Re: Planet X: JUNE Coordinates

<tholen@AntiSpam.ham> wrote in message news:FQnQ6.7481$WI.2120464@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com...
> Michael L. Cunningham writes:
>
> >> Check out the new information for yourself.  Numerically integrate the
> >> orbit of Uranus using the new Voyager 2-derived mass for Neptune and
> >> compare it with what you would have obtained had you used the previously
> >> adopted mass for Neptune.  See for yourself the significance of the
> >> effect.  Then compare the late-19th century star catalog used for the
> >> Uranus astrometry with modern star catalogs and correct the Uranus
> >> astrometry for the difference.  The examine the residuals for yourself.
>
> > Steve won't do the math. You'll have to show him.
>
> It's in the published literature.  The paper was written by
> E. Myles Standish.

It's too bad NASA could not get out all the systematic errors remaining in
the residuals of Uranus...

http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1993AJ....105.2000S

This report sounds (to me) like it contains a lot of doubled up back talk
with so much confusing terminology and obscure references that it could be
saying just about anything and *who* would know better except the most
determined individuals willing to try to make sense of it all. One thing I
know from my college years is that if one integrates enough times and gently
'tweaks' the entered data almost any desired result can eventually be
obtained. Look at the endless arguments on this NG - this report could be a
source for endless more for a hundred years easy probably... :) .

Steve