What if (on Sun Wobble)

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

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.

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

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

"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

"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

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

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

"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

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”