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
Secondly, since the earth fell in with this body in the same part of its
orbit, for several years in succession, it must either have remained
there while the earth was performing its whole revolution around the
sun, or it must itself have had a revolution, as well as the earth. But
I have already shown that it could not have remained stationary in that
part of space; therefore, _it must have had a revolution around the
sun_.
Thirdly, its period of revolution must have either been greater than the
earth's, equal to it, or less. It could not have been greater, for then
the two bodies could not have been together again at the end of the
year, since the meteoric body would not have completed its revolution in
a year. Its period might obviously be the same as the earth's, for then
they might easily come together again after one revolution of each;
although their orbits might differ so much in shape as to prevent their
being together at any intermediate point. But the period of the body
might also be less than that of the earth, provided it were some
_aliquot part of a year_, so as to revolve just twice, or three times,
for example, while the earth revolves once. Let us suppose that the
period is one third of a year. Then, since we have given the periodic
times of the two bodies, and the major axis of the orbit of one of them,
namely, of the earth, we can, by Kepler's law, find the major axis of
the other orbit; for the square of the earth's periodic time 1^2 is to
the square of the body's time (1/3)^2 as the cube of the major axis of
the earth's orbit is to the cube of the major axis of the orbit in
question. Now, the three first terms of this proportion are known, and
consequently, it is only to solve a case in the simple rule of three, to
find the term required. On making the calculation, it is found, that the
supposition of a periodic time of only one third of a year gives an
orbit of insufficient length; the whole major axis would not reach from
the sun to the earth; and consequently, a body revolving in it could
never come near to the earth. On making trial of six months, we obtain
an orbit which satisfies the conditions, being such as is represented by
the diagram on page 362, Fig. 69', where the outer circle denotes the
earth's orbit, the sun being in the centre, and the inner ellipse
denotes the path of the meteoric body. The two bodies are together at
the top of the figure, being the place of the meteoric body's aphelion
on the thirteenth of November, and the figures 10, 20, &c., denote the
relative positions of the earth and the body for every ten days, for a
period of six months, in which time the body would have returned to its
aphelion.
[Illustration Fig. 69'.]
Such would be the relation of the body that affords the meteoric shower
of November, provided its revolution is accomplished in six months; but
it is still somewhat uncertain whether the period be half a year or a
year; it must be one or the other.
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