Kepler's laws

"EjP" wrote in message


Yes, this was first proposed by the French astronomer
Urbain Le Verrier, who had earned great fame by
predicting the location of Neptune based on the
anomalous motion of Uranus.

Since even the location of Neptunes moons since then have not produced
enough mass to satisfy the equations, and in view of the following:

Another possible explanation for the anomalous orbit
of Mercury would be a quadrupole moment in the mass
distribution of the sun (i.e. significant axial
mass asymmetry). This has been investigated in detail,
and the limits are well below what would be required.

(I hope this was not based on preconceptions about the make up of the
sun? Just a compilation af the almanack without the use of
eisdynamystics?)

Might it be mooted there are things out there we are still not aware of?
Suppose for example that Pluto and Netune et al were just big asteroids.
How unlikely is that.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Michael McNeil wrote:

"EjP" wrote in message



Yes, this was first proposed by the French astronomer
Urbain Le Verrier, who had earned great fame by
predicting the location of Neptune based on the
anomalous motion of Uranus.


Since even the location of Neptunes moons since then have not produced
enough mass to satisfy the equations, and in view of the following:


I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If it's that
Le Verrier got the mass of Neptune wrong, this is because
he assumed that Neptune would be at the radius
predicted by the Titus-Bode Law, and it's not. Luckily,
the reason that Neptune perturbed the orbit of Uranus
so much is that Uranus happened to be passing between
the sun and Neptune at the time they were observing, so
the effect was maximum. In any event, even at the
wrong radius, the position as seen from Earth was
more or less in the right place.

IIRC, John Couch Adams did a more elegant calculation
that got a better radius and a better mass. Adams
actually did his calculations *before* Le Verrier,
but he gave them to George Airy, who sat on them,
allowing Le Verrier (who was unaware of Adams' work)
to independently scoop them. This resulted in the
traditional round of Franco-Anglo cat fighting,
during which Neptune, and even Uranus, were
renamed several times.

I highly recommend the book "The Neptune File",
by Tom Standage, which covers all of this.


Another possible explanation for the anomalous orbit
of Mercury would be a quadrupole moment in the mass
distribution of the sun (i.e. significant axial
mass asymmetry). This has been investigated in detail,
and the limits are well below what would be required.


(I hope this was not based on preconceptions about the make up of the
sun? Just a compilation af the almanack without the use of
eisdynamystics?)

Might it be mooted there are things out there we are still not aware of?
Suppose for example that Pluto and Netune et al were just big asteroids.
How unlikely is that.


Sorry, you'll have to translate that into English and run it
through a spell-checker. I have no idea what you're asking.

-E