Part 21

From what we have already advanced concerning the coma or nebulosity of the comet, we pass by an easy path to an explanation of the tail. In the short-period comets, the density of the elementary atoms is too great to be detached in the gross from the nucleus, or, rather, the density of the atoms composing the nucleus is too great to permit the radiating stream of the comet carrying them to a sufficient distance to be detached by the radial stream of the sun. Hence, these comets exhibit but very little tails. We may also conceive, that the continual siftings which the nucleus undergoes at each successive perihelion passage, have left but little of those lighter elements in comets whose mean distances are so small. Yet, again, if by any chance the eccentricity is increased, there are two causes--the density of the ether, and the heat of the sun--which may make a comet assume quite an imposing appearance when apparently reduced to the comparatively passive state above mentioned.

According to our theory, then, the coma of a comet is due to the elasticity of the ethereal medium within the nucleus, caused both by the diminished pressure of the external ether near the sun, and also by the increased temperature acting on the nucleus, and thus on the involved ether. The tail, on the contrary, is caused by the lighter particles of the comet's attenuated atmosphere being blown off by the electric blast of the radial stream of the solar vortex, in sufficient quantities to render its passage visible. It is not, therefore, reflected light, but an ethereal stream rendered luminous by this detached matter still held in check by the gravitating force of the sun, whose centre each particle still respects, and endeavors to describe such an orbit as results from its own atomic density, and the resultant action of both the acting forces. From the law of density of the ether, the coma ought to be brightest and the radiating stream of the comet's nucleus strongest on the side of least pressure: from this cause, and the fact that the body of the comet affords a certain protection to the particles immediately behind it, there will be an interval between the comet and the tail less luminous, as is almost invariably observed. We thus have an explanation of the fact noticed by Sir John Herschel, "that the structure of a comet, as seen in section in the direction of its length, must be that of a hollow envelope of a parabolic form, enclosing near its vertex the nucleus or head." We have, also, a satisfactory explanation of the rapid formation of the tail; of its being wider and fainter at its extremity; of its occasional curvature; and of its greater length after perihelion than before. But, more especially may we point to the explanation which this theory gives of the fact, that, ceteris paribus, the long-period comets, when their perihelion distances are small, have tails of such exaggerated dimensions.

A comet, whose mean distance is considerable, is supposed by the theory to be composed of elements less dense, and, during its long sojourn at its aphelion, it may be also supposed that it there receives continual accessions to its volume from the diffused siftings of the system, and from the scattered debris of other comets. On approaching the perihelion, the rapidity of the change in the density of the ether in a given time, depends on the eccentricity of the orbit, and so does the change of temperature; so that, from both causes, both the length of the tail and the brilliancy of the comet measurably depends on the magnitude of the period and of the eccentricity.

If the nuclei of comets be gaseous as we suppose, and that the smallest stars are visible through them, it is an outrage on common sense, to refer that light, which renders a comet visible at noon-day, within six minutes of space of the sun itself, to the reflected light of the sun. When a small star has been seen through the nucleus of a comet, without any perceptible diminution of light, it indicates perfect transparency; but there can be no reflection from a perfectly transparent body, and therefore, a comet does not shine by reflected light. It is true that Arago discovered traces of polarized light in the comet of 1819, and also in more recent comets, but they are mere traces, and Arago himself admits, that they do not permit "the conclusion decidedly that these stars shine only with a borrowed light." But it still does not follow that a comet (even if independent of reflected light) is in an incandescent state. The auroral light is not polarized, nor any other electric light, neither is it owing to a state of incandescence, yet it is luminous. The intense light of a comet at perihelion is analogous to the charcoal points of a galvanic battery, caused by a rapid current of ether from the nucleus, and assisted by the radial stream of the vortex. This will account for the phenomenon in all its shades of intensity, as well as for the absence of any perceptible phase. It will also account for the non-combustion of such comets as those of the years 1680 and 1843. We shall also be at no loss to understand, why there is no refraction when a ray of light from a star passes through the nebulosity of a comet; and if, as we may reasonably suppose, the gaseous matter composing the nucleus be very attenuated, instruments are yet too imperfect to determine whether these also have any refracting power. On this point, however, it is safest to suspend our judgment, as there may be comets not belonging to our system, with even liquid or solid nuclei, or of matter widely different to those elements composing the members of the solar system.

In addition to what has been already advanced on this subject of a comet's light, we may appeal to the well-known fact that the visibility of a comet is not reciprocally as the squares of the distances from the earth and sun as it ought to be, if shining by reflected light. In Mr. Hind's late work on comets, the fact is stated that "Dr. Olbers found that the comet of 1780 attained its greatest brightness on the 8th of November, thirteen days subsequent to its discovery, whereas according to the law of reflected light, it should have become gradually fainter from the day of its discovery; and supposing the comet self-luminous, the intensity of light should have increased each day until November 26th; yet in the interval between the 8th and 26th of that month, it grew rapidly less." Now this theory teaches, that a comet is neither self-luminous nor dependent on the sun, but on its distance from the axis of the vortex, and a certain amount of elapsed time from the perihelion, varying somewhat in each particular case. This fact is therefore a very strong argument in favor of our theory.

Amidst the many anomalous peculiarities of comets, it has been noticed that a short tail is sometimes seen at right angles to the principal tail, and in a few cases pointing directly towards the sun. Much of this may be owing to perspective, but granting the reality of the fact, it is still explicable on the same general principles.

In speaking of the modifying causes which influence the weather, we mentioned the effect due to the position of the sun with respect to the axis of the vortex. This will be found to have a sensible effect on the action of the radial stream. The natural direction of a comet's electric stream is towards the axis of the vortex, and in the central plane of the vortex it will be also towards the sun. But this stream is met by the stronger radial stream from the axis, and as Mr. Hind describes it, "is driven backward in two streams passing on either side of the head, and ultimately blending into one to form the tail." Now, if the body of the sun be situated between the comet and the axis of the vortex, it will shield the comet from the action of the radial stream, and thus a tail may really point towards the sun.

In 1744 a brilliant comet exhibited six distinct tails spread out like a fan, some seven days after its perihelion passage; its distance from the sun at the time not being more than a third of the earth's distance. The comet was then rapidly approaching the plane of the ecliptic, and if we make the calculation for the position of the sun, we shall find that the body of the sun was on the same side of the axis of the vortex as the comet, and that the comet was then situated at the boundaries of the conical space, enclosed by the radial stream in its deflected passage round the body of the sun. In this position there are numerous cross currents of the stream, and hence the phenomenon in question. As this fact rests on the testimony of one individual, and is an occurrence never recorded before or since, many are disposed to doubt the fact, yet our theory explains even this peculiarity, and shows that there is no necessity for impugning the statement of Cheseaux.

Another unexplained phenomenon is the corruscation of the tail. It has been attempted to explode this fact also, by referring it to conditions of our own atmosphere; and it is generally considered the argument of Olbers, founded on the great length of the tail and the velocity of light, is sufficient to prove that these corruscations are not actually in the tail. Now, it is undoubtedly true, that as light travels less than two hundred thousand miles in a second, and a comet's tail is frequently one hundred millions long, it is impossible to see an instantaneous motion along the whole line of the tail; but granting that there are such flickerings in the tail as are described by so many, it must necessarily be, that these flickerings will be visible. It would be wonderful indeed, if a series of waves passing from the comet to the extremity of the tail, should have their phases so exactly harmonizing with their respective distances as to produce a uniform steady light from a light in rapid motion. The argument, therefore, proves too much, and as it is in the very nature of electric light thus to corruscate, as we see frequently in the northern lights, we must be permitted still to believe that not only the tails, but also the heads of comets do really corruscate as described.

With respect to the direction of the tail, astronomers have been forced to abandon the antiquated notion, that the tail always pointed directly from the sun; yet they still pertinaciously cling to the idea, that although this is not always the case, the tail only deviates from this direction in the plane of the orbit. As this is a most important question, it is necessary formally to protest against such a conclusion. If the earth should happen to be in the plane of the comet's orbit and the tail appears in that plane, it must of course be in that plane really; but if the earth is not in the plane of the comet's orbit, the tail is not necessarily in the same plane, whatever its apparent direction may indicate. It is true there is a tendency of every particle of the tail, moving under the restraining influence of the sun's attraction, to continue in the plane of the orbit; and in certain positions there is no oblique action arising from the force of the radial stream to cause it to deviate from that plane; yet in other positions of the comet, the action of the radial stream may be oblique, forcing it out of that plane, and still such a direction might be assigned to it as to make it conform. In the comet of 1843, P. Smythe observed a forked tail 25d long on March 3d, and from the end of the forked tail, and from its north side, a streamer diverged at an angle of 6d or 7d to the north. As this was contrary to the direction of the curvature, if the tail had been curved, it could only arise from a portion being driven off by the radial stream, or bent towards the plane of the ecliptic. The curvature observed by others at a later date, was concave to the south. Towards the middle and close of March, the tail became straight, and with the above exception, might be considered to move in the plane of the orbit.

The celebrated comet of Halley, as observed by Dr. Bessel in 1835, showed that a more or less well-defined tuft of rays emanated from that part of the nucleus which was turned towards the sun; and the rays being bent backward formed a part of the tail. The nucleus, with its emanations, presented the appearance of a burning rocket, the end of which was turned sideways by the force of the wind. And, Bessel concludes: "That the cone of light issuing from the comet deviated considerably both to the right and left of the true direction of the sun, but that it always returned to that direction, and passed over to the opposite side; so that the cone of light, and the body of the comet from whence it emanated, experienced a rotatory, or, rather, a vibrating motion in the plane of the orbit." It is impossible that Bessel should here mean that this motion was certainly in the plane of the orbit; for the orbit was then viewed sideways, and he had no means of ascertaining the fact. His meaning must be that it was apparently in the plane of the orbit. If a plane be made to pass through the earth, the comet, and the sun, the tail might be placed in any position in that plane, and yet appear to be at the intersection of the two; that is, in the plane of the comet's orbit. The vibration of the tail, in this case, is another strong proof of the correctness of our theory. To make it more intelligible, we shall resort to a diagram.

In the following diagram, the comet's orbit, represented by the dotted line, is drawn on the plane of the ecliptic; it is, therefore, necessary to bear in mind, that it is tilted up from the line of nodes SN, at an angle of 17d 45'. The position of the comet, October 9th, is at C, approaching its perihelion; that of the earth at the same time at T; while S represents the sun, and SQ the line of equinoxes. Now, from a cause already explained, the tail always tends to lay behind the comet, in the direction indicated by the lower tail in the diagram at 1, and, if produced, would pass to the left of the sun, as seen from the earth: the force of the radial stream, however, will not allow this lagging of the tail, and it is straightened out by this force; but, being directed to the axis of the vortex, and not to the sun, it is not really in the plane of the orbit, but is seen in the direction of the upper tail depicted in the diagram at 3, and, if produced, would pass to the right of the sun, as seen from T. Now, there is an intermediate position of the tail, in which it will appear in the prolongation of the radius vector SC; this position is represented by the middle or central tail of the comet at 2, yet this is not in the plane of the orbit, it only appears to be, as may be readily understood by remembering that the earth at this time is under this plane, and the comet is seen at a considerable elevation above the plane of the ecliptic. When the comet's tail becomes directed to the axis of the vortex, or in the apparent position of No. 3, the comet, rapidly careering on its way to the sun, again leaves the tail behind, and again it is strengthened out by the radial stream oscillating about the mean position at 2, as observed by Bessel. From this, it appears, that there is no necessity to make confusion worse confounded, by resorting to polar forces, which are about as intelligible as the foundations of the pillars of Atlas.

It may be objected that the continued action of the radial stream with that velocity we have contended for, ought to keep the tail invariably directed from the axis of the vortex; but, where there are two forces or tendencies, as in this case, analogy would teach us that a certain degree of oscillation is a necessary result. There may, also, be slight and transient changes in the direction of the radial stream. In the hurricane there are short and fitful blasts inclined to the general direction of the wind, which must arise from the inertia of the moving mass of atmosphere, causing temporary condensations and rarefactions. Be this as it may, we have assigned a cause which satisfies the phenomenon, without coming into collision with a single principle of celestial mechanics.

Prof. Struve compared the tail of this comet to a flame, or "ray of fire shot out from the nucleus, as from some engine of artillery, and driven on one side by the wind." At the same time, he saw a second emanation nearly in the opposite direction. This last might arise from a momentary fluctuation in the relative intensities of the electric radiation of the comet, and of the radial stream, owing to the probable irregularities just alluded to. Such and kindred phenomena are utterly inexplicable, without we adopt the theory we are advocating. One other feature, and we will leave the subject.

From our explanation of the solar spots, we inferred the existence of another large planet in the system. Might not the same effect be produced by a comet? Or may there not be so many comets, whose great elongation, combined with even a moderate mass, may render it impossible to calculate the position of the sun with respect to the central axis of the vortex,--always considering this last as the axis of equilibrium? In a general way, we might say that the very number of comets in all directions and all distances, would tend to neutralize each other's effects; but we are not under this necessity. A comet, moving in a parabola, does not belong to the system or to the rotating vortex; and the periodic comets, if of gaseous elements, (as seems so probable,) must, from the size of their nuclei, which the theory considers the only part constituting their mass, have far less mass than the very smallest of the asteroids, and consequently could have very little effect on the mechanical balance of the vortex, even if elongated as far as the orbit of Neptune. Did we know the influence of cold in limiting the expansibility of the elementary gases, we might approximately determine the mass of a comet, from the size of its nucleus; but this is a problem that has never yet been solved; and astronomers ought to avail themselves of every indication which promises to realize this great desideratum. The grand comet of 1556 is now probably approaching, and, from recent investigations, it appears that it will arrive at its perihelion in 1858,--subject to an error either way of about two years. An opportunity may thus be presented of determining the mass of one of the largest comets on record, which may not again occur. This arises from the possible appulse of the comet to the planet Pallas, whose mass, being so small, would more sensibly be disturbed by such an appulse than the earth. As the inclinations and ascending nodes of the two orbits approximately coincide, and as Pallas will be near the comet's path, on the approach of the latter to the sun, at the beginning of the year 1857, should the comet become visible about that time, a very close appulse is possible. It is not unlikely, also, that if the elements of Pallas were so far perfected as to afford reliable indications, that the near approach of the comet might thus be heralded in advance, and lead to an earlier detection of its presence. Would it not be a worthy contribution to science, for some one possessing the necessary leisure, to give an ephemeris of the planet for that epoch; as a very slight change in Mr. Hind's elements of the comet, would cause an actual intersection of the two orbits in about heliocentric longitude 153d? The subsequent nodal passage of Pallas will take place near opposition, and be very favorably situated for determining the instant of its passage; and, of all the elements, this would be more likely to be affected than any other.

THE ZODIAL LIGHT.

A phenomenon, akin to that which we have just been considering, is presented by that great cone of diffused light which accompanies the sun, and which in tropical climes displays a brilliancy seldom witnessed in high latitudes, on account of its greater deviation from the perpendicular. Sir John Herschel conjectures that it may be "no other than the denser part of that medium, which, as we have reason to believe, resists the motion, of comets,--loaded, perhaps, with the actual materials of the tails of millions of those bodies, of which they have been stripped in their successive perihelion passages, and which may be slowly subsiding into the sun." If these materials have been stripped, it is due to some force; and the same force would scarcely permit them to subside into the sun. Once stripped, these portions must be borne outwards, by the radial stream, to the outer verge of the system. Still, there are, no doubt, denser particles of matter, of the average atomic density of Mercury and Venus, which can maintain their ground against the radial stream, and continue to circulate near the central plane of the vortex, in all that space between the earth and the sun. But if the zodial light be the denser part of that medium, which astronomers now generally recognize as a resisting medium, how happens it that it should be confined to the plane of the ecliptic? Why should it not be a globular atmosphere? Here, again, our theory steps in with a triumphant explanation; for while it permits the accumulation of such particles around the equatorial plane of the sun, it allows no resting-place very far removed from this plane. The zodial light, therefore, is not the resisting medium, but the passage of the radial stream through a diffuse nebula of atoms, brought down the poles of the vortex by the polar current, and held in check along the central plane by gravitation.

If these atoms partook of the velocity of the ether, they would not be luminous; but being held back by gravitation, they are opposed to the radial stream, and hence the light.

Many stars are also nebulous. In some cases we see the nebulosity edgewise, or along the equatorial planes of the stellar vortices; in others we look down the poles, and the nebulosities are circular, and there is an endless variety in the shape and intensity of this light. But the universe seems full of motion, and we are not justified in supposing, because a star shows no such light, that it is without rotation. The parallax of the nearest star is only one second, the whole lenticular mass of light which surrounds our sun would therefore only subtend an angle of a single second at the nearest fixed star. Seeing its extreme faintness, therefore, the effulgence of the star would render it totally invisible, provided that it could traverse the vast immensity of intervening space, without feeling the influence of that extinction, which Struve has proved does actually diminish the number of visible stars.

Corruscations and flickerings have also been noticed in the zodial light, and as usual, the learned have suggested atmospheric conditions as the cause, instead of trusting to the evidence of their own senses. How prone is philosophy to cling to that which is enveloped in the mist of uncertainty, rather than embrace the too simple indications of nature. As if God had only intended her glories to be revealed to a favored few, and not to mankind at large. Blessed will be the day when all will appreciate their own powers and privileges, and no longer regard the oracles which emanate from a professional priesthood, whose dicta have so often tended to darken the simple counsels of truth! To set the question of pulsations in the zodial light, as well as in the tails of comets, at rest, only requires previously concerted observations, in places not very widely apart; for it is scarcely possible, that atmospheric conditions should produce simultaneous pulsations in two distant places. If the pulsations are found to be simultaneous, they are real; if not simultaneous, they may depend on such conditions; but from the nature of the cause, we should look for them as much in the zodial light, as in the aurora borealis, regarding the different intensities.

There is also reason to suspect that the northern side is always the brightest, both in spring and autumn. On the morning of October 4th, 1853, the light was very vivid and well defined, its northern margin grazing Regulus and terminating at Mars, which was also to the north of it. Now, although the northern side was the brightest, the great mass of light was to the south of the ecliptic, as far down as the cone shape was preserved; but at 10d from the horizon, a still brighter mass protruded from the cone towards the north, which was all north of the ecliptic, and of an irregular form, extending along the horizon. The time was 4 A.M., and consequently was not due to any crepuscular light. An explanation of the general fact of the brightest light being always on the north side, is given in the present section, in connection with another phenomenon. If, as some suppose, the light does not reach to the sun, the annulus must at least fill all the space between Venus and the earth, but it is far more in accordance with facts as well as with our theory, to suppose it increases in density to the body of the sun.

Observations made at the observatory of the British Association, detected, in 1850, sudden brightenings of the light, altogether different from pulsations. The theory would refer these to that fitful irregularity in the momentary intensity of the radial stream, which gives the flickering and tremulous motion to comets' tails. But, the steady variations in the intensity of this light must be due to other causes. The longitude of the sun will here come in as a modifying cause; for the obstruction caused by the body of the sun, when displaced from the axis of the vortex, must necessarily exercise an influence on the force and direction of the radial stream. A sudden influx of cometary matter down the poles of the vortex, in more than usual quantities, will also tend to brighten and enlarge the zodial light; and, in this last cause, we have an explanation not only of ancient obscurations of the solar light, but, also, of those phosphorescent mists, such as occurred in 1743 and 1831, rendering moonless nights so light that the smallest print could be read at midnight.

In total eclipses of the sun, the denser portion of the zodial light is visible as a brilliant corona; but, on such occasions, the brightest stars only are to be seen, and, consequently, the fainter portions of the light must be invisible. Hind mentions as many as ten stars visible in the total eclipse of 1842. According to the same authority, the color of the corona was like tarnished silver, and rays of light diverged in every direction, and appeared shining through the light of the corona in the total eclipse of 1851. In this year on the day of the eclipse (July 28th), the longitude of the sun was about 340d, and, therefore, the body of the sun obstructed the radial stream as seen from the earth on the right side; but, in 1842, the longitude of the sun was, according to our table, about 116d, the sun's centre then being 700,000 miles from the axis of the vortex, and on the opposite side with respect to the earth; the position was, therefore, not so favorable for the appearance of these rays which, in many cases, have given the appearance of a whirling motion to the corona.

At this date, July 7th, 1842, the corona, according to Prof. Airy, "possibly had a somewhat radial appearance, but not sufficiently marked to interfere with the general annular structure." Mr. Baily, on the contrary, says, the corona had the appearance of brilliant rays; and, at Milan, long jets of light were particularly noticed. There can be no doubt but that the passage of the radial stream past the outer margin of the moon must also give rise to the same phenomena as when passing the sun, and in this we have an explanation of the fact, that, previous to the moment of first contact, an appearance resembling a faintly-illuminated limb of the moon, has been perceived near the body of the sun; as well as of those flashes of light which have been observed in the lunar disc as the eclipse advances. One important fact, worthy of note, is, that these luminous streaks are more nearly parallel than is due to a radiation from the centre. These streaks have, also, been seen bent at right angles at the middle of their height, as a flame is by means of a blowpipe, precisely analogous to cometary rays being driven backwards to form the tail, as already described, thus indicating a common origin. If the moon had an atmosphere, we should, no doubt, see a greater display; but, having no rotating vortex to protect her from the radial stream, her atmosphere must have been long since stripped off, leaving her exposed to the withering winter blast of the great stream of the solar vortex. In this connection, we may also allude to the appearance of the moon when totally eclipsed. Instead of disappearing at these times, she sometimes shines bright enough to reveal her smallest spots. This has been generally referred to the refraction of the earth's atmosphere bending inwards the solar rays. May it not be owing to the brilliancy of the solar corona, which, in 1842, was described as so intense that the eye was scarcely able to support it? This is a far more palpable cause for the production of this phenomenon, but of which astronomers cannot avail themselves, as long as they are uncertain of the origin of this corona.

SHOOTING STARS.

The continual influx of cosmical matter into the heart of the vortex in ever-varying quantities, and speedily dispersed along the central plane, according to its density, must necessarily give rise to another phenomenon to which we have not yet alluded. Scarcely a night passes without exhibiting this phenomena in some degree, and it is generally supposed that the hourly average of shooting stars is from five to ten, taking the whole year round. The matter composing these meteors we regard as identical with that mass of diffused atoms which forms a stratum conforming to the central plane of the vortex, and whose partial resistance to the radial stream occasions that luminosity which we call the zodial light. These atoms may coalesce into spherical aggregations, either as elastic gas, or as planetary dust, and, passing outward on the radial stream, will occasionally become involved in the vortex of our own globe; and being drawn inwards by the polar current, and acted on by the earth's gravity, be impelled with great velocity through the rarefied air of the upper atmosphere. That meteors are more abundant about the time of meridian passage of a vortex (or, perhaps, more correctly speaking, from six to twelve hours afterwards, when the current of restoration penetrates the atmosphere), well accords with the author's observations. It is about this time that high winds may be looked for, according to the theory; and it has ever been a popular opinion, that these meteors are a sign of windy weather. Even in Virgil's time, the same belief prevailed, as a passage in his Georgics would seem to indicate.

"Sape etiam stellas, vento impendente, videbis Praecipites coelo labi; noctisque per umbram Flammarum longos a tergo albescere tractus;"

Virgil was a close observer of nature, and commences a storm with the wind at south, "Quo signo caderent Austri;" just as we have represented the usual course when these vortices pass near the observer's latitude. It is also a well-known fact, that after a display of meteors, (and we are now speaking of ordinary displays, and not of the great showers,) the temperature falls considerably. It is not uncommon also, that meteors are more abundant during an auroral display, as they ought to be by the theory. We must, however, exempt from this influence those solid meteors which sometimes come into collision with the earth, and afterwards grace the cabinets of the curious. These bodies may be considered microscopic planets, moving in stated orbits with planetary velocity, and bear strongly on the explosive theory of Olbers, as fully detailed by Sir David Brewster.