Extracted text
Editorial transcription, lightly normalized from the scan. Line-break hyphenation, spacing, capitalization, and unmistakable OCR errors have been repaired; the claims remain those of The Flaming Sword.
The Open Court of Inquiry.
THE EDITOR.
The Discovery of the Planet Neptune.
Editor Flaming Sword:— How do you explain the fact that mathematicians determined the location of the planet Neptune before it was observed by astronomers? The calculations, you know, were made upon the basis of the Copernican theory. I understand, or at least I think I do, your idea of the planets—that they are reflected from the shell of the earth and focalized near the upper surface of our atmosphere. Now, my question is, How could a mathematician, starting out on a wrong theory, reach the conclusion that energy was focalized at a certain point in the heavens, so as to be able to direct the astronomer where to look for it? — A. S., Girard, Kan.
The discovery of Neptune in 1846 is generally considered to be the greatest and most wonderful achievement of mathematical astronomy—a discovery due to one of the boldest and most brilliant conceptions of modern science. The advocates of the Newtonian system point to it with pride as evidence of the truth, not only of Newton's theory of gravitation, but also of the conceptions of Copernicus. We maintain that the discovery in itself was a simple thing, and in no way due to the modern theory of astronomy. Indeed, the theory required one thing, and the facts revealed quite another, as we will show. The mathematicians did the best they could under the circumstances; they did not "start out on the basis of a wrong theory," because no theory entered as a factor in the discovery of the planet; theory was responsible, however, for a ludicrous blunder connected with the discovery.
Astronomical history records the time when the orbits of the planets were circular; but irregularities in the motion of the planets were observed, and then the orbits were thought to be eccentric. Kepler reached the conclusion that the orbits were elliptical, but it was soon discovered that even the ellipse did not entirely account for orbital irregularities; then perturbations were devised to account for them—so that now the system, having developed through centuries of observations, and changed ever and anon to make place for new facts of observation, seems to account for all the apparent motions of the solar system. But it is not the part of wisdom to hold, after centuries of shifting to fit appearances, that the apparent facts of observation prove the truth of the system.
Long before the discovery of Neptune was made, it was noticed that when Saturn nears conjunction with Jupiter, the path of Saturn is perturbed; and the same is true of Mars. These perturbations become apparent every time one of these planets passes Jupiter; so that astronomers had come to know that a planet must be near the point of perturbation. In perturbation, a planet is first accelerated in its path and then retarded; consequently, there is what we may term an arc of perturbation a number of degrees in length. Find the middle of that arc, and the right ascension of the disturbing planet is determined; or, as in the case of Uranus previous to the discovery of Neptune, find the ratio of retardation, and the angular relation of the perturber and the perturbed is obtained from the basis of past observations of other perturbations, and quite independently of theory.
In 1781 Herschel accidentally discovered Uranus; and for 65 years the astronomers worked on the problem of its orbit, or what amounts to the same thing, its periodic time. Bouvard constructed a number of tables which had to be revised from time to time, because the real place of Uranus from year to year did not agree with the computed astronomical longitude—the planet having fallen behind as much as 2′ of arc up to 1844. Finally, it was concluded that the irregularity of Uranus was due to perturbation; and of course, from the basis of past observations, Le Verrier expected that an unknown planet sustained a certain angular relation to Uranus. It would make no difference whether the calculations were made on the basis of false values or true ones, the results would have been the same, because astronomical data instead of theory, constituted the basis of calculation. It would make no difference whether we consider the observed or calculated angular attractions and distances to be ounces and inches, or tons and miles, in orbits small or large—the same results would be obtained. Knowledge of the nature of the planets was not required, neither their distance from each other. The calculations were made from the basis of facts, quite apart from theory—which is mere hypothesis devised to explain facts.
The discovery of Neptune was not the scientific achievement that it is supposed to be; really, Le Verrier made a great blunder, even from the standpoint of the modern astronomer. It is true that both Le Verrier and Adams determined the approximate place (right ascension 325°) of Neptune, but their computed elements of the planet are quite different from those which stand in the text-books today. The following quotation from "Young's General Astronomy" is sufficient to show that the discovery was not a triumph of mathematical astronomy at all: "The computed elements are so wide of the truth, that great authorities have maintained that the actual Neptune was not at all the Neptune of Le Verrier and Adams, but an entirely different planet; and even that the discovery was a 'happy accident.'" An instance of the blunders of the mathematicians is that the computed sidereal revolution of Neptune was 217 years, whereas it is only 165—so much for the failure instead of the triumph of mathematical astronomy.
Planetary perturbations are due to proximity of the mercurial disci (the real and material planets) in the shell of the earth; the accelerations and retardations that take place there are manifest in the reflections of these disci—the visible and imponderable planets in the physical heavens. The data from which the mathematicians worked, served to indicate the angular direction of Neptune. If Le Verrier and Adams had been advocates of the Ptolemaic or any other system than the Copernican, and had had the same advantages afforded by accurate observations of the movement of Uranus, and the tables showing the perturbations of all other planets, they would have been led to the discovery of Neptune; but a true system of astronomy would have saved them from their ludicrous blunders of computation.
- --
The source scans remain the record. This page preserves the periodical's text as an editorial transcription; its claims remain those of The Flaming Sword.
The Flaming Sword · Vol. 16, No. 15 · Feb 28, 1902 · PDF p. 24