Pleasant Ways in Science. Richard Anthony Proctor
any rate) in the case of the nearer members of the solar family. Yet the method is one which, unlike others, will have an accumulative accuracy, the discrepancies which are to test the result growing larger as time proceeds. The method has already been to some extent successful. It was, in fact, by observing that the motions of Mercury are not such as can be satisfactorily explained by the perturbations of the earth and Venus according to the estimate of relative masses deducible from the lately discarded value of the sun’s distance, that Leverrier first set astronomers on the track of the error affecting that value. He was certainly justified in entertaining a strong hope that hereafter this method will be exceedingly effective.
We come next to a method which promises to be more quickly if not more effectively available.
Venus and Mars approach the orbit of our earth more closely than any other planets, Venus being our nearest neighbour on the one side, and Mars on the other. Looking beyond Venus, we find only Mercury (and the mythical Vulcan), and Mercury can give no useful information respecting the sun’s distance. He could scarcely do so even if we could measure his position among the stars when he is at his nearest, as we can that of Mars; but as he can only then be fairly seen when he transits the sun’s face, and as the sun is nearly as much displaced as Mercury by change in the observer’s station, the difference between the two displacements is utterly insufficient for accurate measurement. But, when we look beyond the orbit of Mars, we find certain bodies which are well worth considering in connection with the problem of determining the sun’s distance. I refer to the asteroids, the ring of small planets travelling between the paths of Mars and Jupiter, but nearer (on the whole11) to the path of Mars than to that of Jupiter.
The asteroids present several important advantages over even Mars and Venus.
Of course, none of the asteroids approach so near to the earth as Mars at his nearest. His least distance from the sun being about 127 million miles, and the earth’s mean distance about 92 millions, with a range of about a million and a half on either side, owing to the eccentricity of her orbit, it follows that he may be as near as some 35 million miles (rather less in reality) from the earth when the sun, earth, and Mars are nearly in a straight line and in that order. The least distance of any asteroid from the sun amounts to about 167 million miles, so that their least distance from the earth cannot at any time be less than about 73,500,000 miles, even if the earth’s greatest distance from the sun corresponded with the least distance of one of these closely approaching asteroids. This, by the way, is not very far from being the case with the asteroid Ariadne, which comes within about 169 million miles of the sun at her nearest, her place of nearest approach being almost exactly in the same direction from the sun as the earth’s place of greatest recession, reached about the end of June. So that, whenever it so chances that Ariadne comes into opposition in June, or that the sun, earth, and Ariadne are thus placed—
Sun________Earth________Ariadne,
Ariadne will be but about 75,500,000 miles from the earth. Probably no asteroid will ever be discovered which approaches the earth much more nearly than this; and this approach, be it noticed, is not one which can occur in the case of Ariadne except at very long intervals.
But though we may consider 80 millions of miles as a fair average distance at which a few of the most closely approaching asteroids may be observed, and though this distance seems very great by comparison with Mars’s occasional opposition distance of 35 million miles, yet there are two points in which asteroids have the advantage over Mars. First, they are many, and several among them can be observed under favourable circumstances; and in the multitude of observations there is safety. In the second place, which is the great and characteristic good quality of this method of determining the sun’s distance, they do not present a disc, like the planet Mars, but a small star-like point. When we consider the qualities of the heliometric method of measuring the apparent distance between celestial objects, the advantage of points of light over discs will be obvious. If we are measuring the apparent distance between Mars and a star, we must, by shifting the movable object-glass, bring the star’s image into apparent contact with the disc-image of Mars, first on one side and then on the other, taking the mean for the distance between the centres. Whereas, when we determine the distance between a star and an asteroid, we have to bring two star-like points (one a star, the other the asteroid) into apparent coincidence. We can do this in two ways, making the result so much the more accurate. For consider what we have in the field of view when the two halves of the object-glass coincide. There is the asteroid and close by there is the star whose distance we seek to determine in order to ascertain the position of the asteroid on the celestial sphere. When the movable half is shifted, the two images of star and asteroid separate; and by an adjustment they can be made to separate along the line connecting them. Suppose, then, we first make the movable image of the asteroid travel away from the fixed image (meaning by movable and fixed images, respectively, those given by the movable and fixed halves of the object-glass), towards the fixed image of the star—the two points, like images, being brought into coincidence, we have the measure of the distance between star and asteroid. Now reverse the movement, carrying back the movable images of the asteroid and star till they coincide again with their fixed images. This movement gives us a second measure of the distance, which, however, may be regarded as only a reversed repetition of the preceding. But now, carrying on the reverse motion, the moving images of star and asteroid separate from their respective fixed images, the moving image of the star drawing near to the fixed image of the asteroid and eventually coinciding with it. Here we have a third measure of the distance, which is independent of the two former. Reversing the motion, and carrying the moving images to coincidence with the fixed images, we have a fourth measure, which is simply the third reversed. These four measures will give a far more satisfactory determination of the true apparent distance between the star and the asteroid than can, under any circumstances, be obtained in the case of Mars and a star. Of course, a much more exact determination is required to give satisfactory measures of the asteroid’s real distance from the earth in miles, for a much smaller error would vitiate the estimate of the asteroid’s distance than would vitiate to the same degree the estimate of Mars’s distance: for the apparent displacements of the asteroid as seen either from Northern and Southern stations, or from stations east and west of the meridian, are very much less than in the case of Mars, owing to his great proximity. But, on the whole, there are reasons for believing that the advantage derived from the nearness of Mars is almost entirely counterbalanced by the advantage derived from the neatness of the asteroid’s image. And the number of asteroids, with the consequent power of repeating such measurements many times for each occasion on which Mars has been thus observed, seem to make the asteroids—so long regarded as very unimportant members of the solar system—the bodies from which, after all, we shall gain our best estimate of the sun’s distance; that is, of the scale of the solar system.
* * * * *
Since the above pages were written, the results deduced from the observations made by the British expeditions for observing the transit of December 9, 1874, have been announced by the Astronomer Royal. It should be premised that they are not the results deducible from the entire series of British observations, for many of them can only be used effectively in combination with observations made by other nations. For instance, the British observations of the duration of the transit as seen from Southern stations are only useful when compared with observations of the duration of the transit as seen from Northern stations, and no British observations of this kind were taken at Northern stations, or could be taken at any of the British Northern stations except one, where chief reliance was placed on photographic methods. The only British results as yet “worked up” are those which are of themselves sufficient, theoretically, to indicate the sun’s distance, viz., those which indicated the epochs of the commencement of transit as seen from Northern and Southern stations, and those which indicated the epochs of the end of transit as seen from such stations. The Northern and Southern epochs of commencement compared together suffice of themselves to indicate the sun’s distance; so also do the epochs of the end of transit suffice of themselves for that purpose. Such observations belong to the Delislean method, which was the subject of so much controversy for two or three years before the transit took place. Originally it had been supposed that only observations by that method were available, and the British plans were formed upon that assumption. When it was shown that this assumption was altogether