Abstract
I REGRET that my words allowed the interpretation which Mr. Maunder points out, for I had no intention of insinuating that the comparisons were “cooked.” What I take exception to is that, according to the values given, γ Cassiopeiæ has a motion in the line of sight of - 12, although on February 19, 1887, Mr. Maunder determined it as - 54˙2, and eight minutes afterwards as + 60˙9; and again, β Pegasi is stated to have a motion in the line of sight of - 8, although in November 1881 two determinations, made within ten minutes of each other, differed by nearly 114 miles per second. It would seem, therefore, that in making a tabular statement, even of the mean of such values found by different observers, the magnitude of the probable error should be mentioned; for, as I remarked at the time, “To one unacquainted with instrumental difficulties, the motion of stars in the line of sight would appear to be a quantity that may be determined with some accuracy,” whereas this is not the case. I have no intention of questioning Mr. Maunder's skill as an observer, but the fact that the discordances, when expressed in wave-lengths, are very small, only supports my contention that, until more perfect instrumental conditions are possible, many of the values are useless, and their determination an affectation of accuracy.
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chambers's “Hand-book of Astronomy”. Nature 42, 341 (1890). https://doi.org/10.1038/042341b0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/042341b0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.