After the discovery of uranus, astronomers calculated its orbit and predicted its position in the sky using kepler's laws of planetary motion, which had been known since the early 17th century. however, they soon discovered a small discrepancy between the predicted and actual positions of uranus. as a scientist, what should you do when presented with such a conflict between prediction and observation?
select all that apply: a. verify that your observations are correctb. consider whether kepler's laws need to be modified to account for the new observationsc. think about what else might cause the observed discrepancy ord. consider that uranus may not be a planet

a. verify that your observations are correct

c. think about what else might cause the observed discrepancy

Explanation:

Let's begin by explaining that a law is an affirmation (something established) based on repeated long-term observation of a phenomenon that has been studied and verified.  

That is: A law is present in all known theories and therefore is considered universal. In addition, a law can not be refuted, nor changed, because its precepts have been proven through various studies.  

Then, based on what is explained above, Kepler's laws of planetary motion exist because they were rigorously tested and verified, therefore they can not be refuted.

So, if we have a small discrepancy between the predicted and actual positions of Uranus after using Kepler's laws, we have to verify carefully our observations again and search what might be causing that discrepancy. But we cannot assume Kepler's Laws are incorrecto or need modifications.

In addition, we cannot consider that Uranus may not be a planet, because the discrepancy is small. In fact, this discrepancy lead to the discovery of another planet, Neptune.

ill do it for 100, also this isnt 80 its 40

not too sure thinking all accelerations are pointed down