• 29
##### Explanation of sun's motion
« on: April 28, 2016, 08:40:26 PM »
The standard FET model asserts that the sun revolves over the surface of the earth at an altitude of roughly 3000 miles, making one revolution around the North Pole per day. This stands in apparent contradiction to contemporary mainstream physics, which requires a centrifugal force to keep the sun from flying off at a tangent into the Beyond. In an effort to see if the FE model could be reconciled with mainstream physics, I came up with the following possible solution, and I’d like to hear what our Flatlanders think about it. Here it is:

The sun is tethered by a spring, or perhaps a bungee cord, to the North Pole, which extends at least 3000 miles above the earth’s surface. This spring oscillates with a period of one year. The oscillation of a spring produces harmonic motion, i.e., the distance of the sun from the Pole will vary with time as a sinusoidal curve, which is exactly what we see with the seasonal variation of the sun’s apparent altitude at noon above the horizon.

True, conservation of angular momentum would require the sun to move faster (resulting in shorter days) when it is closer to the Pole, but work with me here. Another problem to be solved is what prevents the sun and earth from colliding, if we assume the mainstream theory of gravitation. Yet another is how this whole setup originated.

FE fans, do you believe that the standard FET model of the sun’s motion (as well as that of the moon) is consistent with contemporary mainstream physics? If not, what theory or theories do you have to replace the currently accepted theories of physics, or at least the parts that seem to contradict FET? You do realize, I assume, that you can’t just toss out a hugely successful set of theories without coming up with theories that are at least as successful at explanation and prediction -- otherwise why would anyone rationally want to bother with FET?

#### Woody

• 241
##### Re: Explanation of sun's motion
« Reply #1 on: April 29, 2016, 05:29:11 AM »
You forgot to mention at least Mercury and Venus orbit the sun as is circles above us.

The wiki says says the planets orbit the sun.  I am not sure if that includes all the planets.

Seeing how we never see any other planets pass in front of the sun I am thinking the wiki is talking about just those two.

#### rabinoz

• 1441
• Just look South at the Stars
##### Re: Explanation of sun's motion
« Reply #2 on: April 30, 2016, 12:58:27 PM »
You forgot to mention at least Mercury and Venus orbit the sun as is circles above us.

The wiki says says the planets orbit the sun.  I am not sure if that includes all the planets.

Seeing how we never see any other planets pass in front of the sun I am thinking the wiki is talking about just those two.

No-one seems to be able to offer any explanation as why only Mercury and Venus transit the sun.
Not only that but Mercury and Venus are the only planets that show phases almost like the moon.

Those are observable facts, even Captain James Cook knew about the transits of Venus!

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 10625
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Explanation of sun's motion
« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2016, 07:55:34 AM »
You forgot to mention at least Mercury and Venus orbit the sun as is circles above us.

The wiki says says the planets orbit the sun.  I am not sure if that includes all the planets.

Seeing how we never see any other planets pass in front of the sun I am thinking the wiki is talking about just those two.

No-one seems to be able to offer any explanation as why only Mercury and Venus transit the sun.
Not only that but Mercury and Venus are the only planets that show phases almost like the moon.

Those are observable facts, even Captain James Cook knew about the transits of Venus!

Why would all of the planets transit the sun? Mercury and Venus are the closest ones to it.

#### rabinoz

• 1441
• Just look South at the Stars
##### Re: Explanation of sun's motion
« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2016, 10:04:45 AM »
You forgot to mention at least Mercury and Venus orbit the sun as is circles above us.

The wiki says says the planets orbit the sun.  I am not sure if that includes all the planets.

Seeing how we never see any other planets pass in front of the sun I am thinking the wiki is talking about just those two.

No-one seems to be able to offer any explanation as why only Mercury and Venus transit the sun.
Not only that but Mercury and Venus are the only planets that show phases almost like the moon.

Those are observable facts, even Captain James Cook knew about the transits of Venus!

Why would all of the planets transit the sun? Mercury and Venus are the closest ones to it.
Why would they never transit? And you forgot about, why are Mercury and Venus are the only planets that show phases almost like the moon?
The other planets do have slight phase changes, only gibbous and full, while Mercury and Venus show the full range of phases. There are other quite significant differences, but the crucial point is what is so completely different about Mercury and Venus.

No problem with the Globe, it's simply that Mercury and Venus are closer to the Sun that the Earth and other planets.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 10625
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Explanation of sun's motion
« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2016, 10:41:40 AM »
You forgot to mention at least Mercury and Venus orbit the sun as is circles above us.

The wiki says says the planets orbit the sun.  I am not sure if that includes all the planets.

Seeing how we never see any other planets pass in front of the sun I am thinking the wiki is talking about just those two.

No-one seems to be able to offer any explanation as why only Mercury and Venus transit the sun.
Not only that but Mercury and Venus are the only planets that show phases almost like the moon.

Those are observable facts, even Captain James Cook knew about the transits of Venus!

Why would all of the planets transit the sun? Mercury and Venus are the closest ones to it.
Why would they never transit? And you forgot about, why are Mercury and Venus are the only planets that show phases almost like the moon?
The other planets do have slight phase changes, only gibbous and full, while Mercury and Venus show the full range of phases. There are other quite significant differences, but the crucial point is what is so completely different about Mercury and Venus.

No problem with the Globe, it's simply that Mercury and Venus are closer to the Sun that the Earth and other planets.

Why do they have to transit? It makes sense that only the closest planets would transit. Obviously Pluto or Uranus aren't going to get in the way of you and the sun.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2016, 07:24:36 PM by Tom Bishop »

• 29
##### Re: Explanation of sun's motion
« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2016, 05:35:45 PM »
I would still like to see a reply to the questions I posed in my OP. In particular, I would like to see the FET explanation of the causes of the sun's purported motions over the surface of the earth. I offered a possible explanation to get things started. To recap, I suggested that the sun is tethered by a spring to the North Pole, which extends at least 3000 miles above the earth's surface. The dynamics of a spring explain the seasonal variation of the sun's position beautifully.

So let us please see an explanation from the FE camp; otherwise we may have to go back to the theory of that nasty Isaac Newton, which involves a round earth.

#### Woody

• 241
##### Re: Explanation of sun's motion
« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2016, 07:25:42 PM »
You forgot to mention at least Mercury and Venus orbit the sun as is circles above us.

The wiki says says the planets orbit the sun.  I am not sure if that includes all the planets.

Seeing how we never see any other planets pass in front of the sun I am thinking the wiki is talking about just those two.

No-one seems to be able to offer any explanation as why only Mercury and Venus transit the sun.
Not only that but Mercury and Venus are the only planets that show phases almost like the moon.

Those are observable facts, even Captain James Cook knew about the transits of Venus!

Why would all of the planets transit the sun? Mercury and Venus are the closest ones to it.
Why would they never transit? And you forgot about, why are Mercury and Venus are the only planets that show phases almost like the moon?
The other planets do have slight phase changes, only gibbous and full, while Mercury and Venus show the full range of phases. There are other quite significant differences, but the crucial point is what is so completely different about Mercury and Venus.

No problem with the Globe, it's simply that Mercury and Venus are closer to the Sun that the Earth and other planets.

Why do they have to transit? It makes sense that only the closest planets would transit. Obviously Uranus isn't going to get in the way of you and the sun.

So I was right in assuming the wiki meant only Mercury and Venus orbit the Sun, unless the other planets orbit outside the habitable plane of Earth.  If that is the case what observations led to the conclusion that all of the planets are orbiting the sun and that they are not moving for the same reason as the stars?

Why do these other planets have orbits that include making a loop and things like Venus, Mercury, and all the observable moons in our system orbit as we are told they do in the RE model.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 10625
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Explanation of sun's motion
« Reply #8 on: May 02, 2016, 01:08:06 AM »
So I was right in assuming the wiki meant only Mercury and Venus orbit the Sun, unless the other planets orbit outside the habitable plane of Earth.  If that is the case what observations led to the conclusion that all of the planets are orbiting the sun and that they are not moving for the same reason as the stars?

Why do these other planets have orbits that include making a loop and things like Venus, Mercury, and all the observable moons in our system orbit as we are told they do in the RE model.

They don't necessarily need to be outside of the habitable plane, they just need to be far away from the sun that they would never be in a position to get between the distance between you and the sun when it sets.

#### rabinoz

• 1441
• Just look South at the Stars
##### Re: Explanation of sun's motion
« Reply #9 on: May 02, 2016, 01:30:07 AM »
Why do they have to transit? It makes sense that only the closest planets would transit. Obviously Pluto or Uranus aren't going to get in the way of you and the sun.
You completely ignore the other parts of the earlier posts!

Mercury and Venus are the only planets that show phases almost like the moon. Why is it so?
When Mercury and Venus appear largest (ie closest to us) they have a shape like a crescent moon and are very close in the sky to the sun (they sometimes even transit).

ALL the other planets when they appear largest (ie closest to us) have a completely full shape (though most are too small to discern) and are furthest in the sky from the sun (overhead at MIDNIGHT).

In other words there is a very big difference in the behaviour of Mercury and Venus from all the other planets that cannot simply be put down to distance from the sun.

Also you claim that Venus and Mercury are closer to the sun than the other planets. Would you please show some evidence for this. I have never seen any evidence for any calculations for these for the flat earth model.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 10625
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Explanation of sun's motion
« Reply #10 on: May 02, 2016, 01:33:22 AM »
Why do they have to transit? It makes sense that only the closest planets would transit. Obviously Pluto or Uranus aren't going to get in the way of you and the sun.
You completely ignore the other parts of the earlier posts!

Mercury and Venus are the only planets that show phases almost like the moon. Why is it so?
When Mercury and Venus appear largest (ie closest to us) they have a shape like a crescent moon and are very close in the sky to the sun (they sometimes even transit).

ALL the other planets when they appear largest (ie closest to us) have a completely full shape (though most are too small to discern) and are furthest in the sky from the sun (overhead at MIDNIGHT).

In other words there is a very big difference in the behaviour of Mercury and Venus from all the other planets that cannot simply be put down to distance from the sun.

Also you claim that Venus and Mercury are closer to the sun than the other planets. Would you please show some evidence for this. I have never seen any evidence for any calculations for these for the flat earth model.

Firstly, we don't see all of the sky over the earth. Much of it is lost to the perspective that causes the sun and stars to set (or perhaps the EA if one subscribes to that). We only see a limited portion of the sky at any one time.

In order to see the phases of the planets, the planet needs to be seen from all positions as it circles the sun. Mercury and Venus are close enough that their small circuits are viewable from many positions.

If the orbit of a distant planet is really big, you are not going to be able to see it in all positions of its orbit around the sun, only when it is over you when it is night and opposite from the sun. Hence, no or limited phases (as in the case of mars).
« Last Edit: May 02, 2016, 01:46:13 AM by Tom Bishop »

#### rabinoz

• 1441
• Just look South at the Stars
##### Re: Explanation of sun's motion
« Reply #11 on: May 02, 2016, 02:44:21 AM »
Why do they have to transit? It makes sense that only the closest planets would transit. Obviously Pluto or Uranus aren't going to get in the way of you and the sun.
You completely ignore the other parts of the earlier posts!

Mercury and Venus are the only planets that show phases almost like the moon. Why is it so?
When Mercury and Venus appear largest (ie closest to us) they have a shape like a crescent moon and are very close in the sky to the sun (they sometimes even transit).

ALL the other planets when they appear largest (ie closest to us) have a completely full shape (though most are too small to discern) and are furthest in the sky from the sun (overhead at MIDNIGHT).

In other words there is a very big difference in the behaviour of Mercury and Venus from all the other planets that cannot simply be put down to distance from the sun.

Also you claim that Venus and Mercury are closer to the sun than the other planets. Would you please show some evidence for this. I have never seen any evidence for any calculations for these for the flat earth model.

Firstly, we don't see all of the sky over the earth. Much of it is lost to the perspective that causes the sun and stars to set (or perhaps the EA if one subscribes to that). We only see a limited portion of the sky at any one time.

In order to see the phases of the planets, the planet needs to be seen from all positions as it circles the sun. Mercury and Venus are close enough that their small circuits are viewable from many positions.

If the orbit of a distant planet is really big, you are not going to be able to see it in all positions of its orbit around the sun, only when it is over you when it is night and opposite from the sun. Hence, no or limited phases (as in the case of mars).
You don't really see the massive differences do you?
When Venus and Mercury appear largest (and presumably closest to the earth) they are between the earth and the sun and their phase appears like a crescent moon (or even completely hidden in the glare of the sun).
When ALL the other planets appear largest (and presumably closest to the earth) they are at their highest in the sky at around midnight (furthest from the sun) and they appear completely full.

These are some obvious big differences in the orbits of Venus and Mercury from the orbits of ALL the other planets.
Just what sets Venus and Mercury apart? It is not predominantly just the distance!

You are just dragging explanations out of the air without any evidence or justifications at all.

For the Globe model there is evidence going back centuries and greatly refined in accuracy (including radar measurements of the distance to Venus) in modern times.

You have nothing, yet you keep asking US for evidence. If I am sadly mistaken:
What is the size of the orbits of the planets around your sun, surely in the 135 years since "Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe, by Parallax (Samuel Birley Rowbotham)
[1881]" someone in the movement has had the curiosity to measure these things.

There are an estimated 20,000,000 amateur astronomers today. Surely a few in that number are Flat Earth believers who could make these measurements. After all quite reasonably priced astronomical telescopes of today far exceed the capability available to Galileo, Tycho Brahe (who, by the way, was a Geocentrist) and others of that period.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 10625
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Explanation of sun's motion
« Reply #12 on: May 02, 2016, 05:25:08 AM »
You don't really see the massive differences do you?
When Venus and Mercury appear largest (and presumably closest to the earth) they are between the earth and the sun and their phase appears like a crescent moon (or even completely hidden in the glare of the sun).
When ALL the other planets appear largest (and presumably closest to the earth) they are at their highest in the sky at around midnight (furthest from the sun) and they appear completely full.

This is incorrect. Mars has phases, just not the full range of phases like the planets closer to the sun. Mars has a bigger orbital diameter, and therefore our view of its orbit is more limited. We will not see as many phases as the planets nearest the sun.

https://fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect19/Sect19_10.html

From a 10 inch telescope:

« Last Edit: May 02, 2016, 05:29:17 AM by Tom Bishop »

#### rabinoz

• 1441
• Just look South at the Stars
##### Re: Explanation of sun's motion
« Reply #13 on: May 02, 2016, 11:49:13 AM »
You don't really see the massive differences do you?
When Venus and Mercury appear largest (and presumably closest to the earth) they are between the earth and the sun and their phase appears like a crescent moon (or even completely hidden in the glare of the sun).
When ALL the other planets appear largest (and presumably closest to the earth) they are at their highest in the sky at around midnight (furthest from the sun) and they appear completely full.

This is incorrect. Mars has phases, just not the full range of phases like the planets closer to the sun. Mars has a bigger orbital diameter, and therefore our view of its orbit is more limited. We will not see as many phases as the planets nearest the sun.

https://fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect19/Sect19_10.html

From a 10 inch telescope:

No,I was not incorrect! You might remember that I posted this earlier
Why would they never transit? And you forgot about, why are Mercury and Venus are the only planets that show phases almost like the moon?
The other planets do have slight phase changes, only gibbous and full, while Mercury and Venus show the full range of phases. There are other quite significant differences, but the crucial point is what is so completely different about Mercury and Venus.
and I also posted this
Mercury and Venus are the only planets that show phases almost like the moon. Why is it so?
When Mercury and Venus appear largest (ie closest to us) they have a shape like a crescent moon and are very close in the sky to the sun (they sometimes even transit).

ALL the other planets when they appear largest (ie closest to us) have a completely full shape (though most are too small to discern) and are furthest in the sky from the sun (overhead at MIDNIGHT).
I already stated quiet clearly that the other planets do have a gibbous phase,but Venus and Mercury are the only planets that show phases almost like the moon. You do seem to have a very selective memory! Yes, your Mars photos are good and nicely illustrate exactly what I said!

"When Mercury and Venus appear largest (ie closest to us) they have a shape like a crescent moon and are very close in the sky to the sun (they sometimes even transit).
ALL the other planets when they appear largest (ie closest to us) have a completely full shape (though most are too small to discern) and are furthest in the sky from the sun (overhead at MIDNIGHT)."

There's a much bigger difference between the pair Venus and Mercury and all the others.

What is the Flat Earth explanation? And I also asked how the "Flat Earth" determines the locations of the planets.

For the Globe model the locations of the planets is well known.

Maybe you are too busy to read posts properly (been there, done that), but don't make unfounded accusations if that is your excuse.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 10625
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Explanation of sun's motion
« Reply #14 on: May 02, 2016, 12:37:58 PM »
I already stated quiet clearly that the other planets do have a gibbous phase,but Venus and Mercury are the only planets that show phases almost like the moon. You do seem to have a very selective memory! Yes, your Mars photos are good and nicely illustrate exactly what I said!

"When Mercury and Venus appear largest (ie closest to us) they have a shape like a crescent moon and are very close in the sky to the sun (they sometimes even transit).
ALL the other planets when they appear largest (ie closest to us) have a completely full shape (though most are too small to discern) and are furthest in the sky from the sun (overhead at MIDNIGHT)."

There's a much bigger difference between the pair Venus and Mercury and all the others.

What is the Flat Earth explanation?

That would be because Venus and Mercury are a lot closer to the sun. Next question?

Quote
And I also asked how the "Flat Earth" determines the locations of the planets.

They can be located by using an astronomy atlas.

Quote
For the Globe model the locations of the planets is well known.

The Ancient Babylonians, a flat earth society, could predict the paths of the planets in the sky very well. Their path is a celestial event which comes in patterns, and is easily predicted. Astronomers still use the same methods to predict celestial events today.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2016, 12:41:38 PM by Tom Bishop »

#### Unsure101

• 142
##### Re: Explanation of sun's motion
« Reply #15 on: May 02, 2016, 01:08:50 PM »
I already stated quiet clearly that the other planets do have a gibbous phase,but Venus and Mercury are the only planets that show phases almost like the moon. You do seem to have a very selective memory! Yes, your Mars photos are good and nicely illustrate exactly what I said!

"When Mercury and Venus appear largest (ie closest to us) they have a shape like a crescent moon and are very close in the sky to the sun (they sometimes even transit).
ALL the other planets when they appear largest (ie closest to us) have a completely full shape (though most are too small to discern) and are furthest in the sky from the sun (overhead at MIDNIGHT)."

There's a much bigger difference between the pair Venus and Mercury and all the others.

What is the Flat Earth explanation?

That would be because Venus and Mercury are a lot closer to the sun. Next question?

Quote
And I also asked how the "Flat Earth" determines the locations of the planets.

They can be located by using an astronomy atlas.

Quote
For the Globe model the locations of the planets is well known.

The Ancient Babylonians, a flat earth society, could predict the paths of the planets in the sky very well. Their path is a celestial event which comes in patterns, and is easily predicted. Astronomers still use the same methods to predict celestial events today.
Pretty sure those patterns are the planets orbiting the sun.
Or maybe they're a result of the celestial gears???

#### Rounder

• 780
• What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
##### Re: Explanation of sun's motion
« Reply #16 on: May 02, 2016, 05:00:33 PM »
The Ancient Babylonians, a flat earth society, could predict the paths of the planets in the sky very well. Their path is a celestial event which comes in patterns, and is easily predicted. Astronomers still use the same methods to predict celestial events today.
Pretty sure those patterns are the planets orbiting the sun.
Or maybe they're a result of the celestial gears???

We RE supporters spill a lot of digital ink pointing out that planetary orbits and their apparent paths through the sky are well modelled and accurately predicted by the heliocentric, elliptical, gravitational, Keplerian system we use today.  However, we would do well to remember that the geocentric, circular, epicyclic, Ptolemaic system also accurately predicted the planets's movements.  In fact it will likely surprise many a round earther to learn that it actually is mathematically possible to combine enough epicycles to duplicate an elliptical orbit to whatever degree of predictive accuracy you want.  Wikipedia puts it this way:
Quote
Any path—periodic or not, closed or open—can be represented with an infinite number of epicycles.  This is because epicycles can be represented as a complex Fourier series; so, with a large number of epicycles, very complicated paths can be represented in the complex plane.

This is not to say that the two models are on equal footing with respect to their explanatory value, merely that the ability to predict planetary motion is not limited to the RE model.   The best example of the superior explanatory value of the heliocentric, elliptical, gravitational, Keplerian system has to be the discovery of Neptune.  Under the geocentric, circular, epicyclic, Ptolemaic system, no amount of adding epicycles would lead you to think "Uranus moves strangely, maybe there is an as-yet undiscovered planet infuencing it?"  No, you would just keep adding the epicycles, get a good fit, and stop.  What really happened was that after nearly three years of manual regression analysis undertaken independently by two astronomers from 1843-1846, a position in the sky was calculated for the hypothetical object.  When a telescope was pointed there for the express purpose of finding that object, it was found in less than an hour.  It was observed for the next two nights, it was seen to move against the background stars, and the model was confirmed.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 10625
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Explanation of sun's motion
« Reply #17 on: May 02, 2016, 05:11:57 PM »
The best example of the superior explanatory value of the heliocentric, elliptical, gravitational, Keplerian system has to be the discovery of Neptune.  Under the geocentric, circular, epicyclic, Ptolemaic system, no amount of adding epicycles would lead you to think "Uranus moves strangely, maybe there is an as-yet undiscovered planet infuencing it?"  No, you would just keep adding the epicycles, get a good fit, and stop.  What really happened was that after nearly three years of manual regression analysis undertaken independently by two astronomers from 1843-1846, a position in the sky was calculated for the hypothetical object.  When a telescope was pointed there for the express purpose of finding that object, it was found in less than an hour.  It was observed for the next two nights, it was seen to move against the background stars, and the model was confirmed.

The discovery of Neptune is addressed in Earth Not a Globe: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za60.htm

#### Rounder

• 780
• What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
##### Re: Explanation of sun's motion
« Reply #18 on: May 02, 2016, 05:47:00 PM »
Thanks for yet another knee-jerk "Earth Not a Globe" reference, Tom, those aren't getting old at all.  Also, do you even know what is written there?  Go back and read it again, it isn't the great rebuttal you seem to think it is.  He pretends to have scored a big victory by pointing out that the distance, mass, and orbit were inaccurate.  This, for an object that had never been known to be a planet at all.  (The blue object later known to be Neptune had been observed and recorded before, but each time it was thought to be a star)  Of course you're going to have some math errors when you don't have much data yet!  The math was a long, laborious, manual process at the time, they were doing just enough math as they could do on as little data as they had (this was based on observations of Uranus, for which there was a lot less observational history than what exists for the inner planets.)  The fact that Neptune was exactly where the math said it would be, the fact that the math led to the discovery, and the math came from the heliocentric model, is never "addressed in Earth Not a Globe" much less refuted!
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 10625
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Explanation of sun's motion
« Reply #19 on: May 02, 2016, 07:47:26 PM »
Thanks for yet another knee-jerk "Earth Not a Globe" reference, Tom, those aren't getting old at all.  Also, do you even know what is written there?  Go back and read it again, it isn't the great rebuttal you seem to think it is.  He pretends to have scored a big victory by pointing out that the distance, mass, and orbit were inaccurate.  This, for an object that had never been known to be a planet at all.  (The blue object later known to be Neptune had been observed and recorded before, but each time it was thought to be a star)  Of course you're going to have some math errors when you don't have much data yet!  The math was a long, laborious, manual process at the time, they were doing just enough math as they could do on as little data as they had (this was based on observations of Uranus, for which there was a lot less observational history than what exists for the inner planets.)  The fact that Neptune was exactly where the math said it would be, the fact that the math led to the discovery, and the math came from the heliocentric model, is never "addressed in Earth Not a Globe" much less refuted!

The variables used were entirely wrong for the theory of gravity. 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 issue with Le Verrier's claim that Uranus was affected gravitaitonally by some other body.

But his prediction as a proof of gravity as described in RET is entirely superfluous, since his calculations using gravity demanded Neptune have certain properties in size and orbit, which it did not have once it was found.

Quote from: AJS -- The Planet Neptune, and its Relations to the Perturbations of Uranus (S.C. Walker)
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.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2016, 07:54:59 PM by Tom Bishop »