Astronomical Curiosities: Facts and Fallacies

An occultation of the Pleiades by the moon was observed by Timocharis at Alexandria on January 29, 282 B.C. Calculations by Schjellerup show that Alcyone (η Tauri) was occulted; but the exact time of the day recorded by Timocharis differs very considerably from that computed by Schjellerup.493 Another occultation of the Pleiades is recorded by Agrippa in the reign of Domitian. According to Schjellerup the phenomenon occurred on November 29, A.D. 92.

“Kepler states that on the 9th of January, 1591, Mæstlin and himself witnessed an occultation of Jupiter by Mars. The red colour of the latter on that occasion plainly indicated that it was the inferior planet.”494 That is, that Mars was nearer to the sun than Jupiter. But as the telescope had not then been invented, this may have been merely a near approach of the two planets.

According to Kepler, Mæstlin saw an occultation of Mars by Venus on October 3, 1590. But this may also have been merely a near approach.[496]

A curious paradox is that one can discover an object without seeing it, and see an object without discovering it! The planet Neptune was discovered by Adams and Leverrier by calculation before it was seen in the telescope by Galle; and it was actually seen by Lalande on May 8 and 10, 1795, but he took it for a star and thus missed the discovery. In fact, he saw the planet, but did not discover it. It actually appears as a star of the 8th magnitude in Harding’s Atlas (1822). The great “new star” of February, 1901, known as Nova Persei, was probably seen by some people before its discovery was announced; and it was actually noticed by a well-known American astronomer, who thought it was some bright star with which he was not familiar! But this did not amount to a discovery. Any one absolutely ignorant of astronomy might have made the same observation. An object must be identified as a new object before a discovery can be claimed. Some years ago a well-known Irish naturalist discovered a spider new to science, and after its discovery he found that it was common in nearly every house in Dublin! But this fact did not detract in the least from the merit of its scientific discovery.

There is a story of an eminent astronomer who had been on several eclipse expeditions, and yet was heard to remark that he had never seen a total eclipse of the sun. “But your observations of several eclipses are on record,” it was objected. “Certainly, I have on several occasions made observations, but I have always been too busy to look at the eclipse.” He was probably in a dark tent taking photographs or using a spectroscope during the totality. This was observing an eclipse without seeing it!

Humboldt gives the credit of the invention of the telescope to Hans Lippershey, a native of Wesel and a spectacle-maker at Middleburgh; to Jacob Adreaansz, surnamed Metius, who is also said to have made burning-glasses of ice; and to Zachariah Jansen.495

With reference to the parabolic figure of the large mirrors of reflecting telescopes, Dr. Robinson remarked at the meeting of the British Association at Cork in 1843, “between the spherical and parabolic figures the extreme difference is so slight, even in the telescope of 6-feet aperture [Lord Rosse’s] that if the two surfaces touched at their vertex, the distance at the edge would not amount to the 1⁄10000 of an inch, a space which few can measure, and none without a microscope.”496

In the year 1758, Roger Long, Lowndean Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge, constructed an “orrery” on a novel principle. It was a hollow metal sphere of about 18 feet in diameter with its fixed axis parallel to the earth’s axis. It was rotated, by means of a winch and rackwork. It held about thirty persons in its interior, where astronomical lectures were delivered. The constellations were painted on the interior surface; and holes pierced through the shell and illuminated from the outside represented the stars according to their different magnitudes. This ingenious machine was much neglected for many years, but was still in existence in Admiral Smyth’s time, 1844.497

A “temporary star” is said to have been seen by Hepidanus in the constellation Aries in either 1006 or 1012 A.D. The late M. Schönfeld, a great authority on variable stars, found from an Arabic and Syrian chronicle that 1012 is the correct year (396 of the Hegira), but that the word translated Aries would by a probable emendation mean Scorpio. The word in the Syrian record is not the word for Aries.498

Mr. Heber D. Curtis finds that the faintest stars mentioned in Ptolemy’s Catalogue are about 5·38 magnitude on the scale of the Harvard Photometric Durchmustering.499 Heis and Houzeau saw stars of 6-7 magnitude (about 6·4 on Harvard scale). The present writer found that he could see most of Heis’ faintest stars in the west of Ireland (Co. Sligo) without optical aid (except short-sighted spectacles).

With reference to the apparent changes in the stellar heavens produced by the precession of the equinoxes, Humboldt says —

“Canopus was fully 1° 20′ below the horizon of Toledo (39° 54′ north latitude) in the time of Columbus; and now the same star is almost as much above the horizon of Cadiz. While at Berlin, and in northern latitudes, the stars of the Southern Cross, as well as α and β Centauri, are receding more and more from view, the Magellanic Clouds are slowly approaching our latitudes. Canopus was at its greatest northern approximation during last century [eighteenth], and is now moving nearer and nearer to the south, although very slowly, owing to its vicinity to the south pole of the ecliptic. The Southern Cross began to become invisible in 52° 30′ north latitude 2900 years before our era, since, according to Galle, this constellation might previously have reached an altitude of more than 10°. When it had disappeared from the horizon of the countries of the Baltic, the great pyramid of Cheops had already been erected more than five hundred years. The pastoral tribe of the Hyksos made their incursion seven hundred years earlier. The past seems to be visibly nearer to us when we connect its measurement with great and memorable events.”500

With reference to the great Grecian philosopher and scientist Eratosthenes of Cyrene, keeper of the Alexandrian Library under Ptolemy Euergetes, Carl Snyder says, “Above all the Alexanders, Cæsars, Tadema-Napoleons, I set the brain which first spanned the earth, over whose little patches these fought through their empty bootless lives. Why should we have no poet to celebrate so great a deed?”501 And with reference to Aristarchus he says, “If grandeur of conceptions be a measure of the brain, or ingenuity of its powers, then we must rank Aristarchus as one of the three or four most acute intellects of the ancient world.”502

Lagrange, who often asserted Newton to be the greatest genius that ever existed, used to remark also – “and the most fortunate; we do not find more than once a system of the world to establish.”503

Grant says —

“Lagrange deserves to be ranked among the greatest mathematical geniuses of ancient or modern times. In this respect he is worthy of a place with Archimedes or Newton, although he was far from possessing the sagacity in physical enquiries which distinguished these illustrious sages. From the very outset of his career he assumed a commanding position among the mathematicians of the age, and during the course of nearly half a century previous to his death, he continued to divide with Laplace the homage due to pre-eminence in the exact sciences. His great rival survived him fourteen years, during which he reigned alone as the prince of mathematicians and theoretical astronomers.”504

A writer in Nature (May 25, 1871) relates the following anecdote with reference to Sir John Herschel: “Some time after the death of Laplace, the writer of this notice, while travelling on the continent in company with the celebrated French savant Biot, ventured to put to him the question, not altogether a wise one, ‘And whom of all the philosophers of Europe do you regard as the most worthy successor of Laplace?’ Probably no man was better able than Biot to form a correct conclusion, and the reply was more judicious than the question. It was this, ‘If I did not love him so much I should unhesitatingly say, Sir John Herschel.’” Dr. Gill (now Sir David Gill), in an address at the Cape of Good Hope in June, 1898, spoke of Sir John Herschel as “the prose poet of science; his popular scientific works are models of clearness, and his presidential addresses teem with passages of surpassing beauty. His life was a pure and blameless one from first to last, full of the noblest effort and the noblest aim from the time when as a young Cambridge graduate he registered a vow ‘to try to leave the world wiser than he found it’ – a vow that his life amply fulfilled.”505

Prof. Newcomb said of Adams, the co-discoverer of Neptune with Leverrier, “Adams’ intellect was one of the keenest I ever knew. The most difficult problem of mathematical astronomy and the most recondite principles that underlie the theory of the celestial motions were to him but child’s play.” Airy he regarded as “the most commanding figure in the astronomy of our time.”506 He spoke of Delaunay, the great French astronomer, as a most kindly and attractive man, and says, “His investigations of the moon’s motion is one of the most extraordinary pieces of mathematical work ever turned out by a single person. It fills two quarto volumes, and the reader who attempts to go through any part of the calculations will wonder how one man could do the work in a lifetime.”507

Sir George B. Airy and Prof. J. C. Adams died in the same month. The former on January 2, 1892, and the latter on January 22 of the same year.

It is known from the parish register of Burstow in Surrey that Flamsteed (Rev. John Flamsteed), the first Astronomer Royal at Greenwich, was buried in the church at that place on January 12, 1720; but a search for his grave made by Mr. J. Carpenter in 1866 and by Mr. Lynn in 1880 led to no result. In Mrs. Flamsteed’s will a sum of twenty-five pounds was left for the purpose of erecting a monument to the memory of the great astronomer in Burstow Church; but it does not appear that any monument was ever erected. Flamsteed was Rector of the Parish of Burstow.508 He was succeeded in 1720 by the Rev. James Pound, another well-known astronomer. Pound died in 1724.509

Evelyn says in his Diary, 1676, September 10, “Dined with Mr. Flamsteed, the learned astrologer and mathematician, whom his Majesty had established in the new Observatory in Greenwich Park furnished with the choicest instruments. An honest sincere man.”510 This shows that in those days the term “astrologer” was synonymous with “astronomer.”

In an article on “Our Debt to Astronomy,” by Prof. Russell Tracy Crawford (Berkeley Astronomical Department, California, U.S.A.), the following remarks occur: —

“Behind the artisan is a chemist, behind the chemist is a physicist, behind the physicist is a mathematician, and behind the mathematician is an astronomer.” “Were it not for the data furnished by astronomers, commerce by sea would practically stop. The sailing-master on the high seas could not determine his position, nor in what direction to head his ship in order to reach a desired harbour. Think what this means in dollars and cents, and estimate it if you can. For this one service alone the science of astronomy is worth more in dollars and cents to the world in one week than has been expended upon it since the beginning of civilization. Do you think that Great Britain, for instance, would take in exchange an amount equal to its national debt for what astronomy gives it? I answer for you most emphatically, ‘No.’”

In his interesting book, Reminiscences of an Astronomer, Prof. Simon Newcomb says with reference to the calculations for the Nautical Almanac (referred to in the above extract) —

“A more hopeless problem than this could not be presented to the ordinary human intellect. There are tens of thousands of men who could be successful in all the ordinary walks of life, hundreds who could wield empires, thousands who could gain wealth, for one who could take up this astronomical problem with any hope of success. The men who have done it are, therefore, in intellect the select few of the human race – an aristocracy ranking above all others in the scale of being. The astronomical ephemeris is the last outcome of their productive genius.”

In a paper on the “Aspects of American Astronomy,” Prof. Newcomb says, “A great telescope is of no use without a man at the end of it, and what the telescope may do depends more upon this appendage than upon the instrument itself. The place which telescopes and observatories have taken in astronomical history are by no means proportional to their dimensions. Many a great instrument has been a mere toy in the hands of its owner. Many a small one has become famous. Twenty years ago there was here in your city [Chicago] a modest little instrument which, judged by its size, could not hold up its head with the great ones even of that day. It was the private property of a young man holding no scientific position and scarcely known to the public. And yet that little telescope is to-day among the famous ones of the world, having made memorable advances in the astronomy of double stars, and shown its owner to be a worthy successor of the Herschels and Struves in that line of work.”511 Here Prof. Newcomb evidently refers to Prof. Burnham, and the 6-inch telescope with which he made many of his remarkable discoveries of double stars. With reference to Burnham’s work, Prof. Barnard says —

“It represents the labour of a struggling amateur, who during the day led the drudging life of a stenographer in the United States court in Chicago, and at night worked among the stars for the pure love of it. Such work deserves an everlasting fame, and surely this has fallen to Mr. Burnham.”

Admiral Smyth says —

“A man may prove a good astronomer without possessing a spacious observatory: thus Kepler was wont to observe on the bridge at Prague; Schröter studied the moon, and Harding found a planet from a gloriette; while Olbers discovered two new planets from an attic of his house.”512

It is probably not generally known that “some of the greatest astronomers of modern times, such as Kepler, Newton, Hansen, Laplace, and Leverrier, scarcely ever looked through a telescope.”513

Kepler, who always signed himself Keppler in German, is usually supposed to have been born on December 21, 1571, in the imperial town of Weil, but according to Baron von Breitschwert,514 he was really born on December 27, 1571, in the village of Magstadt in Wurtemberg.

According to Lieut. Winterhalter, M. Perrotin of the Nice Observatory declared “that two hours’ work with a large instrument is as fatiguing as eight with a small one, the labour involved increasing in proportion to the cube of the aperture, the chances of seeing decreasing in the same ratio, while it can hardly be said that the advantages increase in like proportion.”515

The late Mr. Proctor has well said —

“It is well to remember that the hatred which many entertain against the doctrine of development as applied to solar systems and stellar galaxies is not in reality a sign, as they imagine, of humility, but is an effort to avoid the recognition of the nothingness of man in the presence of the infinities of space and time and vitality presented within the universe of God.”516

Humboldt says —

“That arrogant spirit of incredulity, which rejects facts without attempting to investigate them, is in some cases almost more injurious than an unquestioning credulity. Both are alike detrimental to the force of investigations.”517

With reference to the precession of the equinoxes and the changes it produces in the position of the Pole Star, it is stated in a recent book on science that the entrance passage of the Great Pyramid of Ghizeh is inclined at an angle of 30° to the horizon, and therefore points to the celestial pole. But this is quite incorrect. The Great Pyramid, it is true, is situated close to the latitude of 30°. But the entrance passage does not point exactly to the pole. The inclination was measured by Col. Vyse, and found to be 26° 45′. For six out of the nine pyramids of Ghizeh, Col. Vyse found an average inclination of 26° 47′, these inclinations ranging from 25° 55′ (2nd, or pyramid of Mycerinus) to 28° 0′ (9th pyramid).518 Sir John Herschel gives 3970 B.C. as the probable date of the erection of the Great Pyramid.[520] At that time the distance of α Draconis (the Pole Star of that day) from the pole was 3° 44′ 25″, so that when on the meridian below the pole (its lower culmination as it is termed) its altitude was 30° – 3° 44′ 25″ = 26° 15′ 35″, which agrees fairly well with the inclination of the entrance passage. Letronne found a date of 3430 B.C.; but the earlier date agrees better with the evidence derived from Egyptology.

Emerson says —

“I am brother to him who squared the pyramidsBy the same stars I watch.”

From February 6 to 15, 1908, all the bright planets were visible together at the same time. Mercury was visible above the western horizon after sunset, Venus very brilliant with Saturn a little above it, Mars higher still, all ranged along the ecliptic, and lastly Jupiter rising in the east.519 This simultaneous visibility of all the bright planets is rather a rare occurrence.

With reference to the great improbability of Laplace’s original Nebular Hypothesis being true, Dr. See says, “We may calculate from the preponderance of small bodies actually found in the solar system – eight principal planets, twenty-five satellites (besides our moon), and 625 asteroids – that the chances of a nebula devoid of hydrostatic pressure producing small bodies is about 2658 to 1, or a decillion decillion (1066)6 to the sixth power, to unity. This figure is so very large that we shall content ourselves with illustrating a decillion decillion, and for this purpose we avail ourselves of a method employed by Archimedes to illustrate his system of enumeration. Imagine sand so fine that 10,000 grains will be contained in the space occupied by a poppy seed, itself about the size of a pin’s head; and then conceive a sphere described about our sun with a radius of 200,000 astronomical units520 (α Centauri being at a distance of 275,000) entirely filled with this fine sand. The number of grains of sand in this sphere of the fixed stars would be a decillion decillion521 (1066)6. All these grains of sand against one is the probability that a nebula devoid of hydrostatical pressure, such as that which formed the planets and satellites, will lead to the genesis of such small bodies revolving about a greatly predominant central mass.”522 In other words, it is practically certain that the solar system was not formed from a gaseous nebula in the manner originally proposed by Laplace. On the other hand, the evolution of the solar system from a rotating spiral nebula seems very probable.

Some one has said that “the world knows nothing of its greatest men.” The name of Mr. George W. Hill will probably be unknown to many of my readers. But the late Prof. Simon Newcomb said of him that he “will easily rank as the greatest master of mathematical astronomy during the last quarter of the nineteenth century.”523 Of Prof. Newcomb himself – also a great master in the same subject – Sir Robert Ball says he was “the most conspicuous figure among the brilliant band of contemporary American astronomers.”524

An astronomer is supposed to say, with reference to unwelcome visitors to his observatory, “Who steals my purse steals trash; but he that filches from me my clear nights, robs me of that which not enriches him, and makes me poor indeed.”525

Cicero said, “In the heavens there is nothing fortuitous, unadvised, inconstant, or variable; all there is order, truth, reason, and constancy”; and he adds, “The creation is as plain a signal of the being of a God, as a globe, a clock, or other artificial machine, is of a man.”526

“Of all the epigrams attributed rightly or wrongly to Plato, the most famous has been expanded by Shelley into the four glorious lines —

“‘Thou wert the morning star among the livingEre thy pure light had fled,Now having died, thou art as Hesperus, givingNew splendour to the dead.’”527

Sir David Brewster has well said,528 “Isaiah furnishes us with a striking passage, in which the occupants of the earth and the heavens are separately described, ‘I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even My hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded’ (Isaiah xlv. 12). But in addition to these obvious references to life and things pertaining to life, we find in Isaiah the following remarkable passage: ‘For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God Himself that formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it not IN VAIN, He formed it to be inhabited’ (Isaiah xlv. 18). Here we have a distinct declaration from the inspired prophet that the earth would have been created IN VAIN if it had not been formed to be inhabited; and hence we draw the conclusion that as the Creator cannot be supposed to have made the worlds of our system and those in the sidereal system in vain, they must have been formed to be inhabited.” This seems to the present writer to be a good and sufficient reply to Dr. Wallace’s theory that our earth is the only inhabited world in the Universe!529 Such a theory seems incredible.

The recent discovery made by Prof. Kapteyn, and confirmed by Mr. Eddington, of two drifts of stars, indicating the existence of two universes, seems to render untenable Dr. Wallace’s hypothesis of the earth’s central position in a single universe.[531]

Note added in the Press

While these pages were in the Press, it was announced, by Dr. Max Wolf of Heidelberg, that he found Halley’s comet on a photograph taken on the early morning of September 12, 1909. The discovery has been confirmed at Greenwich Observatory. The comet was close to the position predicted by the calculations of Messrs. Cowell and Crommelin of Greenwich Observatory (Nature, September 16, 1908).

THE END

1

Comptes Rendus, 1903, December 7.

2

Nature, April 11, 1907.

3

Astrophysical Journal, vol. 19 (1904), p. 39.

4

Astrophysical Journal, vol. 21 (1905), p. 260.

5

Knowledge, July, 1902, p. 132.

6

Nature, April 30, 1903.

7

Ibid., May 18, 1905.

8

Ibid., May 18, 1905.

9

Nature, June 29, 1871.

10

Nature, October 15, 1903.

11

The Life of the Universe (1909), vol. ii. p. 209.

12

The World Machine, p. 234.

13

Quoted in The Observatory, March 1908, p. 125.

14

The Observatory, September, 1906.

15

Nature, March 1, 1900.

16

Cycle of Celestial Objects, p. 96.

17

Ast. Nach. No. 3737.

18

Observatory, September, 1906.

19

Nature, November 29 and December 20, 1894.

20

Bulletin, Ast. Soc. de France, July, 1898.

21

Observatory, vol. 8 (1885), pp. 306-7.

22

Nature, October 30, 1902.

23

Charles Lane Poor, The Solar System, p. 170.

24

Smyth, Celestial Cycle, p. 60.

25

Denning, Telescopic Work for Starlight Evenings, p. 225.

26

The Observatory, 1894, p. 395.

27

Ast. Nach. 4333, quoted in Nature, July 1, 1909, p. 20.

28

English Mechanic, July 23, 1909.

29

Nature, December 22, 1892.