New Lands | Page 9

present in at least equal representation with the uniform: that, given any clear, definite, seemingly unvarying thing in the heavens, co-existently is something of wantonness or irresponsibility, bizarre and incredible, according to the standards of purists--that the science of Astronomy concerns itself with only one aspect of existence, because of course there can be no science of the obverse phenomena--which is good excuse for so enormously disregarding, if we must have the idea that there are real sciences, but which shows the hopelessness of positively attempting.
The story of the Comets, as not told in Mr. Chambers' book of that title, is almost unparalleled in the annals of humiliation. When a comet is predicted to return, that means faith in the Law of Gravitation. It is Newtonism that comets, as well as planets, obey the Law of Gravitation, and move in one of the conic sections. When a comet does not return when it "should," there is no refuge for an astronomer to say that planets perturbed it, because one will ask why he did not include such factors in his calculations, if these phenomena be subject to mathematical treatment. In his book, Mr. Chambers avoids, or indicates that he never heard of, a great deal that will receive cordiality from us, but he does publish a list of predicted comets that did not return. Writing, in 1909, he mentions others for which he had hopes:
Brooks' First Periodic Comet (1886, IV)--"We must see what the years 1909 and 1910 bring forth." This is pretty indefinite anticipation--however, nothing was brought forth, according to Monthly Notices, R.A.S., 1909 and 1910: the Brooks' comet that is recorded is Brooks', 1889. Giacobini's Second Periodical Comet (1900, III)--not seen in 1907--"so we shall have no chance of knowing anything more about it until 1914." No more known about it in 1914. Borelly's Comet (1905, II)--"Itsexpected return in 1911, or 1912, will be awaited with interest." This is pretty indefinite awaiting: it is now said that this comet did return upon Sept. 19, 1911. Denning's Second Periodic Comet (1894, I)--expected, in 1909, but not seen up to Mr. Chambers' time of writing--no mention in Monthly Notices. Swift's Comet, of Nov. 20, 1894--"must be regarded as lost, unless it should be found in December, 1912." No mention of it in Monthly Notices.
Three comets were predicted to return in 1913--not one of them returned, (Monthly Notices, 74-326).
Once upon a time, armed with some of the best and latest cynicisms, I was hunting for prey in the Magazine of Science, and came upon an account of a comet that was expected in the year 1848. I supposed that the thing had been positively predicted, and very likely failed to appear, and, for such common game, had no interest. But I came upon the spoor of disgrace, in the word "triumph"--"If it does come, it will afford another astronomical triumph" (Mag. of Sci., 1848-107). The astronomers had predicted the return of the great comet in the year 1848. In Monthly Notices, April, 1847, Mr. Hind says that the result of his calculations had satisfied him that the identification had been complete, and that, in all probability, "the comet must be very near." Accepting Prof. M?dler's determinations, he predicted that the comet would return to position nearest the sun, about the end of February, 1848.
No comet.
The astronomers explained. I don't know what the mind of an astronomers looks like, but I think of a fizzle with excuses revolving around it. A writer in the American Journal of Science, 2-9-442, explains excellently. It seems that, when the comet failed to return, Mr. Barber, at Etwell, again went over the calculations. He found that, between the years 1556 and 1592, the familiar attractions of Jupiter and Saturn had diminished the comet's period by 263 days, but that something else had wrought an effect that he set down positively at 751 days, with a resulting retardation of 488 days. This is magic that would petrify, with chagrin, the arteries of the hemorrhagicalest statue that ever convinced the faithful--reaching back through three centuries of inter-actions, which, without divine insight, are unimaginable when occurring in three seconds--
But there was no comet.
The astronomers explained. They went on calculating, and ten years later were still calculating. See Recreative Science, 1860-139. It would be heroic were it not mania. What was the matter with Mr. Barber, at Etwell, and the intellectual tentacles that he had thrust through centuries is not made clear in the most contemporaneous accounts; but, in the year 1857, Mr. Hind published a pamphlet and explained. It seems that researches by Littrow had given new verification to a path that had been computed for the comet, and that nothing had been the matter with Mr. Barber, of Etwell, except his insufficiency of data, which had been corrected.