“As the data of Le Verrier and Adams stand at present there is a
discrepancy between the predicted and the true distance; and in some
other elements of the planet. It remains, therefore, for these or
future astronomers to reconcile theory with fact; or, perhaps, as
in the case of Uranus, to make the new planet the means of leading
to yet greater discoveries. It would appear, from the most recent
observations, that the mass of Neptune, instead of being as at first
stated one nine thousand three hundredth is only one twenty three
thousandth that of the Sun; whilst its periodic time is now given
with a greater probability at 166 years; and its mean distance from
the Sun nearly thirty. Le Verrier gave the mean distance from the Sun
thirty-six times that of the Earth; and the period of revolution 217
years.[35]
[35] “Cosmos,” by Humboldt, p. 75.
“May 14, 1847. A Paper was read before the Royal Astronomical Society,
by Professor Schumacher, ‘on the identity of the planet Neptune (M. Le
Verrier’s) with a star observed by M. Lalande in May, 1795.’”[36]
[36] “Report of Royal Astronomical Society,” for Feb. 11, 1848, No. 4,
vol. 8.
Such mistakes as the above ought at least to make the advocates of the
Newtonian theory less positive, and more ready to acknowledge that at
best their system is but hypothetical and must sooner or later give
place to a philosophy the premises of which are demonstrable, and which
is in all its details sequent and consistent.
PENDULUM EXPERIMENTS AS PROOFS OF EARTH’S MOTION.
In the early part of the year 1851, the scientific journals and nearly
all the newspapers published in Great Britain and on the Continents of
Europe and America were occupied in recording and discussing certain
experiments with the pendulum, first made by M. Foucault, of Paris; and
the public were startled by the announcement that the results furnished
a practical proof of the Earth’s rotation.
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