Abstract
PROF. BAKHUYZEN is right in regard to the number of days counted in error by Kaiser in comparing Hooke and Huyghens with recent observations. I wrote away from books, and with no means of determining whether Kaiser had made Hooke's observation a day too early or a day too late in comparing it with Huyghens's—which was what in reality he did. I saw that three days' correction would about bring matters right, and knew that in 1873, I had brought matters right; so concluded that was the way. But, being in London for a few days, I have looked up my paper of 1873, and find that the correction was obtained by omitting two days from Kaiser's count between Huyghens and himself, and adding one day to his count between Hooke and Huyghens.
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
PROCTOR, R. Rotation of Mars. Nature 33, 245 (1886). https://doi.org/10.1038/033245b0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/033245b0
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.