Planet X?

[Dragonoake]

Out of curiosity, what was the ninth? Pluto wasn't discovered until 1930.

But how long was it suspected?
Lowell, and another astronomer looking for it around the same time, had already worked out the math and had a pretty good idea of where to look by 1930

[Dragonoake]

It is listing Vulcan as being between Earth and Mars.

My memory of Vulcan is a little fuzzy, but I think I'm going to agree with Randall

[Dragonoake]

How weird. I don't have an immediate explanation for that Vulcan.

Would a comet have a tail that far from the sun?
Also let's remember that 1840's optics probably weren't much better than Galileo's -- comparable to a $30 rifle scope

[fallenangel]

How weird. I don't have an immediate explanation for that Vulcan.

I have no idea how to find the info or even where to start....except comparing this book with several others in my possession.

[fallenangel]

Would a comet have a tail that far from the sun?

In the 1840's there were a few comets that were NOT visible by the naked eye, and several were visible for quite a few days...I'm wondering if maybe these comets were mistaken as a planet?

Also let's remember that 1840's optics probably weren't much better than Galileo's -- comparable to a $30 rifle scope

Things like these always makes me wonder what is locked away in the Vatican's archives...

[Dragonoake]

I'm wondering if maybe these comets were mistaken as a planet?
..

That's what I was wondering. If it was bright and without a visible tail, it's possible

[SunflowerP]

How weird. I don't have an immediate explanation for that Vulcan.

Very weird indeed. Intrigued, I did some digging, and found not only no indication that a planet has ever been hypothesized with an orbit between Earth's and Mars', but also that the hypothetical intra-Mercurial planet wasn't given the name Vulcan until 1859. Nor did I find any indication of "Vulcan" being popular - or indeed having any currency at all - in the mid-19th century or before as a name to use for a hypothetical planet (there really wasn't much hypothesizing about undiscovered planets until the discovery of Neptune in 1846). I've always supposed the choice of name was because its proximity to the sun would give it forge-like/"volcanic" heat.

My best guess is that Fallenangel's g'g'grandfather's book isn't scientific astronomy (i.e., based on calculation and observation) at all, but a speculative work. Given such an early publication date, I'd guess an amateur with enough enthusiasm to have caught a "hypothetical planet" bug early (the work that led to the discovery of Neptune wasn't widely known until it was confirmed by observation), but scant knowledge of the methodology.

Sunflower

[RandallS]

Very weird indeed. Intrigued, I did some digging, and found not only no indication that a planet has ever been hypothesized with an orbit between Earth's and Mars', but also that the hypothetical intra-Mercurial planet wasn't given the name Vulcan until 1859.

A former planet between Mars and Jupiter that blew up/was otherwise broken up was the the initial explanation for the asteroids. However, I've never heard of that planet being called Vulcan.

[SunflowerP]

A former planet between Mars and Jupiter that blew up/was otherwise broken up was the the initial explanation for the asteroids. However, I've never heard of that planet being called Vulcan.

<nod> Yeah, and I sort of wonder if that had anything to do with what's in Fallenangel's book - the "fragments of a planet" theory was proposed very shortly after the discovery of the first two asteriods. But. wrong orbit, and once the first asteroids were observed (1801/02), there'd be no reason to put a hypothetical intact planet in the asteroid-belt orbit. If the publication date was 50 years earlier, I'd guess that Fallenangel was misremembering the precise location, and the book's author was being speculative based on Bode's Law (which is still getting way ahead of the evidence, but in a way not that uncommon at the time). As it is, I'm not sure what to make of it.



Sunflower