beecee

My apologies...It was accidentley left out.

Bingo! and obviously the same applies to the prediction of Neptune.

No, seven planets were observed along with an apparent anomaly with Uranus because we could not see the eighth planet as predicted by Newtonian......then someone plugged in the numbers according to Newtonian, and predicted Neptune the eighth...and then voila!!! we actually saw it and once again Newtonian was validated.

Bingo!!!! At last!!! Hypothesised and predicted and found by Newtonian, just as gravitational waves were hypothesised, predicted and finally found by GR!!!! Good night my beauty sleep time!

Although the GP-B measured the Frame Dragging effect to great accuracy, I think it had been validated previously by a Satellite/s. I could be wrong.

Hi swansont. I can see this has got somewhat confusing due to what I now believe to be deliberate misinterpretations and lies. In essence what I have said now many times in different ways to attempt to get the message across, along with supporting links, is that when the anomaly in Uranus' orbit was found, it was by using Newtonian and Keplarian data. The planet Neptune was unknown at that time, but this pseudo anomaly led astronomers again using Newtonian mechanics, that a planet existed further out which explained that pseudo anomaly. This was predicted by Newtonian before it was observed. At this time with the tooing and froing, denying and false accusations, I'm not sure where Reg stands, other then his apparent opinion that the discovery of Neptune had nothing to do with Newtonian maths and mechanics. In that I say he is emphatically wrong.

The totallity of what I said above. Obviously Reggy your desperation is evident in how you took what I said out of context below. "No, wrong again Reggy...I'm suggesting nothing". - Beecee (about 7 posts above) At best you once again misinterpreted, at worst you lied. The evidence of what I said is in many posts throughout this thread and reproduced in this post..

The above shows that what Reggy said in desperation below is at best misinterpreted, or at worst a lie.

Your continued desperation is leading to total dishonesty now. Perhaps you may like to show us all where I said that.

Bingo! You've hit the nail on the head. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/kepler/overview/index.html

Wrong...Planets don't misbehave. Uranus was simply following Newtonian mechanics, and of which all the data was not available to Earth based physicists at that time.eg: The yet to be discovered planet as predicted by Newtonian maths.

The following site has a reputation for proper scientific answers by reputable scientific folk. I was originally linked to it by an Astronomer on a now defunct forum, Q: Can space-time exist without matter? So, let's make a single brave assumption, which we need to get any further.Brave assumption: For questions about possibility: the "can x situation exist" questions, we should look to see whether the current best theory in physics admits situation x as a solution. If it is a solution, the answer is yes; if not, no.Right: so can space-time exist without matter?According to our best theory of space-time: yes. Our best theory of space-time is general relativity, and this admits solutions without matter. The Minkowski metric is the simplest: flat space-time with no matter at all.But wait a minute, what about our best theory of matter? This is a variety of quantum field theory. And according to this theory, there is no such thing as no matter. "Empty" space is a seething mass of fields, with virtual particles popping in and out of existence. So according to this theory: no. There is no space-time without matter, because there is never no matter.So... they disagree. What's the real answer? Well, it depends which theory you think will retain its form when the two are unified. At the moment, leading theories of quantum gravity take more from QFT than from GR, so you'd expect the "no" answer to be the one to survive in the future. But physics has a history of surprising us.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In practise, it already has. The constituents of the earliest BB model were a sort of 'energy soup', too hot to permit 'matter' to exist. However, once this 'soup' cooled - then 'matter' appeared. Don't forget that energy and matter are a different expression of the same thing. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Does a falling tree in the forest make a noise if there is nobody who can hear it?In our space-time particles apparently continuously pop into and out of existence, so even a vacuum needs matter. And if there is no matter, and there is therefore no state of matter, then it would be impossible to measure the progress of time and position. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Space-time is an abstract. So insofar as an abstract "exists"....no. Without matter and hence change, space-time would have nothing to reference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My preferred answer is as follows..... Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around? https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation. NB: The "do not exist" I have highlighted is in the actual link as "can and do not exist" Obviously confused by that I E-Mailed Sten Odenwald, the physicst/Astronomer responsible for the answers and he apologised to me and said it was simply a typographical error and should be "do not exist" Staff edit: above taken from https://www.quora.com/Can-space-time-exist-without-matter

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/05/20/when-did-isaac-newton-finally-fail/#5161436d48e7 When Isaac Newton put forth his universal theory of gravitation in the 1680s, it was immediately recognized for what it was: the first incredibly successful, predictively powerful scientific theory that described the one force ruling the largest scales of all. From objects freely falling here on Earth to the planets and celestial bodies orbiting in space, Newton's theory of gravity captured their trajectories spectacularly. When the new planet Uranus was discovered, the deviations in its orbit from Newton's predictions allowed a spectacular leap: the prediction of the existence, mass and position of another new world beyond it: Neptune. The very night the Berlin Observatory received the theoretical prediction of Urbain Le Verrier -- working 169 years after Newton's Principia -- they found our Solar System's 8th planet within one degree of its predicted position. And yet, Newton's laws were about to prove insufficient for what was to come. The problem all started not at the outer reaches of the Solar System, but in the innermost regions: with the planet Mercury, orbiting closest to the Sun. Every planet orbits the Sun not in a perfect circle, but rather in an ellipse, as Kepler noticed nearly a full century before Newton. The orbits of Venus and Earth are very close to circular, but both Mercury and Mars are noticeably more elliptical, with their closest approach to the Sun differing significantly from their greatest distance. Mercury, in particular, reaches a distance that’s 46% greater at aphelion (its farthest point from the Sun) than at perihelion (its closest approach), as compared to just a difference of 3.4% from Earth. This doesn't have anything to do with the theory of gravity; this is merely the conditions which these planets formed under that led to these orbital properties. But the fact that these orbits aren’t perfectly circular means we can study something interesting about them. If Kepler’s laws were absolutely perfect, then a planet orbiting the Sun would return to the exact same spot with each and every orbit. When we reached perihelion one year, then if we counted out exactly one year, we’d expect to be at perihelion once again, and we’d expect the Earth to be in the same exact position in space — relative to all the other stars and the Sun — as it was the year before. But we know Kepler’s laws can’t be perfect, because they only apply to a massless body in orbit around a massive one, with no other masses present at all. And that doesn’t describe our Solar System at all. No, wrong again Reggy...I'm suggesting nothing. I'm stating a fact that the orbits of the planets, [other then the precession of Mercury which is explained by GR] were in line with Newtonian mechanics, and that when an "apparent pseudo anomaly" with the orbit of Uranus was found, physicists correctly again applied Newtonian and predicted this "pseudo anomaly"was not an anomaly at all that strayed from Newtonian, but simply a further vindication of Newtonian by predicting another planet, Neptune. That's the way history records it, that's the way science views it, and that's why you are still wrong in your faulty hypothetical suggestion......And of course the facts as I have presented them is supported by reputable summaries in at least three...or is it four links.

And of course once again, you ignore the facts re Newtonian mechanics and why it did/does explain the Uranus anomaly and why it was Newtonian maths that predicted where the planet was before it was observed. It seems also that I've angered some god botherer or other agenda laden member enough that he gives me the max 5 reds in quick time,just as he or she did yesterday. That certainly will not stop me from confronting to the best of my ability, the nonsense that some are apt to claim. http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~blackman/ast104/perturbations.html Gravitational Perturbations However, the small deviations from this ideal picture have consequences if careful measurements are made. These small deviations from the simplified picture are called perturbations. They can be calculated systematically using Newton's laws of motion and gravitation from the positions of the known masses in the Solar System. If we account carefully for all known gravitational perturbations on the motion of observed planets and the motion of the planet still deviates from the prediction, there are two options: Newton's Law of Gravitation requires modification, There is a previously undetected mass that is perturbing the orbits of the observed planets. We shall see that the history of astronomy following the introduction of the Law of Gravitation by Newton gives examples of both The Discovery of the New Planet Neptune In 1846, the planet Neptune was discovered after its existence was predicted because of discrepancies between calculations and data for the planet Uranus. Astronomers found the new planet almost exactly at the position predicted by the calculations of Leverrier (Adams had also calculated the position independently). We illustrate the situation schematically in the adjacent diagram. The dominant interaction between Uranus and the Sun is indicated with the heavy line, but some perturbations associated with other masses are indicated by thin lines. By using Newton's laws to calculate the perturbations on the orbit of Uranus by an hypothesized new planet, Leverrier and Adams were able to predict where the planet had to be in order to cause the observed deviations in the position of Uranus. Once astronomers took this calculation seriously, they found the new planet within hours of turning their telescopes on the region of the sky implicated by the calculations. This precise prediction of the new planet and its location was striking confirmation of the power of Newton's theory of gravitation. (Although in truth it must be said that both Leverrier and Adams made an incorrect assumption in their calculations concerning the radius of the new planet's orbit. Fortunately, the error largely cancelled out of the calculations and had little effect on their final results.) The Accidental Discovery of Pluto Later, similar calculations on supposed perturbations of the orbits of Uranus and Neptune suggested the presence of yet another planet beyond the orbit of Neptune. Eventually, in 1930, a new planet Pluto was discovered, but we now know that the calculations in this case were also in error because of an incorrect assumption about the mass of the new planet. It is now believed that the supposed deviations in the orbits of Neptune and Uranus were errors in measurement because the actual properties of Pluto would not have accounted for the supposed perturbations. Thus, the discovery of Pluto was a kind of accident. Effects Beyond Newtonian Perturbations The power of Newton's theory became apparent as detailed calculations accounted more and more precisely for the orbits of the planets. Any deviations from the expected behavior soon became viewed as evidence for unseen masses in the Solar System. However, later observations of anomalies in the orbit of Mercury could not be accounted for by the gravitational perturbation of a new planet (the hypothetical new planet, which turned out not to exist, was called Vulcan). As we discuss in the next section, early in this century this forced the replacement of Newton's Law of Gravitation with Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The underlined point [1] of course was in relation to Mercury, as previously explained to Reggy, and being the planet closest to the Sun, the Newtonian approximation was not good enough, and GR obviously came to the rescue. The Uranus "non existent" anomaly though was readily explained by Newtonian.

I'm not interested in your hairy fairy error ridden philosophical nonsense, which is why your threads are closed. And I certainly have appraised you correctly.

Yes I guessed that might give you renewed vigour to post your unsupported crap. That has already been explained to you and why your mythical derivation is just that...mythical. But let me show you again...[1] An anomaly was observed with Uranus' orbit which "seemed" to stray from what Newtonian physics said it should be.[2] Upon applying Newtonian physics to the actual "anomaly" it was predicted that another planet should be where Neptune should be.[3] The planet was later observed to be where it was expected, using Newtonian maths, and explaining the "now not so anomalous orbit of Uranus". Newtonian physics was again correct. All other planets aligned with Newtonian, except of course for Mercury and the precession, which was later validated by GR, a theory far more accurate then Newtonian, And of course I also offered two reputable links to support my rather common well known claim. After playing the Joker card, and then the Victim card twice, we now after continued failure play the Dishonesty card......Your "calling my bluff" was no more then a childish effort that could never and was never going to eventuate. Again, if you want to play childish games, I'm sure there would be a forum to tender to your childish needs. The irony meter has busted again! Your threads were closed because your recalcitrant attitude blinded you to the many errors of judgements that you made and the thread [just as this is now] was simply going around in circles.

I don't believe you have done anything more then offer some possible alternative that as yet hasn't been accepted due to lack of empirical evidence supporting it. I've also come across fools that diligentley claim they have invalidated GR...I can direct you to that forum if you wish by PM. Quite a confident sounding if arrogant outlook...the same as put by the fool claiming he had invalidated GR, or at least found a better model. Talk is cheap actually. Yes, you need to put up or shut up, and forums such as this open to any Tom, Dick and Harry, is not really the stage to do it on, despite obviously professionals operating here. You know the procedure. I havn't seen that thread nor am I really interested, other then to say and quote an old saying about "one swallow does not a Summer make" or words to that effect. There are many "would be's if they could be's in the world that will always remain "would be's if they could be's" ps: I'm not so young anymore either, and while I have been there, there is much I didn't do that I wished I had. That anyway was not in reference to you or Reg, rather the reality of young up and coming physicists and cosmologists that will show the way and carry the day.

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-russia-astronauts-emergency.html US, Russian astronauts land safely after rocket failure October 11, 2018 by Dmitry Lovetsky And Vladimir Isachenkov The Soyuz-FG rocket booster with Soyuz MS-10 space ship carrying a new crew to the International Space Station, ISS, flies in the sky at the Russian leased Baikonur cosmodrome, Kazakhstan, Thursday, Oct. 11, 2018. The Russian rocket carries U.S. astronaut Nick Hague and Russian cosmonaut Alexey Ovchinin. The two astronauts are making an emergency landing after a Russian booster rocket carrying them into orbit to the International Space Station has failed after launch. (AP Photo/Dmitri Lovetsky) The problem came two minutes into the flight: The rocket carrying an American and a Russian to the International Space Station failed Thursday, triggering an emergency that sent their capsule into a steep, harrowing fall back to Earth. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-russia-astronauts-emergency.html#jCp

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-massive-star-unusual-death-heralds.html Massive star's unusual death heralds the birth of compact neutron star binary October 11, 2018, Carnegie Institution for Science The three panels represent moments before, when and after the faint supernova iPTF14gqr, visible in the middle panel, appeared in the outskirts of a spiral galaxy located 920 million light years away from us. The massive star that died in the supernova left behind a neutron star in a very tight binary system. These dense stellar remnants will ultimately spiral into each other and merge in a spectacular explosion, giving off gravitational and electromagnetic waves. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/R. Hurt Carnegie's Anthony Piro was part of a Caltech-led team of astronomers who observed the peculiar death of a massive star that exploded in a surprisingly faint and rapidly fading supernova, possibly creating a compact neutron star binary system. Piro's theoretical work provided crucial context for the discovery. Their findings are published by Science. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-massive-star-unusual-death-heralds.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6411/201 A hot and fast ultra-stripped supernova that likely formed a compact neutron star binary: Explosive origin of a binary neutron star Some types of core-collapse supernovae are known to produce a neutron star (NS). A binary NS merger was recently detected from its gravitational wave emission, but it is unclear how such a tight binary system can be formed. De et al. discovered a core-collapse supernova with unusual properties, including the removal of the outer layers of the star before the explosion. They interpret this as the second supernova in an interacting binary system that already contains one NS. Because the explosion probably produced a second NS (rather than a black hole) in a tight orbit, it could be an example of how binary NS systems form. Science, this issue p. 201 Abstract Compact neutron star binary systems are produced from binary massive stars through stellar evolution involving up to two supernova explosions. The final stages in the formation of these systems have not been directly observed. We report the discovery of iPTF 14gqr (SN 2014ft), a type Ic supernova with a fast-evolving light curve indicating an extremely low ejecta mass (≈0.2 solar masses) and low kinetic energy (≈2 × 1050 ergs). Early photometry and spectroscopy reveal evidence of shock cooling of an extended helium-rich envelope, likely ejected in an intense pre-explosion mass-loss episode of the progenitor. Taken together, we interpret iPTF 14gqr as evidence for ultra-stripped supernovae that form neutron stars in compact binary systems.

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-galaxy-ngc-substantial-amounts-dark.html Galaxy NGC 3256 contains substantial amounts of dark matter, study suggests: A new research recently carried out by astronomers suggests that the galaxy NGC 3256 has substantial amounts of dark matter in its central region. The finding, presented in a paper published October 2 on arXiv.org, might pose a challenge to the modified Newtonian dynamics theory. extract: "The analysis of the available data allowed the team to determine the mass distribution in NGC 3256. They found that there is a significant amount of invisible dynamical mass (around 48 billion solar masses) in the central region of the galaxy. The fraction of the invisible mass was calculated to be about 87 percent of the dynamical mass. According to the authors of the paper, such huge amount of invisible mass, cannot be explained by the molecular mass and the stellar mass within the central region. Therefore, they suggest that invisible mass is likely caused by dark matter. "The amount of dark matter is about 4.84 ± 0.42 × 1010 solar masses, which is significantly larger than the stellar mass. It is clear that even the velocity was not circular, the dynamical mass that would be required to account for the observed velocity dispersion is still much larger than the baryonic mass, and thus the existence of a huge amount of dark matter in the central region of the galaxy is necessary," the researchers concluded" Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-galaxy-ngc-substantial-amounts-dark.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: http://www.ukm.my/jsm/pdf_files/SM-PDF-47-6-2018/20 Israa Abdulqasim Mohammed Ali.pdf Dark Matter in the Central Region of NGC 3256 ABSTRACT We investigated the central mass distribution of the luminous infrared galaxy NGC 3256 at a distance of 35 Mpc by using CO(1-0) observations of the Atacama Large Millimeter and sub-millimeter Array (ALMA) and near-IR data of the Two Micron Sky Survey (2MASS). We found that there is a huge amount of invisible dynamical mass (4.48 × 1010 ) in the central region of the galaxy. The invisible mass is likely caused by some dark matter, which might have a cuspy dark matter profile. We note that this dark matter is difficult to explain with the conventional Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) model, which is only applicable at a low acceleration regime, whereas the acceleration at the central region of the galaxy is relatively strong. Therefore, this discovery might pose a challenge to the conventional MOND models.

Thanks studiot, appreciated.

Perhaps before your sympathy for the poor underdog, you would do well to research all that our friend Reg has claimed, both here and elsewhere. Again, like Reg, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. If you disagree with what mainstream physics has generally deemed correct, the opportunity is always open for you, Reg or any other young up and comer, to falsify whatever incumbent theory you are trying to falsify. And as you go about preparing a case summary to criticise or falsify some part of accepted mainstream, remember that all those theories that you are trying to invalidate, criticise or falsify, also at one time needed to run the gauntlet so to speak....as will whatever version/interpretation that you or Reg prefer. Or are you like Reg, simply practising some philosophical aspect of interpretation for the sake of being contrary just for the sake of it. Is Newtonian mechanics correct when applied within its zone of applicability? Is GR simply less wrong then Newtonian? Or more accurate then Newtonian? Are they just approximations that give answers that satisfy our needs and endeavours? Yes to all of them is my answer without any need for some abstract philosophical take by anyone that simply chooses to be contrary. Einstein as notable as he was, was also humble enough to admit when he was mistaken. Einstein also had views on the conception of the universe that he mentioned on more then one occasion, that aligned roughly with Spinoza. Again since I hate long posts that virtually say nothing, something Reg is adept at, and apparently yourself. in a few words, as few as possible, please explain to me why you believe Reg needs any sympathy. In my view I would hasten to add that Reg would be tickled pink to at last find someone who agrees with his rather confusing contrary view on science in general. But hey! I'm only a lay person so I'll leave you to ponder on a lay person's thoughts. I once came upon a quote and for the life of me I can't find the bloody thing now...it goes like this, "I don't refuse to eat and drink, just because I don't know the process of digestion" Bingo! found it!!!! Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion? Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925) English physicist.

And that Reg whether it offends you or not, has been the whole history of your posting on this forum so far anyway, time for my beauty sleep.

It is your claims and the contents of your posts that are idiocy. You have made many hairy fairy philosophical claims, that at best are confusing and worst certainly reflects an agenda of sorts. Here is another favourite Feynman video of mine that I have posted a few times now and only 7.5 minutes long, but he makes some excellent points. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8 In essence I believe I have shown you in error at least three times now, the last being your claim that Newtonian mathematics was not used to predict Neptune. Think about it carefully...It was Newtonian maths that explained all the planetary orbits, and found an error with Uranus......After some thinking, rather then throw out Newtonian as wrong, they surmised an outer planet that maybe having gravitational effects. That planet, Neptune was pin pointed before it was ever observed by Newtonian maths. Then you made another claim about not knowing what gravity was and needed to have that explained to you particularly the scientific methodology that any supposed truth or reality that you think is the goal of science theories is just not so. Now without going back checking over everything, you did not concede on any of those points, nor any other I can think of, simply as per your confusing style, skipped over them and started on something else. And now its playing the victim card and pointing the finger at those that are doing no more then trying to straighten you out and falsifying near all you have claimed because you are simply wrong. No one is out to get you...no one is out to simply be contrary to your views...that appears to be exactly what you are doing. Forget me...while I have done plenty of reputable reading, I am only an amateur lay person, but I believe I am able in general to sort the wheat from the chaff, and in your case, that is mighty easy.