Southern plantations and the woolly heads of negroes pounding the
ground—cries in northern regions and round white faces turned to the
sky—fiery globes in the sky—a study in black, white, and golden
formations in one general glow. Upon the night of November 13-14, 1833,
occurred the most sensational celestial spectacle of the nineteenth
century: for six hours fiery meteors gushed from the heavens, and were
visible along the whole Atlantic coast of the United States.
One supposes that astronomers do not pound the ground with their heads,
and presumably they do not screech, but they have feelings just the
same. They itched. Here was something to formulate. When he hears of
something new and unquestionable in the sky, an astronomer is diseased
with ill-suppressed equations. Symbols persecute him for expression. His
is the frenzy of someone who would stop automobiles, railroad trains,
bicycles, all things, to measure them; run, with a yardstick, after
sparrows, flies, all persons passing his door. This is supposed to be
scientific, but it can be monomaniac. Very likely the distress and the
necessity of Prof. Olmstead were keenest. He was the first to formulate.
He “demonstrated” that these meteors, known as the Leonids, revolved
around the sun once in six months.
They didn’t.
Then Prof. Newton “demonstrated” that the “real” period was thirty-three
and a quarter years. But this was done empirically, and that is not
divine, nor even aristocratic, and the thing would have to be done
rationally, or mathematically, by someone, because, if there be not
mathematical treatment, in gravitational terms, of such phenomena,
astronomers are in reduced circumstances. It was Dr. Adams, who,
emboldened with his experience in not having to point anywhere near
Neptune, but nevertheless being acclaimed by all patriotic Englishmen as
the real discoverer of Neptune, mathematically “confirmed” Prof.
Newton’s “findings.” Dr. Adams predicted that the Leonids would return
in November, 1866 and in November, 1899, occupying several years, upon
each occasion, in passing a point in this earth’s orbit.
There were meteors upon the night of Nov. 13-14, 1866. They were
plentiful. They often are in the middle of November. They no more
resembled the spectacle of 1833 than an ordinary shower resembles a
cloudburst. But the “demonstration” required that there should be an
equal display, or, according to some aspects, a greater display, upon
the corresponding night of the next year. There was a display, the next
year; but it was in the sky of the United States, and was not seen in
England. Another occurrence nothing like that of 1833 was reported from
the United States.
By conventional theory, this earth was in a vast, wide stream of
meteors, the earth revolving so as to expose successive parts to
bombardment. So keenly did Richard Proctor visualize the earth so
immersed and so bombarded, that, when nothing was seen in England, he
explained. He spent most of his life explaining. In the _Student_,
2-254, he wrote: “Had the morning of November 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 were 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 in the world who had predicted the return of the Leonids,
and the finding, 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—