Part 7

THE parallax of a celestial body is the angle under which the radius of the earth would be seen if viewed from the centre of that body; it affords the means of ascertaining the distances of the sun, moon, and planets (N. 130). When the moon is in the horizon at the instant of rising or setting, suppose lines to be drawn from her centre to the spectator and to the centre of the earth: these would form a right-angled triangle with the terrestrial radius, which is of a known length; and, as the parallax or angle at the moon can be measured, all the angles and one side are given; whence the distance of the moon from the centre of the earth may be computed. The parallax of an object may be found, if two observers under the same meridian, but at a very great distance from one another, observe its zenith distances on the same day at the time of its passage over the meridian. By such contemporaneous observations at the Cape of Good Hope and at Berlin, the mean horizontal parallax of the moon was found to be 3459ʺ, whence the mean distance of the moon is about sixty times the greatest terrestrial radius, or 237,608 miles nearly.[4] Since the parallax is equal to the radius of the earth divided by the distance of the moon, it varies with the distance of the moon from the earth under the same parallel of latitude, and proves the ellipticity of the lunar orbit. When the moon is at her mean distance, it varies with the terrestrial radii, thus showing that the earth is not a sphere (N. 131).

Although the method described is sufficiently accurate for finding the parallax of an object as near as the moon, it will not answer for the sun, which is so remote that the smallest error in observation would lead to a false result. But that difficulty is obviated by the transits of Venus. When that planet is in her nodes (N. 132), or within 1-1/4° of them, that is, in, or nearly in, the plane of the ecliptic, she is occasionally seen to pass over the sun like a black spot. If we could imagine that the sun and Venus had no parallax, the line described by the planet on his disc, and the duration of the transit, would be the same to all the inhabitants of the earth. But, as the semi-diameter of the earth has a sensible magnitude when viewed from the centre of the sun, the line described by the planet in its passage over his disc appears to be nearer to his centre, or farther from it, according to the position of the observer; so that the duration of the transit varies with the different points of the earth’s surface at which it is observed (N. 133). This difference of time, being entirely the effect of parallax, furnishes the means of computing it from the known motions of the earth and Venus, by the same method as for the eclipses of the sun. In fact, the ratio of the distances of Venus and the sun from the earth at the time of the transit is known from the theory of their elliptical motion. Consequently the ratio of the parallaxes of these two bodies, being inversely as their distances, is given; and as the transit gives the difference of the parallaxes, that of the sun is obtained. In 1769 the parallax of the sun was determined by observations of a transit of Venus made at Wardhus in Lapland, and at Tahiti in the South Sea. The latter observation was the object of Cook’s first voyage. The transit lasted about six hours at Tahiti, and the difference in duration at these two stations was eight minutes; whence the sun’s horizontal parallax was found to be 8ʺ·72. But by other considerations it has been reduced by Professor Encke to 8ʺ·5776; from which the mean distance of the sun appears to be about ninety-five millions of miles. This is confirmed by an inequality in the motion of the moon, which depends upon the parallax of the sun, and which, when compared with observation, gives 8ʺ·6 for the sun’s parallax. The transits of Venus in 1874 and 1882 will be unfavourable for ascertaining the accuracy of the solar parallax, and no other transit of that planet will take place till the twenty-first century; but in the mean time recourse may be had to the oppositions of Mars.

The parallax of Venus is determined by her transits; that of Mars by direct observation, and it is found to be nearly double that of the sun, when the planet is in opposition. The distance of these two planets from the earth is therefore known in terrestrial radii, consequently their mean distances from the sun may be computed; and as the ratios of the distances of the planets from the sun are known by Kepler’s law, of the squares of the periodic times of any two planets being as the cubes of their mean distances from the sun, their absolute distances in miles are easily found (N. 134). This law is very remarkable, in thus uniting all the bodies of the system, and extending to the satellites as well as the planets.

Far as the earth seems to be from the sun, Uranus is no less than nineteen, and Neptune thirty times farther. Situate on the verge of the system, the sun must appear from Uranus not much larger than Venus does to us, and from Neptune as a star of the fifth magnitude. The earth cannot even be visible as a telescopic object to a body so remote as either Uranus or Neptune. Yet man, the inhabitant of the earth, soars beyond the vast dimensions of the system to which his planet belongs, and assumes the diameter of its orbit as the base of a triangle whose apex extends to the stars.

Sublime as the idea is, this assumption proves ineffectual, except in a very few cases; for the apparent places of the fixed stars are not sensibly changed by the earth’s annual revolution. With the aid derived from the refinements of modern astronomy, and of the most perfect instruments, a sensible parallax has been detected only in a very few of these remote suns. α Centauri has a parallax of one second of space, therefore it is the nearest known star, and yet it is more than two hundred thousand times farther from us than the sun is. At such a distance not only the terrestrial orbit shrinks to a point, but the whole solar system, seen in the focus of the most powerful telescope, might be eclipsed by the thickness of a spider’s thread. Light, flying at the rate of 190,000 miles in a second, would take more than three years to travel over that space. One of the nearest stars may therefore have been kindled or extinguished more than three years before we could have been aware of so mighty an event. But this distance must be small when compared with that of the most remote of the bodies which are visible in the heavens. The fixed stars are undoubtedly luminous like the sun: it is therefore probable that they are not nearer to one another than the sun is to the nearest of them. In the milky way and the other starry nebulæ, some of the stars that seem to us to be close to others may be far behind them in the boundless depth of space; nay, may be rationally supposed to be situate many thousand times farther off. Light would therefore require thousands of years to come to the earth from those myriads of suns of which our own is but “the remote companion.”

SECTION VIII.

Masses of Planets that have no Satellites determined from their Perturbations—Masses of the others obtained from the Motions of their Satellites—Masses of the Sun, the Earth, of Jupiter and of the Jovial System—Mass of the Moon—Real Diameters of Planets, how obtained—Size of Sun, Densities of the Heavenly Bodies—Formation of Astronomical Tables—Requisite Data and Means of obtaining them.

THE masses of such planets as have no satellites are known by comparing the inequalities they produce in the motions of the earth and of each other, determined theoretically, with the same inequalities given by observation; for the disturbing cause must necessarily be proportional to the effect it produces. The masses of the satellites themselves may also be compared with that of the sun by their perturbations. Thus, it is found, from the comparison of a vast number of observations with La Place’s theory of Jupiter’s satellites, that the mass of the sun is no less than 65,000,000 times greater than the least of these moons. But, as the quantities of matter in any two primary planets are directly as the cubes of the mean distances at which their satellites revolve, and inversely as the squares of their periodic times (N. 135), the mass of the sun and of any planets which have satellites may be compared with the mass of the earth. In this manner it is computed that the mass of the sun is 354,936 times that of the earth; whence the great perturbations of the moon, and the rapid motion of the perigee and nodes of her orbit (N. 136). Even Jupiter, the largest of the planets, has been found by Professor Airy to be 1047·871 times less than the sun; and, indeed, the mass of the whole Jovial system is not more than the 1054·4th part of that of the sun. So that the mass of the satellites bears a very small proportion to that of their primary. The mass of the moon is determined from several sources—from her action on the terrestrial equator, which occasions the nutation in the axis of rotation; from her horizontal parallax; from an inequality she produces in the sun’s longitude; and from her action on the tides. The three first quantities, computed from theory and compared with their observed values, give her mass respectively equal to the 1/71, 1/74·2, and 1/69·2, part of that of the earth, which do not differ much from each other. Dr. Brinkley has found it to be 1/80 from the constant of lunar nutation: but, from the moon’s action in raising the tides, her mass appears to be about the 1/75 part of that of the earth—a value that cannot differ much from the truth.

The apparent diameters of the sun, moon, and planets are determined by measurement; therefore their real diameters may be compared with that of the earth; for the real diameter of a planet is to the real diameter of the earth, or 7926 miles, as the apparent diameter of the planet to the apparent diameter of the earth as seen from the planet, that is, to twice the parallax of the planet. According to Bessel, the mean apparent diameter of the sun is 1923ʺ·64, and with the solar parallax 8ʺ·5776, it will be found that the diameter of the sun is about 886,877 miles. Therefore, if the centre of the sun were to coincide with the centre of the earth, his volume would not only include the orbit of the moon, but would extend nearly as far again; for the moon’s mean distance from the earth is about sixty times the earth’s equatorial radius, or 238,793 miles: so that twice the distance of the moon is 477,586 miles, which differs but little from the solar radius; his equatorial radius is probably not much less than the major axis of the lunar orbit. The diameter of the moon is only 2160 miles; and Jupiter’s diameter of 88,200 miles is very much less than that of the sun; the diameter of Pallas does not much exceed 79 miles, so that an inhabitant of that planet, in one of our steam carriages, might go round his world in a few hours. The diameters of Lutetia and Atalanta are only 8 and 4 miles respectively; but the whole of the 55 telescopic planets are so small, that their united mass is probably not more than the fifth or sixth part of that of the moon.

The densities of bodies are proportional to their masses, divided by their volumes. Hence, if the sun and planets be assumed to be spheres, their volumes will be as the cubes of their diameters. Now, the apparent diameters of the sun and earth, at their mean distance, are 1923ʺ·6 and 17ʺ·1552, and the mass of the earth is the 354,936th part of that of the sun taken as the unit. It follows, therefore, that the earth is four times as dense as the sun. But the sun is so large that his attractive force would cause bodies to fall through about 334·65 feet in a second. Consequently, if he were habitable by human beings, they would be unable to move, since their weight would be thirty times as great as it is here. A man of moderate size would weigh about two tons at the surface of the sun; whereas at the surface of some of the new planets he would be so light that it would be impossible to stand steady, since he would only weigh a few pounds. The mean density of the earth has been determined by the following method. Since a comparison of the action of two planets upon a third gives the ratio of the masses of these two planets, it is clear that, if we can compare the effect of the whole earth with the effect of any part of it, a comparison may be instituted between the mass of the whole earth and the mass of that part of it. Now a leaden ball was weighed against the earth by comparing the effects of each upon a pendulum; the nearness of the smaller mass making it produce a sensible effect as compared with that of the larger: for by the laws of attraction the whole earth must be considered as collected in its centre. By this method it has been found that the mean density of the earth is 5·660 times greater than that of water at the temperature of 62° of Fahrenheit’s thermometer. The late Mr. Baily, whose accuracy as an experimental philosopher is acknowledged, was unremittingly occupied nearly four years in accomplishing this very important object. In order to ascertain the mean density of the earth still more perfectly, Mr. Airy made a series of experiments to compare the simultaneous oscillations of two pendulums, one at the bottom of the Harton coal-pit, 1260 feet deep, in Northumberland, and the other on the surface of the earth immediately above it. The oscillations of the pendulums were compared with an astronomical clock at each station, and the time was instantaneously transmitted from one to the other by a telegraphic wire. The oscillations were observed for more than 100 hours continuously, when it was found that the lower pendulum made 2-1/2 oscillations more in 24 hours than the upper one. The experiment was repeated for the same length of time with the same result; but on this occasion the upper pendulum was taken to the bottom of the mine and the lower brought to the surface. From the difference between the oscillations at the two stations it appears that gravitation at the bottom of the mine exceeds that at the surface by the 1/19190 part, and that the mean density of the earth is 6·565, which is greater than that obtained by Mr. Baily by ·89. While employed on the trigonometrical survey of Scotland, Colonel James determined the mean density of the earth to be 5·316, from a deviation of the plumb-line amounting to 2ʺ, caused by the attraction of Arthur’s Seat and the heights east of Edinburgh: it agrees more nearly with the density found by Mr. Baily than with that deduced from Mr. Airy’s experiments. All the planets and satellites appear to be of less density than the earth. The motions of Jupiter’s satellites show that his density increases towards his centre. Were his mass homogeneous, his equatorial and polar axes would be in the ratio of 41 to 36, whereas they are observed to be only as 41 to 38. The singular irregularities in the form of Saturn, and the great compression of Mars, prove the internal structure of these two planets to be very far from uniform.

Before entering on the theory of rotation, it may not be foreign to the subject to give some idea of the methods of computing the places of the planets, and of forming astronomical tables. Astronomy is now divided into the three distinct departments of theory, observation, and computation. Since the problem of the three bodies can only be solved by approximation, the analytical astronomer determines the position of a planet in space by a series of corrections. Its place in its circular orbit is first found, then the addition or subtraction of the equation of the centre (N. 48) to or from its mean place gives its position in the ellipse. This again is corrected by the application of the principal periodic inequalities. But, as these are determined for some particular position of the three bodies, they require to be corrected to suit other relative positions. This process is continued till the corrections become less than the errors of observation, when it is obviously unnecessary to carry the approximation further. The true latitude and distance of the planet from the sun are obtained by methods similar to those employed for the longitude.

As the earth revolves equably about its axis in 24 hours, at the rate of 15° in an hour, time becomes a measure of angular motion, and the principal element in astronomy, where the object is to determine the exact state of the heavens and the successive changes it undergoes in all ages, past, present, and to come. Now, the longitude, latitude, and distance of a planet from the sun are given in terms of the time, by general analytical formulæ. These formulæ will consequently give the exact place of the body in the heavens, for any time assumed at pleasure, provided they can be reduced to numbers. But before the calculator begins his task the observer must furnish the necessary data, which are, obviously, the forms of the orbits, and their positions with regard to the plane of the ecliptic (N. 57). It is therefore necessary to determine by observation, for each planet, the length of the major axis of its orbit, the excentricity, the inclination of the orbit to the plane of the ecliptic, the longitudes of its perihelion and ascending node at a given time, the periodic time of the planet, and its longitude at any instant arbitrarily assumed, as an origin from whence all its subsequent and antecedent longitudes are estimated. Each of these quantities is determined from that position of the planet on which it has most influence. For example, the sum of the greatest and least distances of the planet from the sun is equal to the major axis of the orbit, and their difference is equal to twice the excentricity. The longitude of the planet, when at its least distance from the sun, is the same with the longitude of the perihelion; the greatest latitude of the planet is equal to the inclination of the orbit: the longitude of the planet, when in the plane of the ecliptic in passing towards the north, is the longitude of the ascending node, and the periodic time is the interval between two consecutive passages of the planet through the same node, a small correction being made for the precession of the node during the revolution of the planet (N. 137). Notwithstanding the excellence of instruments and the accuracy of modern observers, unavoidable errors of observation can only be compensated by finding the value of each element from the mean of a thousand, or even many thousands of observations. For as it is probable that the errors are not all in one direction, but that some are in excess and others in defect, they will compensate each other when combined.

However, the values of the elements determined separately can only be regarded as approximate, because they are so connected that the estimation of any one independently will induce errors in the others. The excentricity depends upon the longitude of the perihelion, the mean motion depends upon the major axis, the longitude of the node upon the inclination of the orbit, and _vice versâ_. Consequently, the place of a planet computed with the approximate data will differ from its observed place. Then the difficulty is to ascertain what elements are most in fault, since the difference in question is the error of all; that is obviated by finding the errors of some thousands of observations, and combining them, so as to correct the elements simultaneously, and to make the sum of the squares of the errors a minimum with regard to each element (N. 138). The method of accomplishing this depends upon the Theory of Probabilities; a subject fertile in most important results in the various departments of science and of civil life, and quite indispensable in the determination of astronomical data. A series of observations continued for some years will give approximate values of the secular and periodic inequalities, which must be corrected from time to time, till theory and observation agree. And these again will give values of the masses of the bodies forming the solar system, which are important data in computing their motions. The periodic inequalities derived from a great number of observations are employed for the determination of the values of the masses till such time as the secular inequalities shall be perfectly known, which will then give them with all the necessary precision. When all these quantities are determined in numbers, the longitude, latitude, and distance of the planet from the sun are computed for stated intervals, and formed into tables, arranged according to the time estimated from a given epoch, so that the place of the body may be determined from them by inspection alone, at any instant for perhaps a thousand years before and after that epoch. By this tedious process, tables have been computed for all the great planets, and several of the small, besides the moon and the satellites of Jupiter. In the present state of astronomy the masses and elements of the orbits are pretty well known, so that the tables only require to be corrected from time to time as observations become more accurate. Those containing the motions of Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus have already been twice constructed within the last thirty years, and the tables of Jupiter and Saturn agree almost perfectly with modern observation. The following prediction will be found in the sixth edition of this book, published in the year 1842: “Those of Uranus, however, are already defective, probably because the discovery of that planet in 1781 is too recent to admit of much precision in the determination of its motions, or that possibly it may be subject to disturbances from some unseen planet revolving about the sun beyond the present boundaries of our system. If, after a lapse of years, the tables formed from a combination of numerous observations should be still inadequate to represent the motions of Uranus, the discrepancies may reveal the existence, nay, even the mass and orbit, of a body placed for ever beyond the sphere of vision.”[5]