Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 9 submissions in the queue.
posted by FatPhil on Monday December 12 2016, @03:55PM   Printer-friendly
from the orbital-mockanics dept.

Bad Astronomy has an article about an astronomer who had observational data to suggest he had discovered a planet around another star and published his findings in a peer-reviewed journal. In 1855.

We now know, with further, more accurate observations, that no such planet exists there, and the offsets are the product of uncertainty in the telescopic observations that were, to be fair, done by eye.

But still, despite that, I must tip my hat to Jacob. He did his homework, made the best observations and calculations he could, expressed skepticism in his writing, and came up with what he thought was the best explanation. Mind you, again to be fair, this took a great deal of cleverness to dream up. Perhaps he had been influenced by the recent discovery of Neptune.

If anything, he was guilty of overconfidence in his own measurements. Still, technology eventually caught up with his imagination and we did start to find alien worlds. The field of exoplanet research is now a thriving one, which has moved beyond the simple discovery stage to one where we are beginning to physically categorize and model them.

Not so incidentally, we have since found planets orbiting other stars using the method Jacob pioneered in 1855. He may have been the first person ever to publish this idea, and for that he deserves acknowledgment.

This short video gives some more information and context of the man and his (unfortunately erroneous) discovery. The original paper is also freely available.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @12:35AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @12:35AM (#440628)

    It does look like a cyclic deviation to me:

    Epoch.    Computed - Observed
    1779.77    5
    1802.34    -136
    1804.41    12
    1820.31    133
    1821.51    107
    1822.54    25
    1823.32    -50
    1825.56    -92
    1826.75    -133
    1827.4    -64
    1828.67    13
    1829.5    -23
    1830.36    -22
    1830.5    6
    1830.76    46
    1831.55    -5
    1832.55    53
    1832.57    -54
    1833.42    43
    1833.59    49
    1835.56    17
    1836.81    52
    1837.64    63
    1838.51    67
    1842.55    67
    1846.21    -2
    1848.12    -27
    1850.48    64
    1850.66    -55
    1852.75    5
    1853.6    -77
    1854.08    -44
    1854.24    -16
    1854.73    -84
    1855.45    4

    http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/9/228 [oxfordjournals.org]

    The explanation offered in tfa does not satisfy me at all, in fact it seems like a huge vague handwave:

    the offsets are the product of uncertainty in the telescopic observations

    So how did they end up looking so cyclical? From that paper you can tell this is what everyone was wondering back then. Why does he not provide a real explanation?