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
We now arrive at the final inquiry, _what relations did the body which
afforded the meteoric shower sustain to the earth_? Was it of the nature
of a satellite, or terrestrial comet, that revolves around the earth as
its centre of motion? Was it a collection of nebulous, or cometary
matter, which the earth encountered in its annual progress? or was it a
comet, which chanced at this time to be pursuing its path along with the
earth, around their common centre of motion? It could not have been of
the nature of a satellite to the earth, (or one of those bodies which
are held by some to afford the meteoric stones, which sometimes fall to
the earth from huge meteors that traverse the atmosphere,) because it
remained so long stationary with respect to the earth. A body so near
the earth as meteors of this class are known to be, could not remain
apparently stationary among the stars for a moment; whereas the body in
question occupied the same position, with hardly any perceptible
variation, for at least two hours. Nor can we suppose that the earth, in
its annual progress, came into the vicinity of a _nebula_, which was
either stationary, or wandering lawless through space. Such a collection
of matter could not remain stationary within the solar system, in an
insulated state, for, if not prevented by a motion of its own, or by the
attraction of some nearer body, it would have proceeded directly towards
the sun; and had it been in motion in any other direction than that in
which the earth was moving, it would soon have been separated from the
earth; since, during the eight hours, while the meteoric shower was
visible, the earth moved in its orbit through the space of nearly five
hundred and fifty thousand miles.
The foregoing considerations conduct us to the following train of
reasoning. First, if all the meteors which fell on the morning of
November 13, 1833, had been collected and restored to their original
connexion in space, they would of themselves have constituted a nebulous
body of great extent; but we have reason to suppose that they, in fact,
composed but a small part of the mass from which they emanated, since,
after the loss of so much matter as proceeded from it in the great
meteoric shower of 1799, and in the several repetitions of it that
preceded the year 1833, it was still capable of affording so copious a
shower on that year; and similar showers, more limited in extent, were
repeated for at least five years afterwards. We are therefore to regard
the part that descended only as _the extreme portions of a body or
collection of meteors, of unknown extent, existing in the planetary
spaces_.
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