10secondmessage t1_j3kizk7 wrote on January 9, 2023 at 4:41 AM

Reply to comment by GetsGold in TIL Pluto hasn't completed an orbit around the sun since its discovery. Pluto's orbit takes about 248 years, and Pluto was discovered in 1930. by irbinator

Yes, they did when a commit is tracked for say a long time and their machine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_Mechanism

Was off on predicting a comets path, which means they knew some new or force was being but on it. Considering greeks and Roman's had many scientist back then tracking things with similar results they estimate more planets or forces out there affecting a comets path, especially since the mass moved in the sky as disruptions were tracked as planets moved in their orbit.

This theory was still theory, but they knew more forces were out there. Because well not perfect as ours they had working orbit and trackable system. They were able to track and predict comets' paths with it when something moved a commit and no planet was around to have force on is how they realized other wandering masses must be out there. They knew there had to be other things affecting that they could observe things like this. So the theories were write just not provable. At there level of ablities.

GetsGold t1_j3kjx66 wrote on January 9, 2023 at 4:49 AM

So you're saying that they estimated comet paths but were off and so hypothesized the existence of other bodies or forces? Is there a quote in the article about that?

That's interesting, but not the same as predicting specific planets, and especially Pluto. Pluto is less than a fifth the mass of our moon and orbiting 30+ times the distance from the Sun as us. They wouldn't have close to the precise data to estimate that.

AndrewTyeFighter t1_j3kwsxp wrote on January 9, 2023 at 6:59 AM

They didn't even know how gravity worked back then and were just starting to consider that the Earth might not be the center of the universe.

They were not predicting planets that they couldnt see or comets paths based on gravity when they didnt even have the formulas and constants required to do such things.

10secondmessage t1_j3kyr1q wrote on January 9, 2023 at 7:22 AM

Yes, they did otherwise. How would they have made the first model of solar system it was wrong because gravity wasn't factored into it when the second model came out it traced orbits based on the concept of gravity, well the calculations were not hundred percent it still was close enough when you applied it in small numbers to find location of said item. Considering there limited tech and understanding it's amazing how well they did.

Second Ancient thinkers, from Aristotle in the West to Brahmagupta in the East, had theorised that objects were attracted to each other. Which is partially right as Newton would add direction(towards the centre) and give it mathemical representation/ gravitational force direction which change how the angle of force. Even though they math was off, they still had gravational force as a force of attraction espressesed as the orbital pathes of planets. The method was not perfect as it only counted gravational force, but that still put into their measurements and comparison.

AndrewTyeFighter t1_j3l42ut wrote on January 9, 2023 at 8:30 AM

Don't need to understand gravity to make a model of the observable solar system. Yet just because you make a model that is consistent with your observations, doesn't mean your model is correct.

The Antikythera Mechanism didn't model wasn't accurate because their understanding of the planetary model was incorrect. It also did not compute comets at all.

Aristotle thought that comets were atmospheric in nature, not bodies orbiting around the solar system, and on gravity he thought that everything was attracted to the Earth because it was the center of the universe, as well as that heavier objects would fall faster. These are not the basis for calculating the positions of undiscovered planets or gravitational disturbances of orbits of comets.

Your statements here are so wildly contradictory to history that I can only assume you are mistaken. If you really do feel you are correct, then please find some sources they actually back up your claims.