor Peirce of the 16th of the same month, viz. that the present visible planet Neptune is not the mathematical planet to which theory had directed the telescope. None of its elements conform to the theoretical limits. Nor does it perform the functions on which alone its existence was predicted, viz. those of removing that opprobrium of astronomers, the unexplained perturbations of Uranus.

We have it on the authority of Professor Peirce that if we ascribe to Neptune a mass of three-fourths of the amount predicted by LeVerrier, it will have the best possible effect in reducing the residual perturbations of Uranus below their former value; but will nevertheless leave them on the average two-thirds as great as before.

It is indeed remarkable that the two distinguished European astronomers, LeVerrier and Adams, should, by a wrong hypothesis, have been led to a right conclusion respecting the actual position of a planet in the heavens. It required for their success a compensation of errors. The unforeseen error of sixty years in their assumed period was compensated by the other unforeseen error of their assumed office of the planet. If both of them had committed only one theoretical error, (not then, but now believed to be such,) they would, according to Prof. Peirce's computations, have agreed in pointing the telescope in the wrong direction, and Neptune might have been unknown for years to come.

That's an interesting take, and I'll definitely have a read to see if there's any more to that interpretation of what happened. But. As I said before, the more important thing is that they were using the correct model of gravitation. A model which, given more accurate observations as a basis and a bit of computing power, would have predicted very precisely the position of Neptune. Gravitation is the same then as it is now. So whether or not you buy that it did happen to accurately predict the position of Neptune that one time, you are at least tacitly buying its existence, as formulated by Newton centuries ago and its successes ever since.

You didn't answer me before, by the way, what causes things to fall to the floor on your flat earth? Is it gravitation, but of a wide planar earth rather than a sphere?

As I said before, the more important thing is that they were using the correct model of gravitation.

No, what was stated by the OP (and you, several times) was that we know it is the correct model of gravitation because Le Verriere did some maths and pointed his telescope and found Neptune. This is decidedly not the case. It is fiction. A fairy tale of the Orthodoxy.

Gravitation is the same then as it is now. So whether or not you buy that it did happen to accurately predict the position of Neptune that one time, you are at least tacitly buying its existence, as formulated by Newton centuries ago and its successes ever since.

You should study the latest catechisms if the Orthodoxy, if you wish to be a good adherent. Gravitation is not at all the same now as then according to the latest doctrines.

You didn't answer me before, by the way, what causes things to fall to the floor on your flat earth? Is it gravitation, but of a wide planar earth rather than a sphere?

Personally, I believe the floor accelerates to meet objects "falling."  An infinite plane could also provide a source of measurable and consistent gravitation, as in the Davis model, but I do not adhere to it.   

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on May 26, 2014, 01:28:34 PM

As I said before, the more important thing is that they were using the correct model of gravitation.

No, what was stated by the OP (and you, several times) was that we know it is the correct model of gravitation because Le Verriere did some maths and pointed his telescope and found Neptune. This is decidedly not the case. It is fiction. A fairy tale of the Orthodoxy.

Quote

Gravitation is the same then as it is now. So whether or not you buy that it did happen to accurately predict the position of Neptune that one time, you are at least tacitly buying its existence, as formulated by Newton centuries ago and its successes ever since.

You should study the latest catechisms if the Orthodoxy, if you wish to be a good adherent. Gravitation is not at all the same now as then according to the latest doctrines.

Quote

You didn't answer me before, by the way, what causes things to fall to the floor on your flat earth? Is it gravitation, but of a wide planar earth rather than a sphere?

Personally, I believe the floor accelerates to meet objects "falling."  An infinite plane could also provide a source of measurable and consistent gravitation, as in the Davis model, but I do not adhere to it.

How does that apply to places like New York and Perth on different sides of the round earth?  We know it's round from following the sun and measuring angles.

We know it's round from following the sun and measuring angles.

We do, do we?

You should study the latest catechisms if the Orthodoxy, if you wish to be a good adherent. Gravitation is not at all the same now as then according to the latest doctrines

I last properly studied physics a decade ago but I keep up with science news. Are you suggesting that Newtonian gravitation wouldn't accurately predict the position of Neptune (given a better chance)? Because it would. Or are you referring to the fact that physics wasn't completed in the 17th century and that we have better models than Newtonian gravitation? Because of course we do, but that doesn't change the point.1

No, what was stated by the OP (and you, several times) was that we know it is the correct model of gravitation because Le Verriere did some maths and pointed his telescope and found Neptune

I said that it was a nice example of the theory in action, sure, but it's hardly the only time that Newton's laws have ever made a prediction! Our world is built on them! I also said that however accurate that single calculated estimate was or wasn't, was -in any case- only due to the accuracy of observations and the limited computing power. There's no getting out of the fact that even if it was pure luck, or if it had never even been attempted, that Scientist A. Smith that same year armed with a calculator and a better table of observations could have predicted Neptune's position extremely accurately with the same techniques. So the example can hardly be used to call the technique into question, whether it was a fluke or not.

You can say this is a simple fairy tale told to children and that it's not really true, but actual science isn't built on neat little stories like this, pseudo science is. These stories are what they tell to children, but you folks seem to stop listening at age 8 and assume that this is all there is to it The idea that the world fell into stunned awe of a theory because some guy found a planet with it one time is laughable. It's a nice anecdote from a hundred years ago, but there's a little more to learn than anecdotes.

Personally, I believe the floor accelerates to meet objects "falling."

Huh. In that case, how is it that gravity varies as you move across the surface and change altitude?

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on May 22, 2014, 04:01:48 PM

Wow, an emotive letter from a charlatan written almost two centuries ago. That's basically as good as rational investigation.

The only thing irrational is your complete dismissal of the facts contained therein.  The only part written by Rowbotham was the beginning paragraph and the concluding paragraph. The rest came from the Times and the eminent scholar Alexander von  Humbolt.

As I hold a form of celestial gravitation exists (as do most FE believers of whom I am personally aware) based on available evidence, I would have no truck with Le Verrier's claim, if only it were true. As it stands, the story is a farce. It has been taught mindlessly in classrooms in the mode of "Christopher Columbus proved the earth is round" and "humans only use 10% of their brain".

Orrr... maybe because his facts are outdated? Have you ever heard of modern science and history?

Or are you referring to the fact that physics wasn't completed in the 17th century and that we have better models than Newtonian gravitation?

Why are you intermixing the terms gravitation and gravity? :/  And are you implying that physics is now complete?!

Quote

No, what was stated by the OP (and you, several times) was that we know it is the correct model of gravitation because Le Verriere did some maths and pointed his telescope and found Neptune

I said that it was a nice example of the theory in action, sure,

Except that it is not...

So the example can hardly be used to call the technique into question, whether it was a fluke or not.

I'm sometimes not sure where you are being deliberately obtuse and not.

Quote

Personally, I believe the floor accelerates to meet objects "falling."

Huh. In that case, how is it that gravity varies as you move across the surface and change altitude?

Celestial gravitation

Quote from: Ski on May 22, 2014, 08:25:09 PM

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on May 22, 2014, 04:01:48 PM

Wow, an emotive letter from a charlatan written almost two centuries ago. That's basically as good as rational investigation.

The only thing irrational is your complete dismissal of the facts contained therein.  The only part written by Rowbotham was the beginning paragraph and the concluding paragraph. The rest came from the Times and the eminent scholar Alexander von  Humbolt.

As I hold a form of celestial gravitation exists (as do most FE believers of whom I am personally aware) based on available evidence, I would have no truck with Le Verrier's claim, if only it were true. As it stands, the story is a farce. It has been taught mindlessly in classrooms in the mode of "Christopher Columbus proved the earth is round" and "humans only use 10% of their brain".

Orrr... maybe because his facts are outdated? Have you ever heard of modern science and history?

 

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on May 26, 2014, 05:27:05 PM

Or are you referring to the fact that physics wasn't completed in the 17th century and that we have better models than Newtonian gravitation?

Why are you intermixing the terms gravitation and gravity? :/  And are you implying that physics is now complete?!

Quote

Quote

No, what was stated by the OP (and you, several times) was that we know it is the correct model of gravitation because Le Verriere did some maths and pointed his telescope and found Neptune

I said that it was a nice example of the theory in action, sure,

Except that it is not...

Quote

So the example can hardly be used to call the technique into question, whether it was a fluke or not.

I'm sometimes not sure where you are being deliberately obtuse and not.

Quote

Quote

Personally, I believe the floor accelerates to meet objects "falling."

Huh. In that case, how is it that gravity varies as you move across the surface and change altitude?

Celestial gravitation

Which should be impossible as the celestial gears more objects in the sky around. Low/high gravity spots would move with the stars. Strangely, this has not be documented anywhere.

You don't believe in gravitational tidal measurements? 

You don't believe in gravitational tidal measurements? 

I don't believe you have a working model to accurately predict the variations in local gravitation.  I do believe that this is mostly posturing on your part.

You don't believe in gravitational tidal measurements? 

I don't believe in these measurements moving around to follow the sky.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Local_topography_and_geology