Paper detail

Systematic errors in Galileo's astronomical observations and alleged anomalies in the position of Neptune

In 1980 Kowal and Drake found that in December 1612 and January 1613 Galileo observed the planet Neptune. At that time, according to these authors, Galileo was able to measure angular separations with an accuracy of about 10 seconds of arc. However, as noticed by Kowal and Drake, the position of Neptune reported by Galileo is wrong with respect to the position computed with the modern ephemeris of about 1 minute of arc. This led Kowal and Drake to speculate on the possible errors of modern ephemeris of Neptune and sparked some debate about Neptune's ephemeris and/or possible errors in Galileo's measures. Until today this anomaly has remained without a conclusive answer. Here we show that, in addition to the random errors, there are other significant measurement errors present in Galileo's observations. These errors may help clarify the origin of the alleged anomalies in the position of Neptune.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.