Top Document: [sci.astro] Solar System (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (5/9) Previous Document: E.12.1 What about a planet (Planet X) outside Pluto's orbit? Next Document: E.13 Won't there be catastrophes when the planets align in the year 2000? See reader questions & answers on this topic! - Help others by sharing your knowledge The French mathematician Urbain Le Verrier, co-predictor with J.C. Adams of the position of Neptune before it was seen, in an 1860 lecture announced that the problem of observed deviations of the motion of Mercury could be solved by assuming a planet or a second asteroid belt inside Mercury's orbit. The only ways to observe this planet (or asteroids) was if/when it transited the Sun or during total solar eclipses. In 1859, Le Verrier had received a letter from the amateur astronomer Lescarbault, who reported having seen a round black spot on the Sun on 1859 March 26, looking like a planet transiting the Sun. From Lescarbault's observations, Le Verrier estimated a mean distance from the Sun of 0.1427 AU (period of 19.3 days). The diameter was considerably smaller than Mercury's and its mass was estimated at 1/17 of Mercury. This was too small to account for the deviations of Mercury's orbit, but perhaps this was the largest member of an asteroid belt? Additional support for such objects was provided by Prof. Wolf and others at the Zurich sunspot data center, who identified a total of two dozen spots on the Sun which fit the pattern of two intra-Mercurial orbits, one with a period of 26 days and the other of 38 days. Le Verrier fell in love with the planet and named it Vulcan. In 1860 Le Verrier mobilized all French and some other astronomers to find Vulcan during a total solar eclipses---nobody did. Wolf's suspicious "spots" revived Le Verrier's interest, and just before Le Verrier's death in 1877, there were more "detections." On 1875 April 4, a German astronomer, H. Weber, saw a round spot on the Sun. Le Verrier's orbit indicated a possible transit on April 3 that year, and Wolf noticed that his 38-day orbit also could have performed a transit at about that time. That "round dot" was also photographed at Greenwich and Madrid. There was one more flurry of "detections" after the total solar eclipse at 1878 July 29: Small illuminated disks which could only be small planets inside Mercury's orbit. J.C. Watson (professor of astronomy at the Univ. of Michigan) believed he'd found *two* intra-Mercurial planets! Lewis Swift (co-discoverer of Comet Swift-Tuttle, which returned 1992) also saw "Vulcan"---but at a different position than either of Watson's two "intra-Mercurials." In addition, neither Watson's nor Swift's Vulcans could be reconciled with Le Verrier's or Lescarbault's Vulcan. After this, nobody ever saw Vulcan again, in spite of several searches at different total solar eclipses. In 1916, Albert Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity, which explained the deviations in the motions of Mercury without invoking an additional planet. In 1929 Erwin Freundlich photographed the total solar eclipse in Sumatra. A comparison with plates taken six months later showed no unknown object brighter than 9th magnitude near the Sun. What did these people really see? Lescarbault had no reason to tell a fairy tale, and even Le Verrier believed him. It is possible that Lescarbault happened to see a small asteroid passing just inside Earth's orbit. Such asteroids were unknown at that time. Swift and Watson could, during the hurry to obtain observations during totality, have misidentified some stars, believing they had seen Vulcan. "Vulcan" was briefly revived around 1970-1971, when a few researchers thought they had detected several faint objects close to the Sun during a total solar eclipse. These objects might have been faint comets, and comets have been observed to collide with the Sun. User Contributions:Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this topic:Top Document: [sci.astro] Solar System (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (5/9) Previous Document: E.12.1 What about a planet (Planet X) outside Pluto's orbit? Next Document: E.13 Won't there be catastrophes when the planets align in the year 2000? Part0 - Part1 - Part2 - Part3 - Part4 - Part5 - Part6 - Part7 - Part8 - Single Page [ Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | RFC Index ] Send corrections/additions to the FAQ Maintainer: jlazio@patriot.net
Last Update March 27 2014 @ 02:11 PM
|
with stars, then every direction you looked would eventually end on
the surface of a star, and the whole sky would be as bright as the
surface of the Sun.
Why would anyone assume this? Certainly, we have directions where we look that are dark because something that does not emit light (is not a star) is between us and the light. A close example is in our own solar system. When we look at the Sun (a star) during a solar eclipse the Moon blocks the light. When we look at the inner planets of our solar system (Mercury and Venus) as they pass between us and the Sun, do we not get the same effect, i.e. in the direction of the planet we see no light from the Sun? Those planets simply look like dark spots on the Sun.
Olbers' paradox seems to assume that only stars exist in the universe, but what about the planets? Aren't there more planets than stars, thus more obstructions to light than sources of light?
What may be more interesting is why can we see certain stars seemingly continuously. Are there no planets or other obstructions between them and us? Or is the twinkle in stars just caused by the movement of obstructions across the path of light between the stars and us? I was always told the twinkle defines a star while the steady light reflected by our planets defines a planet. Is that because the planets of our solar system don't have the obstructions between Earth and them to cause a twinkle effect?
9-14-2024 KP