|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Sun Wobble) + Uranius
Painius I do not think "WOBBLE" is the right word for finding Neptune.
I think it caused Uranus to speed up and other times slow down. Is faster and slower "wobble"? I think not. I remember reading many moons ago that an astronomer(can't remember his name) had actually seen Neptune three times without recognizing it. Poor ******* could have been famous. I still say weak telescopes did not help their vision Go figure TreBert |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Sun Wobble) + Uranius
Bert wrote,
I do not think "WOBBLE" is the right word... Yeah i wuz thinkin' the same thing. In the context under discussion, it seems like 'perturbation of the orbit' would be the more correct term. Referance to "wobble" is usually in the context of lookng for extrasolar planets, where a slight lateral displacement of the star (wobble) is looked for. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Sun Wobble) + Uranius
On Feb 22, 8:04*am, (oldcoot) wrote:
Bert wrote, I do not think "WOBBLE" is the right word... Yeah i wuz thinkin' the same thing. In the context under discussion, it seems like 'perturbation of the orbit' would be the more correct term. Referance to "wobble" is usually in the context of lookng for extrasolar planets, where a slight lateral displacement of the star (wobble) is looked for. That's a good analogy, whereas our solar system currently perturbates roughly at 105~110 thousands years with something. If we exclude the massive and nearby Sirius star/solar system that we're trekking towards at 7.6 km/s, I wonder what else there is out there that we are obviously unaware of? ~ BG |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Sun Wobble) + Uranius
On Feb 22, 4:46*am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Painius *I do not think "WOBBLE" is the right word for finding Neptune. I think it caused Uranus to speed up and other times slow down. Is faster and slower "wobble"? *I think not. * I remember reading many moons ago that an astronomer(can't remember his name) had actually seen Neptune three times without recognizing it. Poor ******* could have been famous. *I still say weak telescopes did not help their vision *Go figure * TreBert Your speed up and slow down as well as oc offers a good analogy, whereas our solar system currently perturbates roughly at 105~110 thousands years with something. If we continually exclude the massive and nearby Sirius star/solar system that used to be worth 7 or possibly 8 solar masses, and that we're trekking back towards at 7.6 km/s, I wonder what else there is out there that we are obviously unaware of? ~ BG |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Sun Wobble) + Uranius
"Saul Levy" wrote in message...
... Not quite correct, Paine! There were NO TEAMS back then. Both Le Verrier and Adams spread the word about their calculations and OTHER ASTRONOMERS did the searching for Neptune. And i consider that teamwork, Saul. Besides, didn't those astronomers back then have assistants and "go fers" and such? people to do much of the legwork, footwork, etc? happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "What is drama but life with the dull bits cut out." Alfred Hitchcock P.P.S.: http://Astronomy.painellsworth.net http://PoisonFalls.painellsworth.net http://TheInternetStory.painellsworth.net |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Sun Wobble) + Uranius
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote...
in message ... Painius I do not think "WOBBLE" is the right word for finding Neptune. I think it caused Uranus to speed up and other times slow down. Is faster and slower "wobble"? I think not. I remember reading many moons ago that an astronomer(can't remember his name) had actually seen Neptune three times without recognizing it. Poor ******* could have been famous. I still say weak telescopes did not help their vision Go figure TreBert Actually, Bert, there were at least two scientists who are said to have missed Neptune. The first was the great Galileo, who on two occasions mistook Neptune for a fixed star. The first time was on December 28, 1612, and then again on January 27, 1613. Both times, Galileo mistook Neptune for a fixed star when it appeared very close in conjunction to Jupiter in the night sky. And the first time, Neptune had just gone into retrograde orbital motion. Neptune had turned to go backward (relative to Earth) and was almost totally stationary in the sky. Also, back just before Neptune was discovered, one of the astronomers looking for it was James Challis, the director of the Cambridge Observatory. Challis looked for Neptune, but his heart wasn't really in it at first. So just like Galileo, Challis missed Neptune twice in August of 1846 due to his casual approach to the search. He finally found it in September that year. And since it had been Le Verrier and Adams who had predicted the position, they got the credit for finding Neptune. It's interesting that there is controversy today over Adams' claim to the credit. There were problems in 1846 because of national rivalry between the British and the French. That was resolved by giving both astronomers the credit. Then in 1998 a curious situation arose. Somebody that year rediscovered the so-called "Neptune papers". These are historical documents from the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, that had apparently been stolen by astronomer Olin J. Eggen and hoarded for nearly three decades. The Neptune papers were rediscovered in Eggen's possession immediately after his death. After reviewing these papers, there are some historians who suggest that Le Verrier should receive the lion's share of credit for the discovery of the gas giant, planet Neptune. happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "What is drama but life with the dull bits cut out." Alfred Hitchcock P.P.S.: http://Astronomy.painellsworth.net http://PoisonFalls.painellsworth.net http://TheInternetStory.painellsworth.net |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Sun Wobble) + Uranius
On Feb 22, 4:46*am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Painius *I do not think "WOBBLE" is the right word for finding Neptune. I think it caused Uranus to speed up and other times slow down. Is faster and slower "wobble"? *I think not. * I remember reading many moons ago that an astronomer(can't remember his name) had actually seen Neptune three times without recognizing it. Poor ******* could have been famous. *I still say weak telescopes did not help their vision *Go figure * TreBert Yeah, well, that "poor *******" did OK for himself in the fame department as it was, since his name was Galileo! Double-A |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Sun Wobble) + Uranius
AA I would hive remembered Gallilio. My brain keeps telling me his
name began with a "C" He was living around the 1850s I think he lived in England I never heard of Gallilio hunting for Neptune.. AA while at the library see when Uranus was discovered? TreBert |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Sun Wobble) + Uranius
"BradGuth" wrote in message...
... What's the current 105~110 thousand year wobble of our solar system related to? ~ BG That's one i haven't heard of, Brad. Do you have a reference to share that i can read? happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "What is drama but life with the dull bits cut out." Alfred Hitchcock P.P.S.: http://Astronomy.painellsworth.net http://PoisonFalls.painellsworth.net http://TheInternetStory.painellsworth.net |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Sun Wobble) + Uranius
On Feb 23, 7:09*am, "Painius" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message... ... What's the current 105~110 thousand year wobble of our solar system related to? *~ BG That's one i haven't heard of, Brad. *Do you have a reference to share that i can read? That's why I was asking, since you and others of your all-knowing kind that insist upon obfuscating whenever possible in order to exclude the massive and nearby Sirius star/solar system that we're headed towards and used to be worth 7~9 solar masses, and to otherwise exclude our using public owned supercomputers for orbital simulations of such potential stellar motions. Therefore, what else have we in the local stellar area that's offering ~105,000 year stellar motion cycle, that offers the required mass, energy outflux and desirable spectrum for having kept our solar system and our local environment so into its tidal radius grip? Are you going to suggest that Earth was at multiple times overpopulated with arrogant, greedy and corrupt humans that were sufficiently energy inefficient and polluting in order to accommodate each and every ice age thaw? Are you going to suggest that our orbit varies its radius by +/- 2% on a 105,000 some odd year cycle? Are you going to otherwise suggest that our sun periodically cycles and gradually becomes extra active every 105,000 some odd years? Are you also going to keep suggesting that nothing of rogue planets or moons ever gets acquired into our solar system, or into any other stellar/solar system? Obviously you are a mainstream status quo insider of superior obfuscation and denial, along with all the usual ulterior motives and some kind of hidden agendas, as otherwise you would not be so into obfuscating and otherwise you'd be diligently working on our side. ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What if(Wobble Theory Again) | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 27 | January 1st 09 11:40 AM |
Wobble ?????? | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 8 | June 24th 08 09:16 PM |
Wobble and weather | Procellarum | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | June 27th 06 06:52 PM |
The Chandler Wobble | Weatherlawyer | UK Astronomy | 5 | April 3rd 06 03:25 PM |
do galaxies wobble? | Ted Sung | Research | 2 | July 11th 04 07:56 PM |