New Lands | Page 9

Nature, Nov. 9, 1899:
Dr. Downing and Dr. Stoney, instead of predicting failure of the
Leonids to appear, advise watch for them several hours later than had
been calculated.
I conceive of the astronomers' fictitious paradise as malarchitectural
with corrupted equations, and paved with rotten symbols. Seemingly
pure, white fountains of formal vanities--boasts that are gushing from
decomposed triumphs. We shall find their furnishings shabby with
tarnished comets. We turn expectantly to the subject of comets; or we
turn cynically to the subject. We turn maliciously to the subject of
comets. Nevertheless, threading the insecurities of our various feelings,
is a motif that is the steady essence of Neo-astronomy:

That, in celestial phenomena, as well as in all other fields of research,
the irregular, or the unformulable, or the uncapturable, is 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. MŠdler'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