New Lands | Page 8

So keenly did Richard Proctor visualize the earth so
immersed and so bombarded, that, when nothing was seen in England,
he explained. He spend most of his life explaining. In the Student,
2-254, he wrote: "Had the morning of Nov. 14, 1867 been clear in

England, we should have seen the commencement of the display, but
not its more brilliant part."
We have had some experience with the "triumphs" of astronomers: we
have some suspicions as to their greatly advertised accuracy. We shall
find out for ourselves whether the morning of Nov. 14, 1867 was clear
enough in England or not. We suspect that it was a charming morning,
in England--
Monthly Notices, R.A.S.' 28-32:
Report by E.J. Lowe, Highfield House, night of Nov. 13-14, 1867:
"Clear at 1.10 A.M.; high, thin cumuli, at 2 A.M., but sky not covered
until 3.10 A.M., and the moon's place visible until 3.55 A.M.; sky not
overcast until 5.50 A.M."
The determination of the orbital period of thirty-three years and a
quarter, but with appearances of a period of thirty-three years, was
arrived at by Prof. Newton by searching old records, finding that, in an
intersection-period of thirty-three years, there had been extraordinary
meteoric displays, from the year 902 A.D. to the year 1833 A.D. He
reminds me of an investigator who searched old records for
appearances of Halley's comet, and found something that he identified
as Halley's comet, exactly on time, every seventy-five years back to
times of the Roman Empire. See the Edinburgh Review, vol. 66. It
seems that he did not know that orthodoxy does not attribute exactly a
seventy-five year period to Halley's comet. He got what he went
looking for, anyway. I have no disposition for us to enjoy ourselves at
Prof. Newton's expense, because, surely enough, his method, if
regarded as only experimental, or tentative, is legitimate enough,
though one does suspect him of very loose behavior in his picking and
choosing. But Dr. Adams announced that, upon mathematical grounds,
he had arrived at the same conclusion.
The test:
The next return of the Leonids was predicted for November, 1899.

Memoirs of the British Astronomical Association, 9-6:
"No meteoric event ever before aroused such widespread interest, or so
grievously disappointed anticipation."
There were no Leonids in November, 1899.
It was explained. They would be seen next year.
There were no Leonids in November, 1900.
It was explained. They would be seen next year.
No Leonids.
Vaunt and inflation and parade of the symbols of the infinitesimal
calculus; the pomp of vectors, and the hush that surrounds quaternions:
but when an axis of co-ordinates loses its rectitude, in the service of a
questionable selection, disciplined symbols become a rabble. The Most
High of Mathematics--and one of his supposed prophets points to the
sky. Nowhere near where he points, something is found. He points to a
date--nothing happens.
Prof. Serviss, in Astronomy in a Nutshell, explains. He explains that the
Leonids did not appear when they should have appeared, because
Jupiter and Saturn had altered their orbits.
Back in the times of the Crusades, and nothing was disturbing the
Leonids--and if you're stronger for dates than I am, think of some more
dates, and nothing was altering the orbit of the Leonids--discovery of
America, and the Spanish Armada, in 1588, which, by some freak, I
always remember, and no effects by Jupiter and Saturn--French
revolution and on to the year 1866, and still nothing the matter with the
Leonids--but, once removed from "discovery" and "identification," and
that's the end of their period, diverted by Jupiter and Saturn, old things
that had been up in the sky at least as long as they had been. If we're
going to accept the calculi at all, the calculus of probabilities must have
a hearing. My own opinion, based upon reading many accounts of

November meteors, is that decidedly the display of 1833 did not repeat
in 1866: that a false priest sinned and that an equally false highpriest
gave him sanction.
The tragedy goes comically on. I feel that, to all good Neo-astronomers,
I can recommend the following serenity from an astronomer who was
unperturbed by what happened to his science, in November, 1899, and
some more Novembers--
Bryant, A History of Astronomy, p. 252:
That the meteoric display of 1899 had failed to appear--"as had been
predicted by Dr. Downing and Dr. Johnstone Stoney."
One starts to enjoy this disguisement, thinking of virtually all the
astronomers of the world who had predicted the return of the Leonids,
and the find, by Bryant, of two who had not, and his recording only the
opinion of these two, coloring so as to look like another triumph--but
we may thank our sorely stimulated suspiciousness for still richer
enjoyment--
That even these two said no such saving thing--