Letters on Astronomy: in which the Elements of the Science are Familiarly Explained in Connection with Biographical Sketches of the Most Eminent AstronomersOlmsted, Denison
Science
Letters on Astronomy: in which the Elements of the Science are Familiarly Explained in Connection with Biographical Sketches of the Most Eminent Astronomers
Olmsted, Denison
Astronomy
Of the _physical nature_ of comets little is understood. The greater
part of them are evidently mere masses of vapor, since they permit very
small stars to be seen through them. In September, 1832, Sir John
Herschel, when observing Biela's comet, saw that body pass directly
between his eye and a small cluster of minute telescopic stars of the
sixteenth or seventeenth magnitude. This little constellation occupied a
space in the heavens, the breadth of which was not the twentieth part of
that of the moon; yet the whole of the cluster was distinctly visible
through the comet. "A more striking proof," says Sir John Herschel,
"could not have been afforded, of the extreme transparency of the matter
of which this comet consists. The most trifling fog would have entirely
effaced this group of stars, yet they continued visible through a
thickness of the comet which, calculating on its distance and apparent
diameter, must have exceeded fifty thousand miles, at least towards its
central parts." From this and similar observations, it is inferred, that
the nebulous matter of comets is vastly more rare than that of the air
we breathe, and hence, that, were more or less of it to be mingled with
the earth's atmosphere, it would not be perceived, although it might
possibly render the air unwholesome for respiration. M. Arago, however,
is of the opinion, that some comets, at least, have a solid nucleus. It
is difficult, on any other supposition, to account for the strong light
which some of them have exhibited,--a light sufficiently intense to
render them visible in the day-time, during the presence of the sun. The
intense heat to which comets are subject, in approaching so near the sun
as some of them do, is alleged as a sufficient reason for the great
expansion of the thin vapory atmospheres which form their tails; and the
inconceivable cold to which they are subject, in receding to such a
distance from the sun, is supposed to account for the condensation of
the same matter until it returns to its original dimensions. Thus the
great comet of 1680, at its perihelion, approached within one hundred
and forty-six thousand miles of the surface of the sun, a distance of
only one sixth part of the sun's diameter. The heat which it must have
received was estimated to be equal to twenty-eight thousand times that
which the earth receives in the same time, and two thousand times hotter
than red-hot iron. This temperature would be sufficient to volatilize
the most obdurate substances, and to expand the vapor to vast
dimensions; and the opposite effects of the extreme cold to which it
would be subject in the regions remote from the sun would be adequate to
condense it into its former volume. This explanation, however, does not
account for the direction of the tail, extending, as it usually does,
only in a line opposite to the sun. Some writers, therefore, suppose
that the nebulous matter of the comet, after being expanded to such a
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account