THE SOUTHERN COMET OF JANUARY, 1887
]
In _Knowledge_ for November 1, 1887, an account is given of the
remarkable southern comet first observed in January of that year, and as
it is the last article on this topic written by my father for his
magazine, giving a more or less detailed account of his views on the
subject, the author of this book has deemed it advisable to quote it in
full. It is of special interest, not only on account of its giving his
theories on the subject, but for the reason that it helps to supply part
of the missing chapter on “Comets and Meteors,” which he had planned for
his final but unfortunately unfinished work, _Old and New Astronomy_.
This work had been in course of preparation for thirty years, and that
the material for such a chapter was partially compiled the writer knows
from the fact that she has a keen recollection of clippings, MSS., and
notes which she saw apparently awaiting classification and arrangement,
a short while before her father’s departure from Florida, September 8,
1888. What became of them after his sudden death in New York a few days
later, it is impossible to conjecture, unless A. C. Ranyard, who
completed the book, found the chapter on comets too difficult to arrange
satisfactorily. Yet even the fragments so arduously arranged and
collected by my father would have been better than a missing chapter on
a subject in which he was so deeply interested and to which he had
devoted so much attention.
To return to my father’s account of the comet of January, 1887:
“The comet was first seen by a farmer and a fisherman of Blauwberg,
near Cape Town, on the night of January 18–19. The same night it was
seen at the Cordoba University by M. Thomé. On the next night Mr.
Todd discovered it independently at the Adelaide Observatory, and
watched it till the 27th. On the 22d Mr. Finlay detected the comet
and was able to watch it till the 29th. At Rio de Janeiro, Mr. Cruls
observed it from the 23d to the 25th, and at Windsor, New South
Wales, Mr. Tebbutt observed the comet on the 28th and 30th.
Moonlight interfered with further observations.
“The comet’s appearance was remarkable. Its tail, long and straight,
extended over an arc of thirty degrees, but there was no appreciable
condensation which could be called the comet’s head. The long train
of light, described as nearly equal in brightness to the Magellanic
clouds, seemed to be simply cut off at that end where in most comets
a nucleus and coma are shown.
“This comet has helped to throw light on one of the most perplexing
of all the puzzles which those most perplexing of all the heavenly
bodies, comets, have presented to astronomers. In the year 1668, a
comet was seen in the southern skies which attracted very little
notice at the time, and would probably have been little thought of
since had not attention been directed to it by the appearance and
behavior of certain comets seen during the last half-century.
Visible for about three weeks, and discovered after it had already
passed the point of its nearest approach to the sun, the comet of
1668 was not observed so satisfactorily that its orbit could be
precisely determined. In fact, two entirely different orbits would
satisfy the observations fairly, though only one could be regarded
as satisfying them well.
“This orbit, however, was so remarkable that astronomers were led to
prefer the other, less satisfactory though it was, in explaining the
observed motions of the comet. For the orbit which best explained
the comet’s movements carried the comet so close to the sun as
actually to graze his visible surface. Moreover, there was this
remarkable and, indeed, absolutely unique peculiarity about the
orbit thus assigned: the comet (whose period of revolution was to be
measured by hundreds of years) actually passed through the whole of
that part of its course during which it was north of our earth’s
orbit plane in less than two hours and a half! though this part of
its course is a half-circuit around the sun, so far as direction
(not distance of travel) is concerned. That comet, when at its
nearest to the sun, was traveling at the rate of about 330 miles per
second. It passed through regions near the sun’s surface commonly
supposed to be occupied by atmospheric matter.
“Now, had the comet been so far checked in its swift rush through
those regions as to lose one-thousandth part of its velocity, it
would have returned in less than a year. But the way in which the
comet retreated showed that nothing of this sort was to be expected.
I am not aware, indeed, that any anticipations were ever suggested
in regard to the return of the comet of 1668 to our neighborhood. It
was not till the time of Halley’s comet, 1682, that modern astronomy
began to consider the question of the possibly periodic character of
cometic motions with attention. (For my own part, I reject as
altogether improbable the statement of Seneca that the ancient
Chaldean astronomers could calculate the return of comets. The comet
of 1680, called Newton’s, was the very first whose orbital motions
were dealt with on the principles of Newtonian astronomy, and
Halley’s was the first whose periodic character was recognized.)
“In 1843, another comet came up from the south, and presently
returned thither. It was, indeed, only seen during its return,
having, like the comet of 1668, been discovered only a day or two
after perihelion passage. Astronomers soon began to notice a curious
resemblance between the orbits of the two comets. Remembering the
comparative roughness of the observations made in 1668, it may be
said that the two comets moved in the same orbit, so far as could be
judged from observation. The comet of 1843 came along a path
inclined at apparently the same angle to the earth’s orbit plane,
crossed that plane ascendingly at appreciably the same point, swept
round in about two hours and a half that part of its angular circuit
which lay north of the earth’s orbit plane, and, crossing that plane
descendingly at the same point as the comet of 1668, passed along
appreciably the same course towards the southern stellar regions!
The close resemblance of two paths, each so strikingly remarkable in
itself, could not well be regarded as a mere accidental coincidence.
“However, at that time no very special attention was directed to the
resemblance between the paths of the comets of 1843 and 1668. It was
not regarded as anything very new or striking that a comet should
return after making a wide excursion round the sun; and those who
noticed that the two comets really had traversed appreciably the
same path around the immediate neighborhood of the sun, simply
concluded that the comet of 1668 had come back in 1843, after 175
years, and not necessarily for the first time.
“It must be noticed, however, before leaving this part of the
record, that the comet of 1843 was suspected of behaving in a rather
strange way when near the sun. For the first observation, made
rather roughly, indeed, with a sextant, by a man who had no idea of
the interest his observations might afterwards have, could not be
reconciled by mathematicians (including the well-known
mathematician, Benjamin Pierce) with the movement of the comet as
subsequently observed. It seemed as though when in the sun’s
neighborhood the comet had undergone some disturbance, possibly
internal, which had in slight degree affected its subsequent career.
“According to some calculations the comet of 1843 seemed to have a
period of about thirty-five years, which accorded well with the idea
that it was the comet of 1668, returned after five circuits. Nor was
it deemed at all surprising that the comet, conspicuous though it
is, had not been detected in 1713, 1748, 1783, and 1818, for its
path would carry it where it would be very apt to escape notice
except in the southern hemisphere, and even there it might quite
readily be missed. The appearance of the comet of 1668 corresponded
well with that of the comet of 1843. Each was remarkable for its
long tail and for the comparative insignificance of its head. In the
northern skies, indeed, the comet of 1843 showed a very straight
tail, and it is usually depicted in that way, whereas the comet of
1668 had a tail showing curvature. But pictures of the comet of
1843, as seen in the southern hemisphere, show it with a curved
tail, and also the tail appeared forked toward the end, during that
part of the comet’s career. However, the best observations, and the
calculations based on them, seemed to show that the period of the
comet of 1843 could not be less than 500 years.
“Astronomers were rather startled, therefore, when, in 1880, a comet
appeared in the southern skies which traversed appreciably the same
course as the comets of 1668 and 1843. When I was in Australia in
1880, a few months after the great comet had passed out of view, I
met several persons who had seen both the comet of that year and the
comet of 1843. They all agreed in saying that the resemblance
between the two comets was very close. Like the comet of 1843, that
of 1880 had a singularly long tail, and both comets were remarkable
for the smallness and dimness of their heads. One observer told me
that at times the head of the comet could barely be discerned.
“Like the comets of 1668 and 1843, the comet of 1880 grazed close
past the sun’s surface. Like them it was but about two hours and a
half north of the earth’s orbit plane. Had it only resembled the
other two in these remarkable characteristics, the coincidence would
have been remarkable. But of course the real evidence by which the
association between the comets was shown was of a more decisive
kind. It was not in general character only, but in details that the
path of the comet of 1880 resembled those on which the other two
comets had traveled. Its path had almost exactly the same slant to
the earth’s orbit plane as theirs, crossed that plane ascendingly
and descendingly at almost exactly the same points, and made its
nearest approach to the sun at very nearly the same place.
“To the astronomer such evidence is decisive. Mr. Hind, the
superintendent of the _Nautical Almanac_, and as sound and cautious
a student of cometic astronomy as any man living, remarked, so soon
as the resemblance of these comets’ paths had been ascertained, that
if it were merely accidental the case was most unusual; nay, it
might be described as unique. And, be it noticed, he was referring
only to the resemblance between the comets of 1880 and 1843. Had he
recalled at the time the comet of 1668, and its closely similar
orbit, he would have admitted that the double coincidence could not
possibly be merely casual.
“But this was by no means the end of the matter. Indeed, thus far,
although the circumstances were striking, there was nothing to
prevent astronomers from interpreting them as other cases of
coincident, or nearly coincident, comet paths, had been interpreted.
Hind and others, myself included, inferred that the comets of 1880,
1843, and 1668 were simply one and the same comet, whose return in
1880 probably followed the return in 1843 after a single revolution.
“In 1882, however, two years and a half after the appearance of the
comet of 1880, another comet came up from the south, which followed
in the sun’s neighborhood almost the same course as the comets of
1668, 1843, and 1880. The path it followed was not quite so close to
those followed by the other three as these had been to each other,
but yet was far too close to indicate possibly a mere casual
resemblance; on the contrary, the resemblance in regard to shape,
slope, and those peculiarities which render this family of comets
unique in the cometary system, was of the closest and most startling
kind.
“Many will remember the startling ideas which were suggested by
Professor Piazzi Smyth respecting the portentous significance of the
comet of 1882. He regarded it as confirming the great pyramid’s
teaching (according to the views of orthodox pyramidalists)
respecting the approaching end of the Christian dispensation. It was
seen under very remarkable circumstances, blazing close by the sun,
within a fortnight or three weeks of the precise date which had been
announced as marking that critical epoch in the history of the
earth.
“Moreover, even viewing the matter from a scientific standpoint,
Professor Smyth (who, outside his pyramidal paradoxes, is an
astronomer of well-deserved repute) could recognize sufficient
reason for regarding the comet as portentous. Many others, indeed,
both in America and in Europe, shared his opinion in this respect. A
very slight retardation of the course of the comet of 1880, during
its passage close to the surface of the sun, would have sufficed to
alter its period of revolution from the thirty-seven years assigned
on the supposition of its identity with the comet of 1843, to the
two and a half years indicated by its apparent return in 1882, and
if this had occurred in 1880, a similar interruption in 1882 would
have caused its return in less than two and a half years.
“Thus, circling in an ever-narrowing (or rather shortening) orbit,
it would presently, within a quarter of a century or so, perhaps,
have become so far entangled among the atmospheric matter around the
sun, that it would have been unable to resist absolute absorption.
What the consequences to the solar system might have been none
ventured to suggest. Newton had expressed his belief that the effect
of such absorption would be disastrous, but the physicists of the
nineteenth century, better acquainted with the laws associating heat
and motion, were not so despondent. Only Professor Smyth seems to
have felt assured (not being despondent but confident) that the
comet portended, in a very decisive way, the beginning of the end.
“However, we were all mistaken. The comet of 1882 retreated on such
a course, and with such variation of velocity as to show that its
real period must be measured not by months, as had been supposed,
nor even by years, but by centuries. Probably it will not return
till 600 or 700 years have passed. Had this not been proved, we
might have been not a little perplexed by the return of apparently
the same comet in this present year (1887). A comet was discovered
in the south early in January, whose course, dealt with by Professor
Kruger, one of the most zealous of our comet calculators, is found
to be partially identical with that of the four remarkable comets we
have been considering. Astronomers have not been moved by this new
visitant on the well-worn track, as we were by the arrival of the
comet of 1882, or as we should have been if either the comet of 1882
had never been seen, or its path had not been shown to be so wide
ranging. Whatever the comet of the present year may be, it was not
the comet of 1882 returned. No one even supposes that it was the
comet of 1880, or 1843, or 1668. Nevertheless, rightly apprehended,
the appearance of a comet traveling on appreciably the same track as
those four other comets is of extreme interest, and indeed
practically decisive as to the interpretation we must place on these
repeated coincidences.
“Observe, we are absolutely certain that the five comets are
associated together in some way; but we are as absolutely certain
that they are not one and the same comet which had traveled along
the same track and returned after a certain number of circuits. We
need not trouble ourselves with the question whether two or more of
the comets may not have been in reality one and the same body at
different returns. It suffices that they all five were not one;
since we deduce precisely the same conclusion whether we regard the
five as in reality but four or three or two. But it may be
mentioned, in passing, as appearing altogether more probable, when
all the evidence is considered, that there were no fewer than five
distinct comets, all traveling on what was practically the selfsame
track when in the neighborhood of the sun.
“There can be but one interpretation of this remarkable fact—a fact
really proved, be it noticed (as I and others have maintained since
the retreat of the comet of 1882), independently of the evidence
supplied by the great southern comet of the present year. These
comets must all originally have been one comet, though now they are
distinct bodies. For there is no reasonable way (indeed no possible
way) of imagining the separate formation of two or more comets at
different times, which should thereafter travel in the same path.
“No theory of the origin of comets ever suggested, none even which
can be imagined, could account for such a peculiarity. Whereas, on
the other hand, we have direct evidence showing how a comet,
originally single, may be transformed into two or more comets
traveling on the same, or nearly the same, track.
“The comet called Biela’s, which had circuited as a single comet up
to the year 1846 (during a period of unknown duration in the
past—probably during millions of years), divided then into two, and
has since broken up into so many parts that each cometic fragment is
separately indiscernible. The two comets into which Biela’s divided,
in 1846, were watched long enough to show that, had their separate
existence continued (visibly), they would have been found, in the
fullness of time, traveling at distances very far apart, though on
nearly the same orbit. The distance between them, which in 1846 had
increased only to about a quarter of a million of miles, had in 1852
increased to five times that space.
“Probably a few thousand years would have sufficed to set these
comets so far apart (owing to some slight difference of velocity,
initiated at the moment of their separation) that when one would
have been at its nearest to the sun, the other would have been at
its farthest from him. If we could now discern the separate
fragments of the comet, we should doubtless recognize a process in
progress by which, in the course of many centuries, the separate
cometic bodies will be disseminated all round the common orbit. We
know, further, that already such a process has been at work on
portions removed from the comet many centuries ago, for as our earth
passes through the track of this comet she encounters millions of
meteoric bodies which are traveling in the comet’s orbit, and once
formed part of the substance of a comet doubtless much more
distinguished in appearance than Biela’s.
“There can be little doubt that this is the true explanation of the
origin of that family of comets, five of whose members returned to
the neighborhood of the sun (possibly their parent) in the years
1668, 1843, 1880, 1882, and 1887. But it is not merely as thus
explaining what had been a most perplexing problem that I have dealt
with the evidence supplied by the practical identity of the orbits
of these five comets. When once we recognize that this, and this
only, can be the explanation of the associated group of five comets,
we perceive that very interesting and important light has been
thrown on the subject of comets generally.
“To begin with, what an amazing comet that must have been from which
these five, and we know not how many more, were formed by
disaggregative processes—probably by the divellent action of
repulsive forces exerted by the sun! Those who remember the comets
of 1843 and 1882 as they appeared when at their full splendor will
be able to imagine how noble an appearance a comet would present
which was formed of these combined together in one. But the comet of
1880 was described by all who saw it in the southern hemisphere as
most remarkable in appearance, despite the faintness of its head.
The great southern comet of the present year (1887) was a striking
object in the skies, though it showed the same weakness about the
head. That of 1668 was probably as remarkable in appearance as even
the comet of 1882. A comet formed by combining all these together
would certainly surpass in magnificence all the comets ever observed
by astronomers.
“And then, what enormous periods of time must have been required to
distribute the fragments of a single comet so widely that one would
be found returning to its perihelion more than two centuries after
another! When I spoke of one member of the Biela group being in
aphelion, when another would be in perihelion, I was speaking of a
difference of only three and one-third years in time; and even that
would require thousands of years. But the scattered cometic bodies
which returned to the sun’s neighborhood in 1668 and 1887 speak
probably of millions of years which have passed since first this
comet was formed. It would be a matter of curious inquiry to
determine what may have been the condition of our sun, what even his
volume, at that remote period in history.”
In view of our present knowledge of the status of the sun as a
comparative dwarf in the stellar system, may it not have been a giant
star at that remote period of its existence above referred to, rivaling
in volume the giant star Betelgeuse with its diameter exceeding two
hundred million miles.[13] At that period of the evolution of the sun,
how terrific must have been the force of the upheavals which rent its
surface, flinging forth cometic material with incalculable speed, to
distances far exceeding any known in connection with the comets with
which we are familiar.
Regarding the solar origin of comets, Dr. A. C. D. Crommelin writes as
follows in _Splendour of the Heavens_, page 407:
“When we note that the orbit of the great comet of 1882 almost
grazes the sun’s surface, there is a natural tendency to attribute a
solar origin to it. We know from the phenomena of the solar
prominences that the sun is continually erupting torrents of matter
with very high speeds; a speed of 270 miles per second would suffice
to send the matter round the sun in a circular orbit; if it rose to
382 miles per second the orbit would be parabolic; while for any
intermediate speed it would be elliptic. By combining the observed
speed of ascent of the prominence matter with the speed of approach
or recession that is indicated by the shift of the lines in the
spectrum, we conclude that speeds of this order are quite common, so
that no difficulty arises on that account. I feel rather more
difficulty from the consideration that the meteoric masses that
compose a comet’s head could not exist in the sun in a solid state;
the heat would suffice to vaporize them. The materials would
solidify in the cold of space, but as they would be under no
pressure, I imagine that the resulting solid particles would be
microscopically small, not of the size required to form reservoirs
for a large amount of gas. All objects ejected by the sun would move
in orbits that intersect the sun, except in so far as their orbits
are modified by planetary action. This latter might readily be large
enough to change the orbit to one just outside the sun (like those
of the sun-grazing comets of 1680, 1843, 1882, etc.). However, the
great majority of known comets have orbits whose least distance from
the sun is so large that we cannot imagine an origin for these by
simple solar eruption.
“The question arises, Can the comets have existed for so long a
period in view of the wastage that they undergo? According to the
geologists the date of the approach of another sun to ours (as
suggested in the planetesimal hypothesis) must be put at least a
thousand million years ago; in such an interval, even the comets of
longest period would have returned thousands of times, and I gravely
doubt whether they could continue to be such compact bodies as they
appear to be; I frankly admit that I have no plausible suggestion to
offer for evading the difficulty; it is one of the numerous cases in
astronomy (the status of the spiral nebulæ is another) in which we
must be content for the present to record observed facts and
suggested interpretations, leaving full understanding to come at a
later date, if at all.”
According to the same authority, in connection with his views on the
subject, as expressed after reading the MSS. prepared for this chapter,
he writes, as follows:
“I have noted a paper by A. A. Newton (see _Observatory_ for 1894,
page 250), in which he says, that out of 1,000 million comets
approaching the sun, 126 comets will have periods reduced to 6
years, 839 to 12 years, 1,701 to 18 years, and 2,670 to 24 years.
Further, of the 839 no less than 203, or a quarter of the whole,
will have retrograde orbits after perturbation. I think these
results go very strongly against the capture hypothesis. There would
only be one short-period comet in something like 2 million years;
whereas the experience of Biela’s, Brorsen’s (and perhaps also
Tempel 1 and Holmes), suggests that several of them have become
extinct in a century, so an equal number of new ones is required to
keep up the supply. It is a matter of surprise to me that the
difficulty is not more generally recognized.”
The following brief abstract, condensed from an article written by
Professor W. W. Payne, for _Popular Astronomy_, April, 1906, page 221,
regarding “Jupiter’s Family of Comets,” with accompanying chart, may be
of interest in connection with the matter under discussion in this
chapter:
“This notable family of comets is more and more of a wonder, the
further its study is pursued. It is remarkable on account of its
size, and—if the capture theory be correct—of the power of Jupiter
to capture comets and make them members of his family, if they, in
their wild flights through space, happen to come too near to him as
they sometimes do in certain parts of his orbital path around the
sun. But a close study of the chart showing the paths of Jupiter’s
family of comets would seem to indicate that nearly all the farthest
points of the comet’s orbits from the sun are on one side of
Jupiter’s orbit. These points are marked by short cross lines. Now
if Jupiter obtained his family by capture, why should he be more
successful on one side of the orbit than the other?
Moreover, the motions of all these bodies about the sun, and about
Jupiter, are direct, that is, contrary to those of the hands of a
watch. Does not this fact of the comets traveling in the same
direction, point to the supposition that they were originally
ejected from the planet rather than that they were captured by
Jupiter?”
CHAPTER EIGHT
METEOR STREAMS
Whence come these uncounted millions of bodies, rushing through space
with inconceivable velocity? What purpose do they fulfill in the
economy of the solar system? Are they the chips in the great workshop
of Nature, the sparks which have flown from the mighty grindstone, the
shreds of clay which the giant potters, Attraction and Repulsion, have
cast aside as useless?
—R. A. PROCTOR.
So far, we have traced the story of comets and meteors, and theories
concerning their origin, but there still remains the fascinating chapter
regarding those meteor streams which cross the earth’s path in uncounted
thousands and at regular intervals. For instance there are the great
November showers unsurpassed by any, except perhaps the August meteor
system. From recent investigations it has been shown that the
independent particles of which these systems are composed form part of a
great throng moving in orderly paths around the sun. They have proved
their right to a place in the “obedient family” which Copernicus
recognized as forming the solar system. In those days meteors were
regarded as a species of exhalation from the earth and consumed during
some processes of change in the upper regions of the atmosphere. Later
on, they had attained to the rank of volcanic missiles ejected from the
moon, and ascending still higher they were said to be stones falling
from the sky, not only on land, but “in the great sea, where they
remained concealed.”
It was not until the impressive meteoric shower of 1833 that suspicions
were aroused concerning a connection between these apparently erratic
wanderers in the sky and comets. When Professors Twining and Olmsted of
New Haven, U. S. A., observed that the paths of all the meteors during
the November shower of 1833 could be traced back to what is termed a
“radiant,” and Olmsted went so far as to call the densest part of the
swarm a “comet,” these objects attained a new interest in the
astronomical world. Olmsted and Twining were the first to show that the
meteors are not terrestrial and atmospheric, but bodies truly cosmical.
Could Kepler and Copernicus have revisited the former scene of their
labors and listened to the discussions concerning the theories advanced
in connection with comets and meteors during the latter part of the
nineteenth century, they would scarcely have recognized the scheme of
the solar system thus unfolded to their view! Not only has the claim of
meteorites to membership in that system been firmly established, but the
definite seasons for their appearance, and the well-known orbits along
which certain meteor streams travel, can now be confidently predicted by
astronomers. It is true, unfortunate circumstances may cause delay, as
in the case of the failure of the expected return of the November
meteor-shower in 1899, November 14–15, but this was undoubtedly due to
the disturbing influence of Jupiter and Saturn.
However, there could be no delay and consequent disappointment at the
return of this meteor swarm in 1833, which was not only totally
unexpected, but furnished a scene of such splendor that words fail to
convey an idea of its impressive character. We are told, by those who
were so fortunate as to witness it, that the meteors fell as thickly as
snowflakes. My father used to relate the following story regarding one
of the planters of South Carolina who gave a most impressive account of
the consternation caused among the negroes on this occasion. To quote
the words of the planter:
“I was suddenly awakened by the most distressing cries that ever
fell on my ears. Shrieks of horror and cries for mercy I could hear
from most of the negroes of the three plantations, amounting in all
to about six or eight hundred. While earnestly listening for the
cause, I heard a faint voice near the door calling my name. I arose
and, taking my sword, stood at the door.
“At this moment I heard the same voice still beseeching me to rise,
assuring me that the world was on fire. I then opened the door, and
it is difficult to say which excited me the most, the awfulness of
the scene or the distressed cries of the negroes. Upward of a
hundred lay prostrate on the ground, some speechless and some giving
utterance to the bitterest cries. With hands upraised, they implored
God to save the world and them. The scene was truly awful, for never
did rain fall much thicker than the meteors fell towards the
earth—east, west, north and south, it was the same.”
Renewed interest was taken in the subject as the year 1866 drew near,
for Professor Newton of New Haven, U. S. A., had found, after a careful
examination of records in 1864, that there had been a number of great
autumnal meteoric star-showers separated by periods of about
thirty-three years. As a result of his investigations, he predicted that
a shower would occur in 1866, and conjectured that the path along which
the meteor stream would travel might have one of five different orbits;
one with a period of thirty-three and a quarter years, two with periods
of one year plus or minus eleven days, and two with periods of half a
year plus or minus five and a half days.
Professor John Couch Adams, with the same patience and accuracy which
had enabled him to discover the planet Neptune, concentrated all his
efforts in tracing by means of the most laborious calculations the
disturbing effects of the planets upon the November meteor stream in
connection with each of the five orbits suggested by Newton. He came to
the conclusion that the true orbit must be the largest, _viz._, the one
having a period of thirty-three and a quarter years. Accordingly, he
confirmed the prediction that the meteoric shower was due to return in
1866, and not only was that prediction confirmed, but the meteor stream
was seen again in 1867, the procession stretching out along the orbit
for such a distance that it required three years to pass a given point.
Unfortunately, as far as Professor Newton and his fellow-countrymen in
America were concerned, they were unable to witness the wonderful
display, for on this occasion it favored our side of the world. In other
words, the encounter between the earth and the dense part of the meteor
stream which had caused such a spectacular display in 1833, preceded the
time predicted for it only by the brief interval separating the
successive passages of England and America across a given rotation
space.
“If we imagine that from some distant orb, a being were watching the
event, knowing the nature of Newton’s prediction and uncertain as to
the result, then this being would have seen the meteor swarm rushing
onwards to the scene of encounter on the one part, and the earth
sweeping towards the same point on the other. He could see that all
over Europe and the western parts of Asia, and in a less degree over
the foreshortened Atlantic, the meteors were already falling, the
display would grow richer and richer, but after a while it would
diminish in splendor. Finally, just as America began to show on the
exposed hemisphere, the encounter would come to an end, the earth
passing onwards to the relatively barren portions lying beyond the
meteor orbit.” (R. A. Proctor, _The Orbs Around Us_, pp. 180–181.)
Such was the occurrence which astonished the world on the nights of
November 13–14, 1866, according to Sir Robert Ball’s experience, which
he has portrayed in such vivid language in _The Story of the Heavens_:
“The night was fine; the moon was absent. The meteors were
distinguished not only by their enormous multitude, but by their
intrinsic magnificence. I shall never forget that night. On the
memorable evening, I was engaged in my usual duty at that time of
observing nebulæ with Lord Rosse’s great reflecting telescope. I was
of course aware that a shower of meteors had been predicted, but
nothing that I had heard prepared me for the splendid spectacle so
soon to be unfolded. It was about ten o’clock at night when an
exclamation from an attendant by my side made me look up from the
telescope, just in time to see a fine meteor dash across the sky. It
was presently followed by another, and then again by others in twos
and in threes, which showed that the prediction of a great shower
was likely to be verified.
“At this time, the Earl of Rosse (then Lord Oxmantown) joined me at
the telescope, and after a brief interval we decided to cease our
observations of the nebulæ and ascend to the top of the wall of the
great telescope, from whence a clear view of the whole hemisphere of
the heavens could be obtained. There, for the next three or four
hours, we witnessed a spectacle which can never fade from my memory.
The shooting stars gradually increased in number until sometimes
several were seen at once. Sometimes they swept over our heads,
sometimes to the right, sometimes to the left, but they all diverged
from the east. All the tracks of the meteors radiated from Leo.
“Sometimes a meteor appeared to come almost directly towards us, and
then its path was so foreshortened that it had hardly any
appreciable length, and looked like an ordinary fixed star swelling
into brilliancy and then as rapidly vanishing. Occasionally luminous
trains would linger on for many minutes after the meteor had flashed
across, but the great majority of the trains in this shower were
evanescent. It would be impossible to say how many thousands of
meteors were seen, each one of which was bright enough to have
elicited a note of admiration on any ordinary night.”
Soon after the remarkable display of meteors in 1866, Schiaparelli of
Milan, whose interest had been aroused by the researches of Newton and
Adams, published a paper upon the Perseids, or August meteors, in which
he drew attention to the fact that they were moving in the same path as
that of the bright comet of 1862, known as Tuttle’s comet. Shortly after
this Leverrier published his orbit of the Leonid meteors derived from
the observed position of the radiant (within the sickle-shaped group of
stars in Leo), in connection with the periodic time assigned by Adams;
and almost simultaneously, but without any idea of a connection between
them, Oppolzer published his orbit of Tempel’s comet of 1866, and the
two orbits were at once seen to be practically identical.
Now a _single_ case of such a coincidence as that pointed out by
Schiaparelli might possibly be accidental, but hardly _two_. Then five
years later in 1872 came the meteoric shower of the Bielids, the
disintegrated particles following in the track of Biela’s comet, and
since then scores of meteor streams have been apparently detected with
“a comet annexed,” firmly establishing the theory regarding the
connection between comets and meteor streams as a well-proved fact.
The longer a comet has been in the solar system, the more widely
scattered will be its accompanying meteor stream. According to this
theory, the Perseids which are scattered more or less uniformly along
their orbit of enormous extent ranging far beyond the orbit of the
outermost planet Neptune, are undoubtedly old inhabitants of the solar
system. The Leonids, on the contrary, are comparatively newcomers
introduced into the solar system (according to the calculations of
Leverrier, and admitting the capture theory, though the ejection theory
is far more plausible), in A.D. 126, when Tempel’s comet, of which they
formed part, passed very near Uranus.
Since the mystery regarding these celestial wanderers has been cleared,
it might almost seem as if every comet of distinction had its own
special host of meteoric attendants following closely in its wake, their
number constantly increased by the addition of discarded fragments
forming the train of the comet at each visit paid by it to the sun. The
following is a list compiled by Mr. W. F. Denning of the chief meteoric
displays of the year.
══════════════╤════════════════╤═══════════╤═══════════════════════════
_Name of │ _Date of │ _Radiant │ _Appearance of meteors_
shower_ │ maximum_ │ point_ │
──────────────┼────────────────┼───────────┼───────────────────────────
│ │ R.A. Dcl. │
Quadrantids │January 3 │ 230° + 52°│Slowish, long paths
Lyrids │April 21 │ 270° + 33°│Swift, streaks
η Aquarids │May 2–6 │ 338° − 2°│Swift, very long paths
Draconids │June 28 │ 228° + 54°│Very slow, short paths
δ Aquarids │July 28–30 │339° − 120°│Slow, long paths
α Capricornids│July 25-August 4│ 303° − 10°│Very slow, brilliant, long
Perseids │August 11 │ 45° + 57°│Swift, streaks
Orionids │October 19 │ 92° + 15°│Swift, streaks
Leonids │November 14–15 │ 151° + 23°│Very swift, streaks
Andromedids │November 17–27 │ 25° + 44°│Very slow, short, trained
Geminids │December 11–12 │ 110° + 33°│Swift, white, short paths
──────────────┴────────────────┴───────────┴───────────────────────────
The _Lyrids_ are connected with Comet 1861 I, having a period of about
415 years.
The _Perseids_ are connected with Comet 1862 III, having a period of
about 120 years.
The _Leonids_ are connected with Comet 1866 I, having a period of 33⅓
years.
The _Bielids_, or _Andromedids_, are connected with Biela’s comet, and
have a period of 6¾ years.
We are now aware of meteor streams which at certain stated intervals,
cross the earth’s orbit. They are regular visitors for which we may
watch with every certainty that a few, if not thousands, will be
captured by too near an approach to the atmospheric net encircling our
planet. The whole of the solar domain may be alive with meteors, but by
no possibility can we become aware of their presence until they take the
fatal plunge which ultimately causes their destruction. The space
actually traversed by the earth in its journey around the sun, is but
the minutest fraction of that vast sphere over which the sun holds sway,
“yet it has been estimated by Professor Newcomb of America, on
grounds which are perfectly reliable, that in including telescopic
meteors (that is, meteors so small as only to be visible when they
happen to pass across the field of view of a telescope), no less
than 146,000 millions of meteoric bodies fall each year upon the
earth. If one in a thousand struck a human being the inhabitants of
the earth would be decimated in a single year.” (R. A. Proctor, _The
Expanse of Heaven_, p. 164.)
Fortunately for us, the earth is protected by the surrounding air, which
offers a most effective resistance to the swift motion of the celestial
missiles with which it is bombarded from above. The swifter their
motion, the more effective the resistance.
When meteors are first seen they are mostly at a height of seventy
miles, vanishing at a height of about fifty miles. But the actual course
they pursue through the air is nearly always much longer, because they
do not descend vertically, but aslant.
Mr. Denning remarks, in his account of meteors for _Splendour of the
Heavens_, “there are comparatively few astronomers, either professional
or amateur, who cultivate the meteoric branch. They evidently do not
regard it as an attractive study. In any case, it does not appeal to
them sufficiently to enlist their sympathies, and so it has been
comparatively neglected in recent years. A few ardent observers have, it
is true, continued to devote themselves to the subject,” and he cites
instances where two English ladies, Miss A. Grace Cook, director of the
Meteoric Section of the B. A. A., in 1922, and the late Mrs. Fiammetta
Wilson, endeavored to arouse more enthusiasm in this field of work by
both practical example and advice. As an instance of the splendid
enthusiasm of the latter, she has to her credit for meteoric
observations carried on during an interval of ten years, the record of
about ten thousand meteors. This is an average of a thousand a year, and
anyone who has attempted to keep a steady watch on a starlit night in
the hope of observing an evanescent meteor will realize what such a
record means. It must have required an immense amount of patience,
endurance, and untiring vigilance, for the wily meteor is so apt to take
us unawares.
The writer has had but one experience of the kind, and it was upon the
occasion of the expected display of Leonids in 1899. The night was
extremely cold, as one might expect during the month of November, when
with two friends, Miss Harpham and Miss Tarbox, I stationed myself on
the roof of an apartment house in New York City, on November 15, at
12.55. The record of our observations, which were continued until 6.00
A.M. at the hour of dawn, was afterward printed in _Popular Astronomy_,
Vol. IX, 1901, pp. 82–83. During that time we observed sixty-eight
meteors, of which, as the account shows, a few were intruders.
Never was dawn so welcome to the weary observers, who were not nearly so
much chilled by the November weather, as by the disappointment at the
meager display. Possibly the bright moonlight in the earlier part of the
watch had dimmed the splendor of many of the Leonids, but where were the
tens of thousands which were said to have fallen in 1833, or even the
thousands which were observed in 1866, for not even one hundred rewarded
us for our vigil in 1899? However, we were told to watch again the
following year, when possibly we might meet with better luck, but our
record as given in _Popular Astronomy_, Vol. IX, 1901, shows that only
forty-four meteors were seen between midnight and dawn, and of these,
seven were intruders. The cause of the failure of the return of the
Leonids in 1899 was due to the fact that the planet Jupiter had so much
disturbed the orbit of the meteor group of 1866, that from calculations
made it was estimated that it would pass about two millions of miles
outside of the earth’s orbit, and thus escape collision with our
atmosphere. For this reason, few meteors were seen in 1899 and 1900,
though in 1901 and 1903 pretty brisk showers of Leonids were visible,
though they were nothing like the magnificent displays of 1799, 1833,
and 1866. A new shower derived from Pons-Winnecke’s periodical comet was
witnessed from Bristol on June 28, 1916. A very brilliant and abundant
return of this display may occur during the last week of June, 1927,
when the earth and comet will be exceedingly near each other.
The following suggestions may be helpful to those who may feel inclined
to make a hobby of recording meteors which are far more plentiful (quite
a number making their appearance on any clear night) than comets, which
are, comparatively speaking, rare visitors. Practically no appliances of
any kind are required. The main essential is a knowledge of the various
constellations and of the stars visible to the naked eye, a knowledge
soon acquired by a study of some good atlas of the heavens, such as my
father’s _Half Hours with the Stars_. This contains twelve charts, one
for each month of the year, with accompanying letter press.
A beginner generally finds great difficulty in locating the beginning
and ending of the course of a meteor, as these seldom occur close to any
well-known star. It will always be found useful to have a straight rod
about four feet long. This should be held up so that it seems to lie
along the path of the meteor. A rapid glance along the rod, backward and
forward, will generally be sufficient to enable one to detect some stars
within the radius of a circle. The beginning and ending of the trail of
the meteors can then be recorded, as the eye easily estimates the length
of the arc between various points of the heavens. In this way one
records the observation made—let us say, at 4.39, for November 15, 1899.
The direction followed by the meteor was from the radiant toward Castor
and Pollux, the streak remaining visible for three seconds. The meteor
was very bright, meaning that it equaled a first-magnitude star, and the
train was 5° in length. Though the color was not recorded at the time,
yet it is possible to make a very sure guess, that it was blue, the
usual color of Leonids.
It is not advisable to look for meteors very far from the radiant, as
that is the main point from which they are seen to emanate. Therefore,
it will be sufficient to confine the attention to a region within 30° to
40° from the radiant. Meteors appearing near the radiant have short
trains, while those at a greater distance have generally longer trains.
When a meteor is observed, the time, magnitude, beginning and ending of
course, duration of flight, and any special characteristics should be
recorded as quickly as possible, using a system of abbreviations.
Possibly the writer, at the next display which is expected in 1933, may
be prepared—with the assistance of a few enthusiasts—to carry out this
elaborate program, but it is impossible for one or even three to make an
accurate record of so many happenings regarding a meteor which may have
remained on view but a second or so.
In judging the time of flight a stop-watch is very useful, but in
the case of slow meteors it is easy to estimate the time
approximately by counting at a certain rate, say 180 to the minute.
The writer was told to recite a nursery rhyme at a certain pace,
such as hickory-dickory-dock, and note the syllable or word uttered
at disappearance of meteor, but in the case of the Leonids the word
“hickory” had scarcely been uttered before the Leonid had vanished,
so that the simpler method of counting “one, two, three,” was
adopted, proving entirely satisfactory, when we remembered to count!
It might be a good idea, before making the observations, to mark off on
the rod, with luminous paint or radium, such as is used with watches,
3°, the distance between the three stars in the belt of Orion; 5°, the
distance between the pointers in Ursa Major; 10°, the distance from
Alpha to Delta in the same group of stars; 15° from Delta through Alpha;
and 26° from Alpha to Eta, at the extremity of the Bear’s tail, or the
Dipper handle, according to the popular nomenclature used in America,
where the seven stars of the Plough, or Charles’s Wain, are usually
referred to as the Great Dipper.
Special attention should be given in recording very bright meteors or
fireballs. In many cases fireballs may be seen by other persons, and the
data supplied by any two observers situated at different places. Their
combined observations are sufficient to determine the real path,
radiant, etc., of the celestial object.
We have a fine illustration of this in the drift of a meteor trail which
was observed by Mr. Denning at 7.33 P.M. on February 22, 1909, passing
in a southwest direction over the northern coast of France. The luminous
trail left in its wake persisted as a visible object for over two hours,
during which time it drifted in a northwest direction at 120 miles an
hour, under the influence of a violent wind in the upper atmosphere. As
usual on every clear starlit night there are a number of enthusiastic
observers keeping close watch of the sky, ready to trap with their
cameras any unwary meteor which may flash into view. On this occasion
there were at least 250 observers in different parts of the country
watching the phenomenon during the whole two hours the meteor trail
remained visible.
There is a branch of the British Astronomical Association which deals
with records and observations of meteors, and it is known as the Meteor
Section. “Mr. Denning has proved a faithful friend,” as Miss A. Grace
Cook remarks in her report of the Section for 1922, “and has encouraged
the Section in every possible way.” Sometime one of the enthusiastic
observers in search of meteors may be rewarded by a discovery of larger
prey, in the form of a comet. Imagine the delight of having a comet one
could thus claim, as it were, as one’s own personal property!
Fireballs differ vastly from shooting stars in exposing a larger surface
to the opposing atmosphere, as they make their downward plunge from
space therein. It is when they suddenly come in contact with the
particles of which the air surrounding our planet is composed, that
their presence is first made known to us. When a shooting star finally
blazes out, owing to the friction caused by the encounter, it is at a
height of from thirty to fifty-five miles above the ground. It is then
dissipated in vapor, and vanishes. No wonder these balls of fire caused
terror among the ignorant and superstitious in the days when their
meaning was unknown. In Mr. Denning’s book, _Telescopic Work for
Starlight Evenings_, page 269, there is a drawing made by J. Plant of
Salford, as an illustration, giving an excellent idea of the imposing
aspect of a fireball, seen by this observer on November 23, 1877, as it
emerged from behind a cloud. Judging from the date, it might have been
one of the Bielids, provided its radiant was in the constellation
Andromeda. It was, however, in Taurus.
Fireballs are usually silent, but sometimes they have been known to
explode with a loud noise. The fireball which was observed (as above) in
November, 1877, is said to have “given a sound like salvos of artillery,
and doors and windows were violently shaken.” As a rule, however, there
is no audible explosion, the bright nucleus fading out until it is
reduced to a mere spark before disappearing.
Occasionally fireballs have been known to give out three or four
brilliant flashes before fading from view. These flashes, often of
startling intensity, have been described as “coming less swiftly than
flashes of lightning.” They remind one forcibly of moonlight breaking
through the clear intervals in passing clouds. There is always something
mysterious about these luminous objects as they emerge so stealthily
from the darkness, vanishing as silently as they came.
During the month of August fine meteoric displays may be looked for,
between the 10th and 13th of that month. They are sometimes referred to
as “the tears of St. Lawrence,” since the 10th of August is dedicated to
the memory of that saint. However, they are more generally known as the
Perseids, their radiant being in the constellation Perseus. As this
group of stars has risen tolerably high about nine o’clock in the
northeastern sky during the month of August, watching for Perseids is an
easier matter than in the case of the Leonids, which do not appear at
their best until “the wee sma’ hours.”
The meteors belonging to the Perseid family are yellow in color, moving
at the rate of thirty-eight miles a second, as compared with the swift
onrush of the November meteors at forty-four miles a second, the latter
flashing into view with the rapidity of a skyrocket, and as swiftly
disappearing. The Bielids, on the contrary, travel with medium velocity,
their stately glide at ten miles per second, being in marked contrast to
the speed of the Perseids or Leonids. The Bielids, also called the
Andromedids, are due November 23–27, and, as already noted, may be seen
to radiate from a point near Gamma in the constellation Andromeda. In
the case of the Perseids, a few brilliant streaks often herald their
approach, usually giving promise of an especially fine display. The
August meteor showers yield the smallest shooting stars and the largest
type of fireballs. Observers startled by the sudden appearance of the
latter are rather apt to give exaggerated accounts of their appearance,
neglecting to note the direction whence they came, the time or duration
of their flight, and other necessary data, rendering the observations,
in consequence, practically useless.
We now come to shooting stars, the kindergarten—as it were—of the
meteoric system. Weighing practically but a few ounces at the most, they
can be easily handled or put into one’s pocket without discomfort.
Analysis of those which have sunk to rest on our planet, as a result of
successfully penetrating right through the atmospheric net surrounding
our domain, has shown that they are composed of iron and many of the
chemical elements, such as sodium and carbon, which are to be found on
the earth.
For vast periods of time they may have been pursuing a seemingly endless
voyage along the highways and byways of the solar system, wending their
way in safety amid the intricate paths traversed by the planets. They
have been traveling at a speed far exceeding that of the swiftest cannon
ball, and doubtless with an average velocity of about twenty-five miles
a second. A shooting star moving at such a rate would pass from the
earth to the moon in a couple of hours, or from London to Edinburgh in
about ten seconds. All goes well with the little traveler as long as it
keeps at a discreet distance from the aërial torpedo net surrounding our
planet, seemingly set for the purpose of entrapping such intruders.
However, should the shooting star venture too near, plunging through the
atmosphere at the pace which kills, it is bound to come to grief.
Rubbing against every particle it meets on the way, friction is caused,
resulting in the blaze of glory which makes its presence known to us,
swiftly followed by its exit when it is reduced to ashes.
Some of the particles, if any are left (for usually they are dissipated
in vapor in the upper regions of the air), sift down upon our planet in
the form of fine dust. From the top of a high mountain Dr. Reichenbach
collected dust which had never been touched by spade or pick-ax; and in
analysis he found this dust to consist of almost identically the same
elements as those of which meteoric stones are composed—nickel, cobalt,
iron, and phosphorus. Dr. Phipson, in his interesting work on _Meteors,
Aërolites, and Shooting Stars_, remarks that
“when a glass covered with pure glycerine is exposed to a strong
wind, late in November, it receives a number of _black angular
particles_, which can be dissolved in strong hydrochloric acid, and
produces yellow chloride of _iron_ upon the glass plate.”
It is a strange thought that the air which sifts in through the window,
and settles on the tables and chairs, nay even the very air we breathe,
may contain particles of matter which have at one time circled in
meteoric form around the sun!
Should this be the case, and if, as Professor Newcomb, the American
astronomer, tells us, no less than 146,000 million meteoric particles
fall on the earth during the course of a year, may we not infer that
this means an increase in its mass? In my father’s book, _The Orbs
Around Us_ (page 195), he writes:
“If we assign a single grain as the weight of each meteor visible to
the naked eye, we deduce fifteen millions of grains as the earth’s
daily increase of weight. This is rather less than a ton. So that in
the course of about three years the earth’s weight must increase
(even on the very low value here assigned to a meteor’s weight) by a
thousand tons; and in the course of the three thousand years during
which astronomy has been a science the earth’s weight must have
increased a million tons. This is a mere trifle compared with the
earth’s own weight, which is 6,000 millions of millions of times
greater. Indeed, it may easily be shown that the actual increase of
the earth’s radius in this interval of 3,000 years, would be about
the 70,000,000th part of an inch.”
From time immemorial legend and superstition have interwoven themselves
around these small members of the solar system as they silently and
swiftly sweep across the vault of heaven, vanishing mysteriously as
though extinguished by some invisible hand. Dante describes them:
“As oft along the still and pure serene
At nightfall glides a sudden trail of fire,
Attracting with involuntary heed
The eye to follow it, erewhile it rest
And seems some star that shifted place in heaven.”
For the Oriental believer, the shooting stars are the fiery darts hurled
by the angels at the evil spirits or genii when the latter are caught
eavesdropping at the gates of heaven. This legend is to be found in the
Koran, and is referred to by Moore in his “Paradise and the Peri,” in
the lines:
“Fleeter than the starry brands
Flung at night from angel hands,
At those dark and daring sprites
Who would climb th’ empyreal heights.”
According to a Lithuanian myth as told by Grimm in his _Deutsche
Mythologie_, the spinstress Werpega spins the thread of a child’s life
at birth, and each thread ends in a star. When death approaches, the
thread breaks and the star falls to earth, quenching its light.
In Galicia, the province northeast of Hungary, the peasants believe that
when a star falls to earth it is at once transformed into a rarely
beautiful maiden with long, glittering, golden hair. She is supposed to
exert a magical influence on all who come in contact with her, but the
effect is evil unless certain words are uttered ere the star falls to
earth. From this superstition doubtless springs the custom of “wishing”
while a shooting star is seen gliding swiftly eastwards. The wish will
surely come true, it is said, if fully expressed before the star fades
from view. Finally, we have the fanciful idea suggested in the following
lines by Fiona Macleod:
“A star was loosed from heaven;
All saw it fall, in wonder,
Where universe clashed universe
With solar thunder.”
CHAPTER NINE
DID LIFE FIRST COME TO THIS EARTH IN A METEOR?
Among the most startling suggestions recently thrown out by men of
science, not one, perhaps, has seemed more amazing to the general
public than the idea put forward by Sir William Thomson in the able
address with which he inaugurated the meeting of the British
Association (1871)—that life on the earth may have had its origin from
seeds borne to our planet by meteors, the remnants of former worlds.
—R. A. PROCTOR.
The quaint suggestion thus advanced by Lord Kelvin regarding the
possibility of the first germs of life reaching our planet in the form
of “a fragment of an exploded world,” was taken seriously at the time by
some, but was undoubtedly merely a jest on the part of the able speaker.
As my father remarked in the book from which the above quotation is made
(_The Orbs Around Us_): “I can scarcely bring myself to believe that the
eminent professor was serious in urging his hypothesis of seed-bearing
meteors. Englishmen speak sometimes of the slowness with which a
Scotsman apprehends a jest; but the Scotsman may return the compliment,
so far, at least, as the southern estimate of Scottish humor is
concerned. For a true Scot makes his jest with a gravity and _aplomb_
unequaled among Sassenach humorists. It is far from improbable that the
seriousness with which the seed-bearing meteorites have been discussed
proved infinitely amusing to the gathering of the clans in Edinburgh.”
Nevertheless, that there were some believers who were convinced that
Lord Kelvin would not have advanced such a theory without some solid
basis for its foundation, was shown by the fact that the great Swedish
scientist, Svante Arrhenius, considered it worth while, in his book
entitled _The Life of the Universe_, to refer to the various
difficulties which have made it next to impossible to establish the
theory, which he compares (from the standpoint of arousing popular
interest) with the problem of perpetual motion. He concluded his remarks
on the subject by the statement (which has already been confirmed) that
the problem of spontaneous generation in the actual form of a meteor
will, “it is to be expected, be eliminated from the scientific program,
just as the problem of perpetual motion has been discarded.”
Nevertheless, there is something fascinating about this myth which
appealed strongly, at the time it was advanced, to the imagination,
though it led to queries which when answered led nowhere. If the worlds
by bursting supplied space with seed-bearing meteors, how were they
themselves peopled with living beings? “This circumstance of itself
throws an air of doubt over the new hypothesis,” according to my
father’s views on the subject, “as a seriously intended account of the
origin of life on our earth.”
It recalls the cumbersome way in which the Hindu accounted for the
support of our planet in space, supposing it rested upon the back of a
tortoise, but the Hindu student of science might well ask how is the
tortoise itself supported? Or again, supposing life-bearing meteorites
reached our planet from exploded worlds, what would be their condition
by the time they were deposited on a soil favorable for their
development?
According to Flammarion regarding the possibility of meteoric fragments
coming to our planet from an ancient satellite of the earth which was
shattered to pieces, the germs shut up in the interior of the meteorite
would remain in a kind of lethargic sleep without losing any of their
germinative qualities during their plunge through interplanetary space.
In fact, the author lends a seductive air of plausibility to the myth,
suggesting that the fragments would reach our planet fresh and cold, to
be again rejuvenated and come to life, but even Flammarion is compelled
to acknowledge that we have found nothing to prove such a theory true.
But if this new theory should be accepted, as my father wrote in 1871,
“we have reason to regard with apprehension the too close approach of
one of these visitants; because, if one meteor supplied the seeds of the
living things now existing on the world, another may supply myriads of
seeds of undesirable living things; and perhaps the sequent struggle for
life may result in the survival of the fittest.”
It may seem superfluous to add that, in a collision by which a world was
shivered into fragments, the seeds of life would have what may be
described as a warm time, since the collision could hardly fail to
vaporize the destroyed world. The fiery heat generated by the collision,
followed by a voyage during myriads of millions of ages through the
inconceivable cold of space, and the effect of the fierce heat which
accompanies the fall of meteoric masses upon our earth, would seem so
unfavorable to the germs of life that we may accept with confidence the
belief that all such germs had been completely destroyed before reaching
this planet.
Arrhenius reversing the seed-bearing-meteor theory in connection with a
meteorite bringing the seeds of life to our planet, makes a neat
calculation showing the time which would be required for a tiny
particle, drawn from our planet and hurled into space, to arrive at the
surface of a planet circling around the star Alpha in the constellation
of the Centaur. It would be twenty days on its way to Mars (traveling at
the usual rate of speed assigned to meteors, _viz._, some twenty-six
miles a second.) A year would elapse before it reached the outermost
planet Neptune, which travels on the confines of the solar system, and
some nine thousand years ere it plunged through the atmosphere
surrounding a planet circling round the nearest star, and finally
crashed on its surface. Endless are the speculations which might thus be
indulged in regarding the celestial voyages of meteors through
interplanetary space, but though the misguided ones which have rashly
ventured too near our planet have been trapped in its atmosphere,
landing on its surface before suffering complete annihilation, have been
weighed, measured, and tested by chemical analysis, the past history of
their excursions into space is enshrouded in a mysterious silence as
unbroken as that of the Sphinx.[14]
[Illustration:
OUTH LODGE, KEITHICK, WHERE THE STRATHMORE METEORITE FELL THROUGH THE
ROOF, DECEMBER 3, 1917
Photograph of the lodge and Mr. and Mrs. Hill taken by H. Coates
]
The writer at one time had a paper weight to which she attached great
value, despite the fact that it was an apparently insignificant metallic
stone weighing a few ounces, but there was a fascination in the
conjecture as to where it had come from. That was the query which could
never be answered, for all that was actually known of the past history
of this celestial visitor dated from one eventful evening when it was
seen for a few brief seconds as a momentary streak of light, revealing
the course of its descent, so that a fortunate mortal here below was
enabled to locate it after its swift plunge to earth. After it had
cooled sufficiently to bear handling, it was carefully examined and its
substance was found to be thickly interspersed with carbon particles,
revealing, like so many telltale imps, that this inert mass had once
known better days when its life was filled with activity until it took
the fatal plunge which ended so disastrously. “If you only knew what I
have seen, and where I have been during my wanderings in space,” one
could imagine the meteorite saying in reply to the numerous queries,
regarding its origin, in the mind of the writer; until this fascinating
little visitor in space vanished as mysteriously as it had come, through
too great a confidence placed in an audience in the Far West, where the
meteorite was passed round for inspection and never returned.
However, the writer was enabled to resume her study of the subject on a
larger scale while visiting the famous Foyer collection of meteorites at
the American Museum of Natural History, New York, where the specimens
are a little too hefty for transportation. No one, for instance, would
be able to depart with the Ahnighito, the great Cape York meteorite,
which was found on the north coast of Melville Bay near Cape York,
Greenland, by Commander Robert E. Peary, in 1894, without attracting a
considerable amount of attention. It is the largest and heaviest
meteorite known, weighing over thirty-six tons. It possibly weighed more
up to the date of its fall, as the guide Tallakoteah, who enabled Peary
to discover the meteorite, informed him that up to the early part of the
nineteenth century, members of the Eskimo tribe had found it very useful
in providing them with material for knives and hatchets.
[Illustration: