As a doubly sponsored Brahmin--in the regard of Baptists--the objects of
July 29, 1878, stand out and proclaim themselves so that nothing but
disregard of the intensity of mono-mania can account for their reception
by the system:
Or the total eclipse of July 29, 1878, and the reports by Prof. Watson,
from Rawlins, Wyoming, and by Prof. Swift, from Denver, Colorado: that
they had seen two shining objects at a considerable distance from the
sun.
It's quite in accord with our general expression: not that there is an
Intra-Mercurial planet, but that there are different bodies, many vast
things; near this earth sometimes, near the sun sometimes; orbitless
worlds, which, because of scarcely any data of collisions, we think of
as under navigable control--or dirigible super-constructions.
Prof. Watson and Prof. Swift published their observations.
Then the disregard that we cannot think of in terms of ordinary, sane
exclusions.
The text-book systematists begin by telling us that the trouble with
these observations is that they disagree widely: there is considerable
respectfulness, especially for Prof. Swift, but we are told that by
coincidence these two astronomers, hundreds of miles apart, were
illuded: their observations were so different--
Prof. Swift (_Nature_, Sept. 19, 1878):
That his own observation was "in close approximation to that given by
Prof. Watson."
In the _Observatory_, 2-161, Swift says that his observations and
Watson's were "confirmatory of each other."
The faithful try again:
That Watson and Swift mistook stars for other bodies.
In the _Observatory_, 2-193, Prof. Watson says that he had previously
committed to memory all stars near the sun, down to the seventh
magnitude--
And he's damned anyway.
How such exclusions work out is shown by Lockyer (_Nature_, Aug. 20,
1878). He says: "There is little doubt that an Intra-Mercurial planet
has been discovered by Prof. Watson."
That was before excommunication was pronounced.
He says:
"If it will fit one of Leverrier's orbits"--
It didn't fit.
In _Nature_, 21-301, Prof. Swift says:
"I have never made a more valid observation, nor one more free from
doubt."
He's damned anyway.
We shall have some data that will not live up to most rigorous
requirements, but, if anyone would like to read how carefully and
minutely these two sets of observations were made, see Prof. Swift's
detailed description in the _Am. Jour. Sci._, 116-313; and the
technicalities of Prof. Watson's observations in _Monthly Notices_,
38-525.
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