FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259  
260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   279   280   281   282   283   284   >>   >|  
ected rainbows are _other_ rainbows, caused by those _other_ drops which are placed so as to give the colors to the eye after reflection, at the water or the looking-glass. A few years ago an artist exhibited a picture with a rainbow and its apparent reflection: he simply copied what he had seen. When his picture was examined, some started the idea that there could be no reflection of a rainbow; they were right: they inferred that the artist had made a mistake; they were wrong. When it was explained, some agreed and some dissented. Wanted, {335} immediately, an able paradoxer: testimonials to be forwarded to either end of the rainbow, No. 1. No circle-squarer need apply, His Variegatedness having been pleased to adopt 3.14159... from Noah downwards. TYCHO BRAHE REVIVED. The system of Tycho Brahe,[621] with some alteration and addition, has been revived and contended for in our own day by a Dane, W. Zytphen,[622] who has published _The Motion of the Sun in the Universe_, (second edition) Copenhagen, 1865, 8vo, and _Le Mouvement Sideral_, 1865, 8vo. I make an extract. "How can one explain Copernically that the velocity of the Moon must be added to the velocity of the Earth on the one place in the Earth's orbit, to learn how far the Moon has advanced from one fixed star to another; but in another place in the orbit these velocities must be subtracted (the movements taking place in opposite directions) to attain the same result? In the Copernican and other systems, it is well known that the Moon, abstracting from the insignificant excentricity of the orbit, always in twenty-four hours performs an equally long distance. Why has Copernicus never been denominated Fundamentus or Fundator? Because he has never convinced anybody so thoroughly that this otherwise so natural epithet has occurred to the mind." Really the second question is more effective against Newton than against Copernicus; for it upsets gravity: the first is of great depth. {336} JAMES SMITH WILL NOT DOWN. The _Correspondent_ journal makes a little episode in the history of my Budget (born May, 1865, died April, 1866). It consisted entirely of letters written by correspondents. In August, a correspondent who signed "Fair Play"--and who I was afterwards told was a lady--thought it would be a good joke to bring in the Cyclometers. Accordingly a letter was written, complaining that though Mr. Sylvester's[623] demonstration of Newton's theore
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259  
260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   279   280   281   282   283   284   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

rainbow

 

reflection

 

Newton

 
Copernicus
 

picture

 
artist
 

velocity

 

written

 

rainbows

 
denominated

subtracted

 

opposite

 

Fundamentus

 

movements

 

taking

 

natural

 

Because

 
convinced
 
velocities
 
Fundator

equally

 

abstracting

 
insignificant
 

excentricity

 

result

 

Copernican

 

epithet

 
systems
 

attain

 

performs


distance

 

twenty

 

directions

 

signed

 

correspondent

 

August

 

consisted

 
letters
 

correspondents

 
thought

Sylvester

 

theore

 

demonstration

 

complaining

 

letter

 

Cyclometers

 

Accordingly

 

gravity

 

upsets

 

Really