Myths and Marvels of Astronomy
say, but follows an undulatory path round the sun at a rate varying
between 65,000 and 70,000 miles an hour; because, while the moon seems
to go round the earth, the latter is travelling onwards at the rate of
67,500 miles an hour round the sun. Of course he was quite right in his
facts, and quite wrong in his inferences; as the Astronomer-Royal
pointed out in a brief letter, closing with the remark that, 'as a very
closely occupied man,' Mr. Airy could 'not enter further into the
matter.' But further Mr. Reddie persisted in going, though he received
no more letters from Greenwich. His reply to Sir G. Airy contained, in
fact, matter enough for a small pamphlet.
Now here was certainly an amazing fact. A well-known astronomical
relation, which astronomers have over and over again described and
explained, is treated as though it were something which had throughout
all ages escaped attention. It is not here the failure to comprehend the
_rationale_ of a simple explanation which is startling, but the notion
that an obvious fact had been wholly overlooked.
Of like nature was the mistake which brought Mr. Reddie more especially
under Professor De Morgan's notice. It is known that the sun, carrying
with him his family of planets, is speeding swiftly through space--his
velocity being estimated as probably not falling short of 20,000 miles
per hour. It follows, of course, that the real paths of the planets in
space are not closed curves, but spirals of different orders. How, then,
can the theory of Copernicus be right, according to which the planets
circle in closed orbits round the sun? Here was Mr. Reddie's difficulty;
and like the other, it appeared to his mind as a great discovery. He was
no whit concerned by the thought that astronomers ought surely to have
noticed the difficulty before. It did not seem in the least wonderful
that he, lightly reading a book or two of popular astronomy, should
discover that which Laplace, the Herschels, Leverrier, Airy, Adams, and
a host of others, who have given their whole lives to astronomy, had
failed to notice. Accordingly, Mr. Reddie forwarded to the British
Association (in session at Newcastle) a paper controverting the theory
of the sun's motion. The paper was declined with thanks by that bigoted
body 'as opposed to Newtonian astronomy.' 'That paper I published,' says
Mr. Reddie, 'in September 1863, with an appendix, in both thoroughly
exhibiting the illogical reasoning and absurdities involved in the
theory; and with what result? The members of Section A of the British
Association, and Fellows of the Royal Society and of the Royal
Astronomical Society, to whom I sent copies of my paper, were, without
exception, _dumb_.' Professor De Morgan, however, having occasion to
examine Mr. Reddie's publications some time after, was in no sort dumb,
but in very plain and definite terms exhibited their absurdity. After
all, however, the real absurdity consisted, not in the statements which
Mr. Reddie made, nor even in the conclusions which he drew from them,
but in the astounding simplicity which could suppose that astronomers
were unaware of the facts which their own labours had revealed.
In my correspondence with Mr. Reddie I recognised the real source of the
amazing self-complacency displayed by the true paradoxist. The very
insufficiency of the knowledge which a paradoxist possesses of his
subject, affords the measure of his estimate of the care with which
other men have studied that subject. Because the paradoxist is ready to
pronounce an opinion about matters he has not studied, it does not seem
strange to him that Newton and his followers should be equally ready to
discuss subjects they had not inquired into.
Another very remarkable instance was afforded by Mr. Reddie's treatment
of the subject of comets. And here, by the way, I shall quote a remark
made by Sir John Herschel soon after the appearance of the comet of
1861. 'I have received letters,' he said, 'about the comets of the last
few years, enough to make one's hair stand on end at the absurdity of
the theories they propose, and at the ignorance of the commonest laws of
optics, of motion, of heat, and of general physics, they betray in their
writers.' In the present instance, the correspondence showed that the
paradoxist supposed the parabolic paths of some comets to be regarded by
astronomers as analogous to the parabolic paths traversed by
projectiles. He expressed considerable astonishment when I informed him
that, in the first place, projectiles do not travel on truly parabolic
paths; and secondly, that in all respects their motion differs
essentially from that which astronomers ascribe to comets. These last
move more and more quickly until they reach what is called the vertex of
the parabola (the point of such a path which lies nearest to the sun):
projectiles, on the contrary, move more and more slowly as they approach
the corresponding point of their path; and further, the comet first
approaches and then recedes from the centre of attraction--the
projectile first recedes from and then approaches the attracting centre.
The earth-flatteners form a considerable section of the paradoxical
family. They experienced a practical rebuff, a few years since, which
should to some degree have shaken their faith in the present chief of
their order. To do this chief justice, he is probably far less confident
about the flatness of the earth than any of his disciples. Under the
assumed name of Parallax he visited most of the chief towns of England,
propounding what he calls his system of zetetic astronomy. Why he should
call himself Parallax it would be hard to say; unless it be that the
verb from which the word is derived signifies primarily to shift about
or dodge, and secondarily to alter a little, especially for the worse.
His employment of the word zetetic is less doubtful, as he claims for
his system that it alone is founded on the true seeking out of Nature's
secrets.
The experimental basis of the theory of Parallax is mainly this: Having
betaken himself to a part of the Bedford Canal, where there is an
uninterrupted water-line of about six miles, he tested the water surface
for signs of curvature, and (as he said) found none.
It chanced, unfortunately, that a disciple--Mr. John Hampden, of
Swindon--accepted the narrative of this observation in an unquestioning
spirit; and was so confident that the Bedford Canal has a truly plane
surface, that he wagered five hundred pounds on his opinion, challenging
the believers in the earth's rotundity to repeat the experiment. The
challenge was accepted by Mr. Wallace, the eminent naturalist; and the
result may be anticipated. Three boats were to be moored in a line,
three miles or so between each. Each carried a mast of given length. If,
when the summits of the first and last masts were seen in a line
through a telescope, the summit of the middle mast was not found to be
above the line, then Mr. Hampden was to receive five hundred pounds from
Mr. Wallace. If, on the contrary, the top of the middle mast was found,
as the accepted theory said it should be, to be several feet above the
line joining the tops of the two outer masts, then Mr. Hampden was to
lose the five hundred pounds he had so rashly ventured. Everything was
conducted in accordance with the arrangements agreed upon. The editor of
a well-known sporting paper acted as stakeholder, and unprejudiced
umpires were to decide as to what actually was seen through the
telescope. It need scarcely be said that the accepted theory held its
own, and that Mr. Hampden lost his money. He scarcely bore the loss with
so good a grace as was to have been expected from a philosopher merely
desirous of ascertaining the truth. His wrath was not expended on
Parallax, whom he might have suspected of having led him astray; nor
does he seem to have been angry with himself, as would have seemed
natural. All his anger was reserved for those who still continued to
believe in the earth's rotundity. Whether he believed that the Bedford
water had risen under the middle boat to oblige Mr. Wallace, or how it
came to pass that his own chosen experiment had failed him, does not
appear.
The subsequent history of this matter has been unpleasant. It
illustrates, unfortunately but too well, the mischief which may ensue
from the tricks of those who make a trade of paradox--tricks which would
be scarce possible, however, if text-books of science were more
carefully written, and by those only who are really acquainted with the
subject of which they treat.
The book which originally led to Mr. Hampden's misfortunes, and has
misled not a few, ought to have deceived none. I have already mentioned
the statement on which Parallax (whose true name is Rowbotham) rested
his theory. Of course, if that statement had been true--if he had, with
his eye a few inches from the surface of the water of the Bedford Canal,
seen an object close to the surface six miles from him--there manifestly
would have been something wrong in the accepted theory about the earth's
rotundity. So, also, if a writer were to announce a new theory of
gravity, stating as the basis of his theory that a heavy missile which
he had thrown into the air had gone upwards on a serpentine course to
the moon, any one who accepted the statement would be logically bound to
admit at least that the fact described was inconsistent with the
accepted theory. But no one would accept such a statement; and no one
should have accepted Mr. Rowbotham's statement.
His statement was believed, however, and perhaps is still believed by
many. Twenty years ago De Morgan wrote that 'the founder of the zetetic
astronomy gained great praise from provincial newspapers for his
ingenuity in proving that the earth is a flat, surrounded by ice,' with
the north polar ice in the middle. 'Some of the journals rather incline
to this view; but the "Leicester Advertiser" thinks that the statement
"would seem to invalidate some of the most important conclusions of
modern astronomy;" while the "Norfolk Herald" is clear that "there must
be great error on one side or the other." ... The fact is worth noting
that from 1849-1857 arguments on the roundness or flatness of the earth
did itinerate. I have no doubt they did much good, for very few persons
have any distinct idea of the evidence for the rotundity of the earth.
The "Blackburn Standard" and "Preston Guardian" (December 12 and 16,
1849) unite in stating that the lecturer ran away from his second
lecture at Burnley, having been rather too hard pressed, at the end of
his first lecture, to explain why the large hull of a ship disappeared
before the masts. The persons present and waiting for the second
lecture assuaged their disappointment by concluding that the lecturer
had slipped off the ice edge of his flat disc, and that he would not be
seen again till he peeped up on the opposite side.' ... 'The zetetic
system,' proceeds De Morgan, 'still lives in lectures and books; as it
ought to do, for there is no way of teaching a truth comparable to
opposition. The last I heard of it was in lectures at Plymouth, in
October 1864. Since this time a prospectus has been issued of a work
entitled "The Earth not a Globe;" but whether it has been published I do
not know.'
The book was published soon after the above was written, and De Morgan
gives the following quaint account of it: 'August 28, 1865. The zetetic
astronomy has come into my hands. When in 1851 I went to see the Great
Exhibition I heard an organ played by a performer who seemed very
desirous of exhibiting one particular stop. "What do you think of that
stop?" I was asked. "That depends on the name of it," said I "Oh! what
can the name of it have to do with the sound? 'that which we call a