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
volume that the particles are no longer attracted to the nucleus, unless
by the slightest conceivable force, are carried off in a direction from
the sun, by the impulse of the solar rays themselves. But to assign such
a power to the sun's rays, while they have never been proved to have any
momentum, is unphilosophical; and we are compelled to place the
phenomena of comets' tails among the points of astronomy yet to be
explained.
Since comets which approach very near the sun, like the comet of 1680,
cross the orbits of all the planets, the possibility that one of them
may strike the earth has frequently been suggested. Still it may quiet
our apprehensions on this subject, to reflect on the vast amplitude of
the planetary spaces, in which these bodies are not crowded together, as
we see them erroneously represented in orreries and diagrams, but are
sparsely scattered at immense distances from each other. They are like
insects flying, singly, in the expanse of heaven. If a comet's tail lay
with its axis in the plane of the ecliptic when it was near the sun, we
can imagine that the tail might sweep over the earth; but the tail may
be situated at any angle with the ecliptic, as well as in the same plane
with it, and the chances that it will not be in the same plane are
almost infinite. It is also extremely improbable that a comet will cross
the plane of the ecliptic precisely at the earth's path in that plane,
since it may as probably cross it at any other point nearer or more
remote from the sun. A French writer of some eminence (Du Sejour) has
discussed this subject with ability, and arrived at the following
conclusions: That of all the comets whose paths had been ascertained,
none _could pass_ nearer to the earth than about twice the moon's
distance; and that none ever _did pass_ nearer to the earth than nine
times the moon's distance. The comet of 1770, already mentioned, which
became entangled among the satellites of Jupiter, came within this
limit. Some have taken alarm at the idea that a comet, by approaching
very near to the earth, might raise so high a _tide_, as to endanger the
safety of maritime countries especially: but this writer shows, that the
comet could not possibly remain more than two hours so near the earth as
a fourth part of the moon's distance; and it could not remain even so
long, unless it passed the earth under very peculiar circumstances. For
example, if its orbit were nearly perpendicular to that of the earth, it
could not remain more than half an hour in such a position. Under such
circumstances, the production of a tide would be impossible. Eleven
hours, at least, would be necessary to enable a comet to produce an
effect on the waters of the earth, from which the injurious effects so
much dreaded would follow. The final conclusion at which he arrives is,
that although, in strict geometrical rigor, it is not physically
impossible that a comet should encounter the earth, yet the probability
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Letters on Astronomy: in which the Elements of the Science are Familiarly Explained in Connection with Biographical Sketches of the Most Eminent Astronomers — 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