The Comet

Aslroiiou;y Í3 usually reckoncd au xceedingly exact science, and in most of its methods and the great raass of ts ascertained fact3 is its exact, yet, as the conflicting theories and calculations iboutthe great cornet now visible show, ■soiue departmenta of the science are subject to astonishing uncertainty. rhe opposing view of the astronomers to the orbit of tlie present cornet and the question of its identity with the great cometa of 1880 and 1843 arelikely to leüd sonie persons to look upon tlio wliole subject with incredulity. The trouble, liowever, Í3 not that the astronomers aro -,o better than so many weather prophets dealing in guess work and humbuggery, but that in a case like this it Í3 exceedingly fleuit to obtam trustworthy üata to serve as basis Lor the applioation of mathematical formuïse. What the astronomers acre able to do when there ia the least solid ground to base their calculations upon is shown by the surprising suceesa of their predictions of these Eiiceessive returns of Halley's cornet, whicli has a porlod of someseventy-flve years, and is subject to pertnrbing forcee, which it requires an amazing process of calculation to disentangle. In the present case the question of interest ïs whether this cornet bas ever been seeu in the neighborhood of the sim bef ore. The compufcitions made at Washington have been regarded as gcing far toward identifying it wit'n the comets of 1880 and 1843, whicli, in turn, have been supposed to be the same as the cornet of 1868. If these great comets are all one and the same, and if the dates mentioned comprise ev'ery visit that this cornet has paid to the sun since it was seen, uien, inanifestly.its period is growing shorter at a marveloua rate; and we niay expect it to end its career by fállingf into the sun very shortly. The poasible effect oí the fall of a cornet upon the sun have been frequently discussed of late, though the idea that such an accident might prove onf, hiiving been entertained by Newton 200 years ago. Some months ago when there was a good deal oL talk about Mr. Proct ora suggestion of what the "menacing cornet" of 1880, as he styled ft, might do, Professor Young expressed tiio hope that if it did fall into the sun he might lire to see it. That is probably the feeling of most astronomers. The downfall of a cornet into the fiery f urnace of the sun might furnish a fine spectacle, bat would not be likely to hurt tlie eartb. There is reason to think, however, that if the orbit of the present cornet proves to be identical with that pursued by the cornet of 1880 and 1843, it i3 not the same body. If it is the same body, then either it has a very short period and has been invisible at most of its visits, or its period has been reduced in the surprising way before mentioned. The improbability of such a reduction is so great that even those who think it is the same coraet prefer to believe its period bas always been short, and that it has only occasionally been seen when visiting the sun. But in view of the observed orbits ot the comets oL 1843 and 1880, this ia very improbarle. The coraet of 1843 was seen for more than six weeks alter lts permeuoii pctsatiga, auu t" of 1880 was visible for several weeks. It is not likely that a cornet of such brilliauey could oiten swing uround the ma, biazing with tho splendor reBnlting from its extraordinary close approacli to the great luminary, without being detected. Upon the whole, then, it U&more likely that this cornet is i body foUowing the same path as that pursued by tho couiets oL 1843 and 1880, and the fact that its perihelion passage seems to have been made at a distance certainly not lesa and probably greater than theirs is another argument against the supposition that it is the same cornet, whirling around tho snn iii a rapidly narro wing orbit