Slashdot Mirror
200,000 Elliptical Galaxies Point the Same Way
KentuckyFC sends us to arXiv, as is his wont, for a paper (abstract; PDF preprint) making the claim that 200,000 elliptical galaxies are aligned in the same direction; the signal for this alignment stands out at 13 standard deviations. This axis is the same as the controversial alignment found in the cosmic microwave background by the WMAP spacecraft.
Do they give any reason that this might be so? Are the galaxies in the same area? Did they all form from some insanely massive rotating structure or something?
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
Eh, I'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for this. They're probably just all aligned to the north magnetic pole of the universe, or something.
Or perhaps they're not galaxies at all, but exhaust trails. Of something... big. REALLY big.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
They all point outwards from the centre of the universe.
Me.
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
...but why would God need a starship?
WMAP spacecraft.
...
They are running their spacecraft off of a Windows-MySQL-Apache-PHP stack? well I'll be
They can point the same way... if.. that's a small sub-sample of even more galaxies that are arranged in a circle, and they are all pointing the same way but that's only because you're looking at a tiny fragment (tiny, I know) of the circle and they all look exactly the same at that small dataset.
Ok.. what the hell does this actually mean so my crazy theories can at least have some basic in logic.
http://use.perl.org
I, for one, welcome our new gala... meh. Not worth it. You have a go.
Eternity is a time bomb.
Huh. I don't really have a great deal of specialist knowledge on cosmology, but this seems to put a lower bound on the distance over which we can assume the universe is isotropic (i.e. the same in all directions). The abstracts puts an upper bound on the redshift of the galaxies involved in the survey, which is presumably roughly equivalent to limiting the distance they are from us, but surely the fact that this net angular momentum axis is closely aligned with an axis identified in WMAP data indicates that this is a far larger scale phenomenon?
All i want to know is which beam is making them all align. I'm betting that it's shardik's beam, he's bad ass.
They do. There's a monkey there with a bone as well.
Evil people are out to get you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Da2byMoEG30
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
It's been posted before, but if this sort of thing interests you, get over to Galaxy Zoo and help them classify galaxies.
It seems you do need 200,000 elliptical galaxies to know which way the wind blows.
Just don't tell Bush that we've found a new Axis - next thing you know he'll be drawing up plans for a 13,000-galaxy invasion force.
So this might help explain in Star Trek how all ships are always keeping the same orientation / sense of "up"...
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
Now which way do I point my TV antenna to pick up GalacticTV?
Imagine a beowulf cluster of 200,000 elliptical galaxies. Latency between nodes could be a bit problematic...
The sample is 200,000 eliptical galaxies, and they showed a statistical tendency to point in a preferred direction. They most certainly do *not* all point the same way.
all your axis are belong to us.
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
I browsed the PDF and it's a bit more technical than I can currently handle; can someone give me the 'play by play' brief on the significance of the orientation of the galaxies and why the chance is so slim that they align as they do? Is this a case of, "this shouldn't be happening as we understand it, and the chances of it arising from random distribution are nearly 0"? Or am I missing something?
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
I read the article, and there seem to be a few problems he doesn't really address. First, he assumes that all elliptical galaxies have a point-of-view from which they appear circular. I don't think anyone has determined this to be the case, and he doesn't really have a way to get this from his data. Secondly, he doesn't give much real discussion to the error in the measurements, which is significant. No preffered axis of alignment would fall well within his measurement uncertainties. Finally, the 13-standard deviations is not from any real sort of error propagation, but from some random computer generated results. Could be interesting, but to be taken with a grain of salt.
Now if these 200,000 galaxies are all in a particular region of the universe, THAT would be explosive news, but, unless I completely misread the article, this isn't the case.
As it is, I think the news is interesting, but I find it less than compelling.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
As soon as the earth comes in to alignment with them, the extra gravatational forces will pull at our oceans, causing excellent surfing conditions.
Me^2
Slashdot Robotic Overlord -- +1 (510) 495-6380
god doesn't play dice
he plays with magnets
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Einstein did not say that there cannot be a center of the universe.
What he did say is that for the purposes of measurement, there exists no privleged metric. All this says (All?!) is that there is no overall coordinate system that will be superior to all other coordinate systems.
If things started out as a big bang, on some scale, we will find a "center" of the universe. Is this an astronomy-shaking discovery? No. Maybe a tremor or two, for diehard relativeists. We already know that for specific purposes, there is often a preferred metric for computational or navigational purposes. Remember back in the Apollo program when the physics guys tried to explain that at a specific point, the coordinate system for the spacecraft shifted over from Terra-centric to Luna-centric, and the reporters looked at the "jog" in the plot and asked if the spacecraft would feel a "lurch" as it passed this point?
It's not nearly as big a deal as, say, whether Pluto is a "planet" or not. Pick a label, pin the sticker on the rock, except in this case, the rocks are superclusters of galaxies.
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
200,000 elliptical galaxies are not all pointing in the same direction.
I have it on good authority that 199,999 are pointing in one direction, and the other one is pointing in the opposite direction.
It is easily explained by the Theory of Intelligent Arranger.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
>
>I, for one, welcome our new gala... meh. Not worth it. You have a go.
I'll play. How about this sentence from the PDF:
Sure, we know he's talking about a computational simulation, but still... it's the kind of thing that would make your galaxy-alignment overlords, for themselves, welcome our supercomputing cosmologists, and remind us that they can be useful in producing asymmetries that will produce non-random distributions of ellipticities in galaxies some 13 billion years later.
In all seriousness, the paper is a pretty impressive result. If there's a large scale structure to the universe, from whence did it originate? At/before the instant of hyperinflation? It must have been early and universe-sized to be correlated with the WMAP results and as such, over long enough timescales, to affect the shapes of the end products of series of galactic mergers.
Back to our regularly scheduled slashschtick, I'm just glad we live in one of the more interesting universes. It's not turtles, turtles, turtles all the way down, it's cosmologists, cosmologists, cosmologists, all the way up!
(I did OK, didn't I? I mean, there's at least two In Soviet Russia jokes that I just left there waiting for someone to pick up on... :)
didnt big bang start from a point ? well you have found your point - wherever all of them have been pointing, it should be probably where it started.
Read radical news here
Depends, are the nodes connected via quantum entanglement? If so, latency isn't really a problem.
Eternity is a time bomb.
To the best of my recollection, various probes we have shot outside of the solar system just aren't where we should be according to Newton and even Einstein. Even factoring in various factors that could have thrown off the trajectory, nothing really accounts for the discrepancy other than a possible misunderstanding of how things work.
This is from memory, though, so it may have been resolved by now.
An initial anagular momentum for the universe might prejudice galaxy formation.
It sounds as if there is another Universal Constant that has been discovered but not fully understood yet. Understanding of this incredible discovery could help us with scientific advancements on Earth for years to come.
The game.
Maybe this axis belongs to a once existing "protouniversal" disc, similar to protoplanetary discs. See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk
We're all being sucked into the same black hole!
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
One does not cross paths with 13 standard deviations in an average universe.
http://math2.org/math/stat/distributions/z-dist.h
This calculator computes the area from -inf to 6.5 as 1.0000000016. Wow! Only half-way there and we've already spotted some dark matter.
Open Office also buckles under the strain.
=NORMDIST(7.96;0;1;1) reports
9.9999999999999900000000000000000000]E-001
=NORMDIST(8;0;1;1) reports
10.0000000000000000000000000000000000]E+000
I didn't think ordinary matter was supposed to get all the way to 10. Cool. We're now on the way to 11, boys and girls.
Step 3?
3. PROFIT!
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
The reason is quite clear.
They are pointing, as if to say, "It wasn't us, He did it."
Why does there have to be a reason?
"Inconveniet Truth, Part 32" will state that the Universe is losing its alignment and the number of galaxies pointing in the same direction has dropped by .2% in the last eon. The cause? SUV's.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
with a book by Gertrude Friedberg called "The Revolving Boy."
Friedberg imagined what life would be like for someone who had an affinity towards this One True Direction.
Good read.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
I read the abstract but there is no information about if we are one of them.
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
And there's no way to tell how closely they're aligned, maybe many are 20-30 degrees off.
Would you still call that aligned? Is it still significant if one in a thousand galaxies are within 30 degrees of each other in orientation? Who knows? Who cares?
Talk to me at a trillion.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
...looking to see what they're all pointing at?
Let's note that:
1) This guy is a high-energy physicist, not an astronomer.
2) He has two published articles on extragalactic astronomy, both from the early 90s, which have picked up a grand total of 4 citations.
3) He has put up 3 papers on the arXiv in the last few months, all on this subject. None of them are stated to have been submitted for review, and indeed they are not in the style of any of the major relevant journals.
Yeah, yeah, ad hominem and all that. I'll read it more carefully later if I have time (but I'm a bit busy writing a paper of my own, like, for submission and peer review and all that). He does appear to enjoy abusing statistics, both here and in his earlier papers.
I just kinda think that Slashdot could report on all the many scientific discoveries that are actually likely to be true, rather than grand claims based on a couple of preprints by someone with little experience in the field.
I have little direct experience with this, but I suspect that optical distortions could be the cause of the effect he is seeing. The universe may very well have some weird features, but this paper is not a careful analysis.
Correct, latency isn't a problem since quantum entanglement can't transmit information at all. Remember--the speed of light abbreviates to S.O.L.
The Vogons set these up - It's the marker lines for the new interstellar highway. Didn't you all read the details at the interstellar planning office on Alpha Centauri?
I've been severely depressed and miserable most of my life. I've taken to the belief that this stems from mankind's failure of discovering Santa Claus at the North Pole.
Now I understand, the north pole was not the northern pole of earth. But rather the universe. Now that we know the universe is aligned we simply need to determine which polar direction corresponds to north - then we will finally be able to discover Santa Claus and his elves.
Rejoice...this is exceedingly great news!
"In this paper I discuss only the magnitudes of the average ellipticities, not the orientation of their axes."
Then he apparently goes on to discuss their orientation. Maybe it's a science thing.
...well, I have a MS in Physics, anyway. Well, Applied Physics. In semiconductors. Anyway...
I think another poster said it a bit more intuitively, that the point is now smeared out everywhere. That sounds roughly right to me.
Another thing to realize is that the Big Bang doesn't mean that an explosion happened in a single point in empty space, and then everything expanded outward. It's that space itself was compressed down into a single point, and then expanded. There was nothing outside the Big Bang for it to expand out into. Every point in the universe was infinitely closer together. All the energy was really close together--really dense--so it was really hot. Then as things got less dense, the temperature decreased. In one sense, everywhere is the center of the Big Bang.
This is also why distant galaxies can be receding away from us faster than the speed of light. Because expansion doesn't mean that galaxies are moving through space. (In relativity, nothing can move through space faster than c.) Instead, the distance between us is increasing as space itself expands. (You can visualize that as making two marks with a pen on a deflated balloon, and then blowing up the balloon. The two marks don't move on the balloon, but they do get further apart.)
They're pointing at Waldo, he's finally been found!
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, For you are crunchy and go well with ketchup.
IANAAP either, but I see it like this: imagine you have 4 spinning tops in the corners of a square. (The spinning tops are the galaxies.) The square itself doesn't spin, but the round things in the corners do. If all 4 rotate in the same direction, the system has a decidedly non-zero angular momentum, namely the sum of the 4. You can also easily find a frame of reference (e.g., centered the centre of the square and with the X and Y axes aligned with the side of the square) that doesn't rotate, and measure everything relative to it.
Or if it makes it easier to imagine, think of the science gag of having a very fast spinning flywheel in a suitcase. Ask someone to carry it for you, or leave it around and see if anyone tries to steal it. (Though these days it'll more likely be the blown up by the SWAT or whatever equivalent your country has.) If the suitcase is horizontal (lying on the side), someone's going to have a beast of a time trying to pick it up. Or if it's standing, they'll have a beast of a time taking a corner with it. Though the suitcase (universe) doesn't rotate, the flywheel (galaxy) in it does, and the angular momentum of it all is very much non-zero.
Now think of a suitcase with 4 flywheels in it, or 200,000 little flywheels. The suitcase itself doesn't rotate, the centres of the wheels don't rotate around anything, but the total system has a total angular momentum. Anyone trying to mess with that piece of luggage is in for a bit of surprise.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Yeah, man, but those turtles spin. Or maybe the last one has a gramophone kinda thingie on top that rotates the Earth. I mean, if God made a mechanism that rotates the Sun on a pole around the turtle, not to mention the planets and stuff, it only takes an extra pair of cogs and a shaft to make the disc on the turtle spin too. It's like, totally awesome, dude ;)
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
We're just part of a really big (optical?) storage medium for some larger megaverse. Just grooves and pits in the disc as it were...
They ALL point to ME. Yes that's right the universe revolves around little ol me.
Inane Comments are Generously Disregarded
He went to a lot of trouble to make things look random and natural, but this is obviously just a bunch of copies he whipped out to fill up space. for(int i=0;i200000;i++)myEllipticalGalaxy.Clone();
Energy is a scalar not a vector - no direction. Flow of energy (power) has a direction.
So it takes our intervention to direct this alignment?
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Because controlling the spin of a quark over here and measuring it wayyyyy over there can't transmit data.
Additionally, nothing can move faster than the speed of light, ever.
Eternity is a time bomb.
And in one of them, far, far away...
I didn't mean just mass, as in, they tend to stay behind unless you push them. I meant angular momentum, as in, they tend to stay pointing in the same direction. That would happen even in a perfect vacuum.
Well, anyway, the thing with the tops and the briefcase was probably just an unneeded tangent. (I do a lot of those.) The important part is that the total system has a non-zero total angular momentum even if the centres of the tops don't move.
Of course, the galaxies themselves could still move around each other, or around the centre of mass, or, really, whatever. I don't know enough to rule that out. I'm just saying that even without that, if they're aligned, there _still_ would be a total angular momentum.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Please mod hot piece of ass up.
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
Natalie Portman's pants are not big enough for entire galaxies...
This phenomena has been heavily reported by the much maligned Frank Chu.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
"A discussion of possible causes for these alignments is beyond the scope of this paper. "
The sentence abouve is followed by: "R. Buniy et al. (2006) discuss a universe that is not spherically symmetric due to magnetic fields or cosmic defects in the context of the CMB alignments. A large scale cosmic magnetic field acting on protogalaxies in the early stages of galaxy formation seems to provide a possible mechanism for explaining the elliptic and spiral spin alignments and has been proposed as a mechanism for causing the CMB alignments by Campanelli et al. 2006." i.e. We don't know.... i.e. but here a couple of ideas.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
"Energy" is not a thing that exists. It is an abstract concept invented by physicists to make certain types of equations balance. Things can "have" energy in that they can be represented by one side of an equation, and have an effect on other things represented by the other side of the equation, but they are only media, such as electricity or moving matter, which have and transmit this conceptual attribute.
If you want to talk about "pure energy" (being not part of a medium transmitting this attribute), you're using a definition of "energy" that has nothing in common with any scientific use of the term. Which may make you happy, many people get satisfaction from believing in mystical energies.
If energy can be proven to exist by a balancing of two sides of an equation, how can you say it's a conceptual attribute? If it physically exists, at least to our scientific method of proving fact, since if you transfer it between two mediums... well, it's there! We can't just dismiss our scientific methods based on theories that it doesn't exist, or at least prove beyond our current system.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
This just occurred to me while thinking of Foucault's Pendulum... An Atom is spinning, The Earth is spinning, The Solar System is spinning, Our Galaxy is spinning; What's to say that the Universe isn't spinning? Geez, my head is spinning...
Knowledge actually travels very poorly over time. For example, we barely know anything about the world prior to the Renaissance. Once you get before the time of Charlemagne, we're talking about a handful of sources from any one culture, even the advanced ones like the Romans. And once you go before the Romans and the early Chinese there is practically nothing.
Even really big knowledge like algebra (which 'round these parts is BIG stuff) is only 1100 years old. And even then, huge chunks of math figured out in the Middle Ages in the Middle East and India got lost.
How much knowledge was lost every time the Library in Alexandria got torched? How much knowledge was probably lost when the Mongols sacked Baghdad? How much knowledge was lost when the Nazis started killing Jewish scientists?
Knowledge has a terrible shelf life.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
> Or if it makes it easier to imagine, think of the science gag of having a very fast spinning flywheel in a suitcase. Ask someone to carry it for you, or leave it around and see if anyone tries to steal it.
Anyone know where I can get a suitable flywheel? I'm sure I could get an old briefcase somewhere...
I've always wanted to know that.
Two galaxies walk into a pub.
Landlord (to first galaxy): I'll serve you, but not your friend.
First galaxy: Why not?
Landlord: Because he's barred!
Or we are looking at the galaxies in the same direction, considering space warps.
It's all about the reference point.
kind of like starcontrol 2... with the rainbow worlds... anyone following?
Well, remember -- "If they are not with us, they are against us!" -- This so called 'axis' might just very well be 'the Axis-of-Evil' everyone was talking about a couple of years ago!
Someone in Kentucky has proven that whole galaxies are against us!
"200,000 Elliptical Galaxies can't be wrong!" :-P
Everyone is asking "why?" as in "Why are they aligned." My first thought was, "What the hell are they all pointing at?" Is it God? Is it the Restaurant at the End of the Universe? Is it Mecca? Maybe it is just a REALLY big magnet. The answer to the 'what' question might go a long way toward answering the 'why' question.
Anyway since I don't think that galaxies are likely to change their orientation, and remain tidy spiral galaxies, this suggests that there was a common influence on the creation of all of these galaxies!
-- QED
its because galaxies are mental fabrications.
All this talk of angular momentum and centripital force keeps making me think of what I've just started reading about: Newton's Bucket Argument.
;)
If you don't know it, it has had physicists arguing about the nature of space, and naturally, angular momentum, for roughly 300 years. If you want to make your physics questions even more... hairy, think about them in the context of Newton's Bucket, and you'll really have something to wrap your head around
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
In Soviet Russia, the Universe forms YOU!
energy is subject to time, which makes it a vector.
"Because controlling the spin of a quark over here and measuring it wayyyyy over there can't transmit data"
Well it can, if you send the quark that you've controlled the spin of... but that might take some time.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
How many elliptical galaxies are there? There are about 130 billion galaxies in the observable universe, so 200,000 is just about 1.5 millionth of all of them. The paper started with 390,000 galaxies, for reasons I couldn't decipher, from which it selected these uniformly oriented galaxies. But if the odds of them being mutually aligned is about 1 in a million, and the resolution of all their possible alignments is less that 1 per million, than this ordering seems inevitable, and just a self-selection from a randomly oriented large sample.
--
make install -not war
In an oscillating universe, intelligence that is around at the end of a 'big crunch' will, of course, attempt to arrange things so that out of the next 'big bang', intelligence will precipitate sooner and will have some sort of leg up on understanding what is going on. So, kind of like the guy in the movie 'Momento', they tattoo the universe in ways that they hope will ultimately be decipherable to a future naive intelligence. Communication via matter arrangement preceeding a 'big crunch' is a pretty tough thing to pull off. One doesn't know what the future precipitant intelligence will think like and I suspect it is pretty difficult to encode specific messages, the hardest perhaps being the message that prods the precipitants into reading your dammned message in the first place. Creating a fundamentally huge, glowing neon arrow telling the precipitants where to start might be as simple as creating unbelievably improbable arrangements of matter. As we look closer, we may find ever more statistically improbable arrangements, layered in a complex way.
You see, Khan had 2-dimensional thinking, so the Defiant was piloted according the planar Lie group. Kirk hit upon using the Schonflies group that adds a displacement out of the plane while still keeping his ship pointed properly "up", getting the jump on Khan in the nebula.
I know Kurt Godel theorized that the universe is rotating. Maybe the orientation of these galaxies is due to some cosmic Coriolis effect.
mod up !
one of the very few posts with actual physics thinking in this whole tawdry discussion.
Heh. I didn't say that you could pick up the universe and run with it, like with a suitcase, or whatever you imagined there. The thing about flipping the suitcase was just a simple experiment to show that the complete system has an angular momentum even if just a part of it spins. I'm not saying someone could turn the whole universe. Just that it can have a non-zero total angular momentum, if all galaxies rotate the same way.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
"What the hell are they all pointing at?" ...surely, "away from" is more likely...
A cheerful little bird is sitting here singing.
That'll be that superstring theory I've been hearing about.
F_T
He has been trying to prove some kind of handedness in all his papers. One look at his list of papers will give an overwhelming feeling of him being a crackpot.
Does matter itself expand? Do galaxies and celestial bodies become bigger as the universe expands? or it is only the space between matter that expands? what about the space between particles?
Don't start spinning the other way around. We'll all fall off...
In many cases that term is used not because you don't know, or don't think you can find out, but instead to say simply that you don't have the time within the context of the current research to lay out a decent hypothesis, or prepare some defensible proof.
I've used the term several times in publications simply because some work progresses to a deadline, and you have to halt and publish, often before you did everything you wanted to.
intresting it means the big bang had a 'direction', like an up and downside.
Or matter lined up perhaps in an early magnetic field caused early orientation.
Or matter lines up because of dark energy ?
I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change.
Although Einstein wanted to show that Mach's Principle applied to the universe (which is what the Parent Poster was implying), he couldn't make it work in the framework of General Relativity. Essentially, we only feel the net force of matter within our horizon (defined loosely as the portion of the Universe visible to us since the beginning of time) and move accordingly. A portion of the Universe with net angular momentum that is non-zero is not ruled out in GR, spiral galaxies are an example on one length scale; this new result carries this to a much larger scale!
This line no sig
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
Current theories state that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light, regardless of all the cool things quantum physics can do, which is a shame really.
Eternity is a time bomb.
Perhaps they point to or away from that really dark area of the universe... which could be a bigger black hole and our galaxies are part of an even bigger galaxy... or over time they just settled that way as the article said they were all old red stars so they just aligned with all the forces acting on them which perhaps the spiral galaxies have greater influence over them then themselves.
Which is why I said it would take a while to send the quark carrying the information, as you can't send it faster than C. Plus entanglement doesn't really add any benefits, the information would still have to be encoded into spin/etc before the quarks are sent, so it would still take as long as it takes for the quarks to travel the distance to transmit the information.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
Just follow the link to the abstract. I'm surprised that nobody else seems to have noticed. I tried to download the preprint for future reference about half a day ago and got "The author has provided no source to generate PDF, and no PDF."
Oh well. It'll get interesting when the real anisotropy is discovered, but for now we can all settle back down in our seats. Panic's over.
True, we still don't fully understand gravity. However, we have gone much beyond Newton in terms of our understanding, mostly thanks to Einstein's theories of general relativity. Neither theory breaks down when applied to more than one body, but the mathematics behind it start to get REALLY HARD. In CompSci terms, the run-time complexity of a computer program running a multi-body system is O(n^n). Even before computers, though, dedicated mathematicians could and did solve such equations. For instance, Neptune was found due to an astronomer calculating where a planet would need to be to produce the oddities observed in the orbit of Uranus, a clear example of the accuracy of Newton's Laws even in a multi-body system.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.