Pleasant Ways in Science. Richard Anthony Proctor

stations, the Halleyan method was, in point of fact, effectually provided for—a fortunate circumstance, as will presently be seen.

      The British operations, then, thus far dealt with, were based on Delisle’s method; and as they were carried out with great zeal and completeness, we may consider that the result affords an excellent test of the qualities of this method, and may supply a satisfactory answer to the questions which were under discussion in 1872–74. Sir George Airy, indeed, considers that the zeal and completeness with which the British operations were carried out suffice to set the result obtained from them above all others. But this opinion is based rather on personal than on strictly scientific grounds. It appears to me that the questions to be primarily decided are whether the results are in satisfactory agreement (i) inter se and (ii) with the general tenor of former researches. In other words, while the Astronomer Royal considers that the method and the manner of its application must be considered so satisfactory that the results are to be accepted unquestionably, it appears to me that the results must be carefully questioned (as it were) to see whether the method, and the observations by it, are satisfactory. In the first place, the result obtained from Northern and Southern observations of the commencement ought to agree closely with the result obtained from Northern and Southern observations of the end of transit. Unfortunately, they differ rather widely. The sun’s distance by the former observations comes out about one million miles greater than the distance determined by the latter observations.

      This should be decisive, one would suppose. But it is not all. The mean of the entire series of observations by Delisle’s method comes out nearly one million miles greater than the mean deduced by Professor Newcomb from many entire series of observations by six different methods, all of which may fairly be regarded as equal in value to Delisle’s, while three are regarded by most astronomers as unquestionably superior to it. Newcomb considers the probable limits of error in his evaluation from so many combined series of observations to be about 100,000 miles. Sir G. Airy will allow no wider limits of error for the result of the one series his observers have obtained than 200,000 miles. Thus the greatest value admitted by Newcomb falls short of the least value admitted by Sir G. Airy, by nearly 700,000 miles.

      The obvious significance of this result should be, one would suppose, that Delisle’s method is not quite so effective as Sir G. Airy supposed; and the wide discordance between the several results, of which the result thus deduced is the mean, should prove this, one would imagine, beyond all possibility of question. The Astronomer Royal thinks differently, however. In his opinion, the wide difference between his result and the mean of all the most valued results by other astronomers, indicates the superiority of Delisle’s method, not its inadequacy to the purpose for which it has been employed.

      Time will shortly decide which of these views is correct; but, for my own part, I do not hesitate to express my own conviction that the sun’s distance lies very near the limits indicated by Newcomb, and therefore is several hundred thousand miles less than the minimum distance allowed by the recently announced results.