_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. Seeming 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:
Brook’s 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 Periodic Comet (1900, III)—not seen in 1907—“so we
shall not have a chance of knowing more about it until 1914.” No more
known about it in 1914. Borelly’s Comet (1905, II)—“Its expected 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 a 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. Mädler’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 astronomer
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,
of 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, of
Etwell, and the intellectual tentacles that he had thrust through
centuries is not made clear in most of the 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. Mr. Hind predicted. He pointed to the future,
but he pointed like someone closing a thumb and spreading four fingers.
Mr. Hind said that, according to Halley’s calculations, the comet would
arrive in the summer of 1865. However, an acceleration of five years had
been discovered, so that the time should be set down for the middle of
August, 1860. However, according to Mr. Hind’s calculated orbit, the
comet might return in the summer of 1864. However, allowing for
acceleration, “the comet is found to be due early in August, 1858.”
Then Bomme calculated. He predicted that the comet would return upon
August 2, 1858.
There was no comet.
The astronomers went on calculating. They predicted that the comet would
return upon August 22, 1860.
No comet.
But I think that a touch of mercy is a luxury that we can afford;
anyway, we’ll have to be merciful or monotonous. For variety we shall
switch from a comet that did not appear to one that did appear. Upon the
night of June 30, 1861, a magnificent humiliator appeared in the
heavens. One of the most brilliant luminosities of modern times appeared
as suddenly as if it had dropped through the shell of our solar
system—if it be a solar system. There were letters in the newspapers;
correspondents wanted to know why this extraordinary object had not been
seen coming, by astronomers. Mr. Hind explained. He wrote that the comet
was a small object, and consequently had not been seen coming by
astronomers. No one could deny the magnificence of the comet;
nevertheless Mr. Hind declared that it was very small, looking so large
because it was near this earth. This is not the later explanation:
nowadays it is said that the comet had been in southern skies, where it
had been observed. All contemporaneous astronomers agreed that the comet
had come down from the north, and not one of them thought of explaining
that it had been invisible because it had been in the south. A
luminosity, with a mist around it, altogether the apparent size of the
moon, had burst into view. In _Recreative Science_, 3-143, Webb says
that nothing like it had been seen since the year 1680. Nevertheless the
orthodox pronouncement was that the object was small and would fade away
as quickly as it had appeared. See the _Athenaeum_, July 6, 1861—“So
small an object will soon get beyond our view.” (Hind)
_Popular Science Review_, 1-513:
That, in April, 1862, the thing was still visible.
Something else that was seen under circumstances that can not be
considered triumphant—upon Nov. 28, 1872, Prof. Klinkerfues, of
Göttingen, looking for Biela’s comet, saw meteors in the path of the
expected comet. He telegraphed to Pogson, of Madras, to look near the
star _Theta Centauri_, and he would see the comet. I’d not say that this
was in the field of magic, but it does seem consummate. A dramatic
telegram like this electrifies the faithful—an astronomer in the north
telling an astronomer far in the south where to look, so definitely
naming one special little star in skies invisible in the north. Pogson
looked where he was told to look and announced that he saw what he was
told to see. But at meetings of the R. A. S., Jan. 10 and March 14,
1873, Captain Tupman pointed out that, even if Biela’s comet had
appeared, it would have been nowhere near this star.
Among our later emotions will be indignation against all astronomers who
say that they know whether stars are approaching or receding. When we
arrive at that subject it will be the preciseness of the astronomers
that will perhaps inflame us beyond endurance. We note here the far
smaller difficulty of determining whether a relatively nearby comet is
coming or going. Upon Nov. 6, 1892, Edwin Holmes discovered a comet. In
the _Jour. B. A. A._, 3-182, Holmes writes that different astronomers
had calculated its distance from twenty million miles to two hundred
million miles, and had determined its diameter to be all the way from
twenty-seven thousand miles to three hundred thousand miles. Prof. Young
said that the comet was approaching; Prof. Parkhurst wrote merely that
the impression was that the comet was approaching the earth; but Prof.
Berberich (_Eng. Mec._, 56-316) announced that, upon Nov. 6, Holmes’
comet had been 36,000,000 miles from this earth, and 6,000,000 miles
away upon the 16th, and that the approach was so rapid that, upon the
21st the comet would touch this earth.
The comet, which had been receding, kept on receding.