UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 AT LOS ANGELES
 
 Solar and Planetary 
 Physics and Motion 
 
 £«« >»a 
 
 c\fJ\/tn 
 
 COPYRIGHTED. NOVEMBER. 1907 
 By the Author 
 
 EDWARD LYNCH 
 
 %t^'^
 
 
 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 J 
 
 U
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 COPYRIGHT OFFICE 
 
 Dtc aa 1929 
 
 Dear Sib : 
 
 In compliance with your request we send herewith inclosed 
 the certified document noted below. 
 
 The amount stated below has been applied to cover the 
 statutory fee for certified cop *4^f record. 
 
 Remittance received, $.-X:^.9.P.... 
 
 Fee applied, $...J.i..« .?.. 
 
 Excess remittance returned herewith by check on the 
 Treasurer of the United Slates, $ , 
 
 Fee applied and charged to the balance in hand from your 
 
 trust fund, t 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 Rcgitta- of Coptfrightt. /j 
 Refund check, 9 
 
 
 Ctreulor Letter 90 B 
 OertlS»d DocutQents
 
 — 
 
 o 
 
 Z 
 
 o 
 X 
 X 
 
 tf) 
 
 < 
 
 J 
 
 U
 
 Class (X XXc. No. I'^JJJj^,- 
 
 ^iXtrat:ij 0f ©ougress, to mit: 
 
 Be it remembereb, 
 
 That on the li^t-cn^J- day of Aa^^co^-oua^p , tfoSL, 
 
 Q^-OLAA^vjuLcs-.^ — C?iJ! , fia kLdeposited in this Office the title 
 
 of i.- ^ ^yc ^ 
 
 the title oftvhich is in the follcwing luords, to ivit: 
 
 the right 'whereof t^^- claims as author and proprietor in conformity "with the la-ws of 
 the United States respecting Copyrights. 
 
 ©ffice of tbe TRegistec of Copsttgbts, /r, / C T f- 
 
 By 
 
 Regiettr of Copyright*, /j 
 
 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original record of copyright. 
 |n tottncss tojjcrcof, the seal of this Office has been hereto affixed this Xxj^'i^aIu^ \^ 
 day o/'— -"^LjbiLX^AAliJA.. , /^^/S . 
 
 Register of Copyrights / 
 
 CopBttflbt ©ffice of tbe xantteB states of amecica, // 
 
 ■COlasbtnaton, 2). a. ^ 
 
 J
 
 ^J^^J?- 
 
 Solar and Planetary 
 Physics and Motion 
 
 
 
 COPYRIGHTED. NOVEMBER. 1907 
 By the Author 
 
 EDWARD LYNCH
 
 ■^9 
 
 
 >^ 
 
 " To the Stars Through Difficulties " 
 
 In ^TliCemoTy) of 
 
 jr. 3ot?n H. ^rggorg 
 
 First President of 
 
 (lli|g MmpprgUii of dlUtmita 
 
 These pages are Dedicated 
 
 .<-t*-^^» *'"»*-» •
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 The economic value of a sure basis of prediction in meteorology is inesti- 
 mable. The value to the nation of a reliable forecast of the season, of 
 probable rain supply, of drouths, of extraordinary degrees of heat or cold, 
 weeks or even months in advance of the events, cannot be estimated in 
 money. Weather bureau experts and other scientific men have labored long 
 in search for a periodic law of recurrence of weather conditions. Publica- 
 tions by thousands have been issued tabulating results of careful research 
 into past weather conditions. 
 
 The sun and its constitution is the final physical cause of all condition.^? 
 which make life sustainable on the earth. The sun has been subjected to 
 every possible form of scrutiny in the endeavor to understand the laws of 
 its being and the causes of its manifest variability. 
 
 This is another attempt. I am persuaded that the tables given herein 
 summarize a law of periodic solar action which will render prediction of 
 future solar action precise as to time and definite as to intensity. These 
 tables are based entirely upon rigorous calculations of events and facts open 
 to the scrutiny of all. Personal bias and vanity can not sway the results. 
 
 If the writer is mistaken in this statement then those tables present the 
 most remarkable combination of figures and fiction, extending over 300 
 years, to be found in the history- of mathematics. So chameleon like are the 
 figured results of planetary action that they simulate the precise form and 
 physical conditions, as to time and intensity, of solar storm and calm : and 
 they seem to truthfully reflect every well estabKshed rule of solar action 
 derived from observations extending over 300 years. Spots come and go on 
 the sun at irregular intervals ; no two periods of maxima or minima occur of 
 equal length in succession nor indeed at alL Yet these tables, derived 
 n}(r(ly from ihf motions of the planets and the sun, follow these spot condi- 
 tions, through all their sinuosities, telling of the waxing and waning of solar 
 activity as if they were derived from close scrutiny of that condition. 
 
 Certainly, therefore, if these pages do not teU the truth they are most 
 interesting fiction, and are illustrative of the ability of plausible figures 
 to lie. 
 
 EDWARD LYNTH. 
 1330 Caeolixe Street, Alajjeda. California, October 8th, 1907.
 
 A PRELIMINARY CHAPTER ON SOLAR PHYSICS. 
 
 The object of this chapter is to briefly state a theory, founded upon a 
 broad basis of fact, of the causes of solar activity ; especially dealing with 
 the periodicity of sun-spots, because the knowledge of the periodical varia- 
 tion of sun-spots is the most definite and extended, covering three hundred 
 years of the sun 's history. 
 
 This theory rests upon a new and more extended examination of the 
 effects of gravitation by the great planets upon the sun, especially upon its 
 movement towards its apex. 
 
 The activity of the sun is manifested directlij by its spot periods, its 
 coronas, and its variable shape; and, indirectly, by terrestrial phenomena 
 which happen at the same time with solar disturbance, namely, periodical 
 variation in magnetic declination, aurora borealis, extraordinary heat, 
 cold, and wind and electrical storms. In addition I will at some future 
 time publish detailed reasons for including some kinds of earthquakes in 
 this list of effects indirectly manifested, giving merely a sketch at this time. 
 A brief summary of the present state of learning as to the causes of solar 
 activity and the present theories, based upon observation, of its effects is 
 necessary to the introduction of this chapter. 
 
 In 1903 Miss Gierke published ''Problems in Astrophysics," in which she 
 said : 
 
 ''The sun is subject to a rhythmical tide of disturbance, ebbing and flow- 
 ing in about eleven years. But the flow is irregular and spasmodic. Both 
 the intensity of the crises and the intervals at which they recur vary largely 
 and unaccountably. Probably the eleven year cycle is involved in others. 
 One, there is reason to believe, brings about alternate accentuations and par- 
 tial effacements of change comprised within a term of some sixty-five years. 
 And minor pulsations — wavelets on the great rollers — are besides evident. 
 Prediction nevertheless remains at fault. Spot maxima are delayed or 
 anticipated, they are lanquid or energetic, as the outcome of modes of action 
 defying calculation. * * * The error of the spot period may amount to 
 nearly half its normal length. Thus sixteen years elapsed between the max- 
 imum of 1788 and the next certainly ensuing, and only 7.3 years separated 
 the culminating points in 1829.9 and 1837.2 * * * 
 
 ' ' The throbbings of solar agitation aft'ect his entire system. In how many 
 ways, and by what hidden means, we can but vaguely surmise. Terrestrial 
 meteorology, as a whole, is certainly embraced in the great cycle, although 
 the details of its conformity baffle by their intricacy, the most painstaking 
 pursuit. * * *
 
 "A prolouc:ed solar calm appears to have set in about 164:3. Galileo and 
 Seheiner had been at no loss for subjects of study; but the diligence of their 
 successoi-s, althouixh unrelaxed, went mostly unre(iuited. * * * 
 
 "Definitively the protracted minimum came to an end in 171G and therj 
 was a normal maximum in 1718. * * * 
 
 "Indi^^dual outbreaks on the sun are often unmistakably associated with 
 commotions of the magnetic system. These so called 'storms' are world 
 wide in their nature, abrupt in their origin, and bear witness to some vital 
 spasm attacking the globe as a whole, and at once. * * * 
 
 ''Little progress has been made towards ascertaining the cause of solar 
 periodicity. We are only assured that it is not imposed from without, but 
 arises from within; it resembles a 'free' rather than a 'forced vibration.' 
 This conclusion, it is true, tends to relegate the matter to obscurity for the 
 interior of the sun is terra incognita and seems likely to remain so. His 
 cyclical changes may belong to his original constitution ; they maj' date from 
 nebular times, and be as inherent as the tone of a bell. Or they may simply 
 characterize a change of growth, and prove liable to modification and efface- 
 ment." (pp. 151-160.) 
 
 In another of her works ]\Iiss Gierke says : 
 
 "The idea that solar maculation depends in some way upon the position 
 of the planets occurred to Galileo in 1612 (citing Opere, t. iii, p. 412). It 
 has been industriously sifted by a whole bevy of modern solar physicists. 
 V' Wolf in 1859 found reason to believe that the eleven year curve is deter- 
 mined by the action of Jupiter, modified by that of Saturn, and diversified 
 by influences proceeding from the earth and Venus. ' Its tempting approach 
 to agreement with Jupiter's period of revolution round the sun, indeed, 
 irresistibly suggested a causal connection; yet it does not seem that the 
 most skilful 'coaxing' of figures can bring about a fundamental harmony. 
 Carrington pointed out in 1863, that while, during eight successive periods, 
 from 1770 downwards, there were approximate coincidences between Jupi- 
 ter's aphelion pasages and sun-spot maxima, the relation had been almost 
 exactly reversed in the two periods preceding that date "(citing Observa- 
 tions at Redhill, p. 248) ; "and the latest conclusion of ^I. Wolf himself is 
 that the Jovian origin must be abandoned." (Citing Compte's Rendus, 
 t. xcv, p. 1249.) 
 
 "M. Duponchel of Paris was nevertheless not wholly unsuccessful in 
 accommodating discrepancies with the help of perturbations by the large 
 exterior planets; since his prediction of an abnoi-mal lengthening of the 
 maximum of 1883-4 through certain peculiarities in the position of Uranus 
 and Neptune about the time it fell due, was partially verified by the event. 
 (Citing Compte's Rendus, t. xciii, p. 827, t. xcvi, p. 1418.) ''—Gierke's Hist. 
 ofAst., 3rd Ed., p. 202; 4th Ed., p. 163.
 
 In 1859 Dr. R. Wolf presented a formula by whic h the frequency of spot s 
 is conn ected wit h thejnotions of VenuSj^ the_earth, Jupiter and Saturn, and 
 apparently exhibited a drawing showing these planets in conjunction and at 
 ninety degrees from each other. (''Source and mode of solar energy." 
 Heysinger, p. 108.) 
 
 William J. S. Lockyer sums up Dr. Wolf's sun-spot period theory as 
 follows : 
 
 "Dr. Wolf was careful to point out that it was only the mean length of 
 
 the solar period that covered a period of 11^ years, and that the real length 
 
 of any one period might differ from this value hy as much as two years. 
 * * * 
 
 "His attention was also drawn to the fact that the times of maxima did 
 not occur a constant number of years after a preceding minimum, and he 
 was led to determine the mean time of occurrence of the maximum and of 
 the minimum after the preceding maximum, by giving the 7nean intervals 
 as 4.5 and 6.5 years respectively. 
 
 ' ' Further he at first concluded that the total spotted area for each period 
 was nearly constant, but, as he later remarks (Astron. Mittheil, 1876, p. 47 
 et seq.) this view could not be held, as these quantities not only varied but 
 indicated 'eine bestimme Gesetz-massigkeit. ' The length of the period of 
 this variation he gave as about 178 years, which covered practically sixteen 
 ordinary sun-spot periods ('11.1111X16=177.7777'). 
 
 "Somewhat later Dr. Wolf w^as led to suggest a shorter period of 55.5 
 years, which comprises about five ordinary eleven-year periods. ' ' — Sci. Am. 
 Supp. 24537, 24544, May 6-13, 1905. 
 
 Miss Gierke again says : — 
 
 "The further inclusion of recurring solar commotions within a cycle of 
 fifty-five and a half years was simultaneously (1861) pointed out; and Her- 
 mann Fritz showed soon after that the aurora borealis is subject to an 
 identical double periodicity (citing Wolf Mitth., No. XV, p. 107) Olmsted, 
 following Hansteen, had already, in 1856, sought to establish an auroral 
 period of sixty-five years. (Smithsonian Gout. Vol. VIII, p. 37.) 
 
 "The same inquirer detected besides, both for aurora and sun-spots, a 
 "secular period'' of 222 years (citing Hahn, p. 99, 1877) and the Kew 
 Observations indicate for the latter oscillations accomplished within twenty- 
 six and twenty-four days, depending most likely upon the rotation of the 
 sun. (Giting Rept. Brit. Ass. 1881, p. 518 ; 1883, p. 418.) " Gierke's Hist. 
 Ast., 3rd Ed., p. 201; 4th Ed., p. 162. 
 
 Professor Young says : 
 
 "Professor R. Wolf, of Zurich, has been especially indefatigable in his 
 investigations upon this subject [periodicity of spots] and has succeeded 
 in disinterring from all sorts of hiding places a nearly complete history of 
 the solar surface for the past one hundred and fifty years. * * * and 
 
 ^A-
 
 with immense labor has combined them into a consistent whole, deducing a 
 series of 'relative numbers' as he calls them, which represent the state of 
 the sun as to spottedness for every year since 1745, * * * These rela- 
 tive numbers, as tested by the most recent photographic results of De La Rue 
 and Stewart, are found to be approximately proportional to the area covered 
 by the spots. We give on the opposite page a figure deduced from the 
 numbers, published by Wolf in 1877 in the IMemoirs of the Roved Astronom- 
 ical Society and showing their course year by year since 1772, The hori- 
 zontal divisions denote years, and the height of the curve at each point 
 gives 'relative number' for the date in question. For example, in 1870, 
 about the middle of the j^ear, the relative number was 140, while early in 
 1879 it ran as low as 3, " p. 147:* * * "Our diagram * * * only 
 goes back to 1772, but Wolf's investigations reach to 1610, and he gives," in 
 the paper from which were derived the numbers used in constructing our 
 diagram the following important table of maxima and minima." (p. 147.) 
 * * * (Here follows same table as is given by ]\Iiss Gierke hereinafter 
 copied.) 
 
 ''There is no question of solar physics more interesting or important than 
 that which concerns the cause of this periodicity, but a satisfaetor3^ solution 
 remains to be found. It has 6een supposed hy astronomers of very great 
 authority that the influence of the planets in some way produces it. Jupiter, 
 Venus and Mercury have been especially suspected of complicity in the mat- 
 ter, the first on account of his enormous mass, the others on account of their 
 proximity, De La Rue and Stewart deduce from their photographic obser- 
 vations of sun-spots between 1862 and 1866, a series of numbers, which 
 strongly tend to prove that, when two of the powerful planets are nearly 
 in line as seen from the sun then the spotted area is much increased. They 
 have investigated especially the combined effect of Mercury and Venus, 
 Jupiter and Venus, and Jupiter and Mercury as also the effect of Mercury's 
 approach to, or recession from, the sun. In all four cases there seems to be 
 a somewhat regular progression of numbers, though much less decided in 
 the third and fourth than in the first and second. The irregular variations 
 of the numbers are, however, so large and the duration of the observations 
 so short, that it is hardly safe to build heavily upon the observed coinci- 
 dences, since they may be merely accidental. An attempt to connect the 
 eleven-year period with that of the planet Jupiter also breaks down. While, 
 for a certain portion of the time, there is a pretty good agreement between 
 the sun-spot curve and that which represents the varying distance of Jupiter 
 from the .sun, there is complete discordance elsewhere. About 1870 the 
 maximum spottedness occurred when the planet was nearest the sun, but at 
 the beginning of the century the reverse was the case, Loomis (who is in 
 favor of inserting a sun-spot maximum in 1794, and, on this hypothesis, 
 deduces a mean sun-spot period of 10 years in place of 11.1) suggests that
 
 the conjunctions and oppositions of Jupiter and Saturn may be at the bot- 
 tom of the matter,. These occur at intervals of 9.93 years, from a conjunc- 
 tion to an opposition, or vice versa. But, when we come to test the matter, 
 we find that, in some cases, sun-spot minima have coincided with this allinea- 
 tion of the two planets ; in other cases, maxima. 
 
 "It is indeed, very difficult to conceive in what manner the planets, so 
 small and so remote, can possibly produce such profound and extensive dis- 
 turbances on the sun. It is hardly possible that their gravitation can bo 
 the agent, since the tide raising power of Venus upon the solar surface 
 would be only about ^hf ^^ ^^^^ which the sun exerts upon the earth ; and 
 in the case of Mercury and Jupiter the effect would be still less, or about 
 Y^-n of the sun 's influence on the earth. 
 
 "The sun (apart from the moon) raises a tide on the deep waters of the 
 earth's equator, something less than a foot in elevation, so that, making all 
 allowances for the rarity of the materials which compose the photosphere, 
 it is quite evident that no planet lifted tides can directly account for the 
 phenomena. If the sun-spots are due in any way to planetary action, this 
 action must be that of some different and far more subtle influence." — 
 Young, 149 to 151, Sun, Aug. 1st, 1881. 
 
 Chambers says: 
 
 "That the period is clearly an eleven-year one, as has already been stated ; 
 (2) that it is not, however, quite as simple in its form as it was at fii-st 
 thought to be; for in reality there are two periods superposed, the one 
 rather more than half a century long, and the other extending over the 
 eleven j-ears already spoken of. We do not possess early observations suffi- 
 ciently numerous and sufficiently good to enable lis to draw any unimpeach- 
 able conclusions as to the nature of the long period; we can only be certain 
 that it exists. The later labors of Wolf, however, fixed that period at 55^2 
 years. It is a result of this that, according to Loomis, a period of compara- 
 tive calm on the sun existed between 1810 and 1825. 
 
 "Each maximum lies nearer to the minimum which precedes it than to 
 the minimum which follows it, for the spots increase during 3.7 years and 
 diminish during 7.4 years. According to De La Rue the increase occupies 
 3.52 years and diminution 7.55 years. This concurrence between De La Rue 
 and AVolf is surprising considering the diversity of the methods which led 
 to results almost identical, the one set being based on the number of spots, 
 and the other on the superficial extent of the spots. * * * 
 
 "The presence of spots only in Zodiacal regions led Galileo to suspect the 
 existence of some relations between the spots and the position of the planets; 
 but there is in this a mere surmise, which when it was made, had nothing to 
 justify it, and it is still impossible for us to say anything for certain on the 
 point.
 
 8 
 
 *' According to Wolf, the attraction of the planets or some of them, is the 
 real cause of the periodicity which u'e are dealing ivith; that attraction 
 producing on the surface of the solar globe true tides, which give birth to the 
 spots, these tides themselves experiencing periodic variations owing to the 
 periodic changes of position of the celestial bodies which cause them. It 
 has even been thought safe to assert that the fact of the principal period 
 coinciding with the revolution of Jupiter is of momentous significance ; but 
 this coincidence seems purely accidental, and no certain conclusion can be 
 dra^^Ti as to this matter. The influence of Mercury and Venus would per- 
 haps be much more potent, for their distance from the sun is not very great, 
 and this should render their influence more sensible. On the other hand 
 their masses appear to be too small to be capable of producing any suffi- 
 cient effect. 
 
 "De La Rue, Balfour Stewart, and Lowy most perserveringly studied 
 this point of solar physics. Tliey seem to have arrived at the conclusion 
 that the conjunctions of Venus and Jupiter do exercise a certain amount of 
 influence on the number of spots and on their latitude ; and that this influ- 
 ence is less considerable when Venus is situated in the plane of the solar 
 equator. At any rate it is a fact that a great number of the visible inequali- 
 ties in a duly plotted curve of the spots do really correspond to special 
 positions of these two planets. 
 
 "In order to determine with more precision these coincidences and the 
 importance which attaches to them, De La Rue extended his inquiries. He 
 separately analyzed many different groups of spots, selecting for his pur- 
 pose more particularly those of which the observations happened to have been 
 specially continuous and complete, giving a preference moreover to those 
 which had been observed in the central portions of the sun's disc. From 
 an investigation of 794 groups De La Rue arrived at the following conclu- 
 sions: (1) If we take a meridian passing through the middle of the disc 
 and represented by a diameter perpendicular to the equator, we find that 
 the mean size of the spots is not the same with regard to that meridian. It 
 appears certain that the correction required for perspective does not suffice 
 to explain this difference ; and that another element must be introduced in 
 order to secure that the apparent dimensions of the spots may be the same 
 on both sides. We do not yet possess a very clear explanation of this fact; 
 but the most probable is this : — that the spots are surrounded by a project-
 
 ing bank, which seems to disappear in part during their transit across the 
 sun. This bank is more elevated on the preceding than on the following 
 side; accordingly the spots ought to seem smaller when they are in the 
 eastern half of the disc larger when they are in the western half ; for in the 
 first position the observer's eye meets an elevated obstacle, which hides a 
 portion of the spot itself. (2) De La Rue specially studied the spots 
 observed at the times when the planets Venus and Mars were at a heliocen- 
 tric distance from the earth equal to 0, 90, 180 and 270 degrees, and arrived 
 at this result ; the spots are larger in the part of the sun which is away from 
 Venus and Mars, and they are smaller on the side on which these planets 
 happen to be. The same result was obtained, whether Carrington's figures 
 or the Kew photographs were employed. (3) Meanwhile it does not appear 
 that Jupiter emits any similar influence. This influence should be easily 
 perceived, for if we calculate the action of the planets in the way that we 
 calculate the tides, treating it as directly proportional to the masses and 
 inversely proportional to the cubes of the distances, the influence of Jupiter 
 should greatly outweigh that of Venus. 
 
 ' ' Wolf thought he had noticed traces of some influence being exerted by 
 Saturn, but this remains altogether without confirmation. 
 
 "De La Rue noticed thai large spots are generally situated at extremities 
 of the same diameter. This law also often applies to the development of 
 large prominences. The coincidence agrees well with the theory that there 
 exists on the sun some action resemhling that of our tides." — Story of the 
 Solar System, Chambers, p. 51 et seq., Appleton, N. Y., 1904. 
 
 Flammarion takes up the argument based on the influence of Jupiter and 
 disposes of it as follows : 
 
 ' ' What may be the cause of this motion of the solar surface ? 
 
 * ' This cause may be in the interior of the sun. It might also be exterior 
 to him. 
 
 " If it is in the interior of the solar body, it would not be easily discovered. 
 
 "If it be exterior, the first idea which suggests itself is to seek for it in 
 some combination of planetary motions. 
 
 "Among the different planets of the system there is one which, from its 
 importance, first presents itself to us, and it is found that the duration of 
 its revolution round the sun approaches closely to the preceding period. 
 Our readers have already named Jupiter, of which the diameter is only ten 
 times smaller than that of the solar colossus, and of which the mass is equiva- 
 lent to a thousandth of that of the central star. It revolves round the sun 
 in 11.85 years. 
 
 "During the course of its revolution its distance from the sun is subject 
 to a perceptible variation. This distance, which is, on the average 5.203 
 (that of the earth being one) sinks at the perihelion to 4.950 and rises at the 
 aphelion to 5.456. The difference between the perihelion and aphelion dis-
 
 10 
 
 tance is 0.506 — that is to say, a little more than half the distance from the 
 earth to the sun, or about 47 millions of miles. This is rather considerable. 
 Revolving thus round the sun, Jupiter exercises on him an attraction easily 
 calculated, and constantly displaces his center of gravity, which can, conse- 
 quently, never coincide with the center of figure of the solar sphere, and is 
 always found drawn eccentrically towards Jupiter. The attraction of the 
 other planets prevents this action from being regular, but it can not prevent 
 it from being predominant. 
 
 "It might be thought that this motion of the solar mass should be inter- 
 preted for us by the spots, and that it might have, for example, a maximum 
 of spots when Jupiter attracts more, or attracts less, the solar center. If we 
 had here the cause of the periodicity of the spots, this periodicity should be 
 11.85 years. But it is shorter. While Jupiter returns to his perihelion 
 only after 11.85 years, the maximum of spots returns very irregularly, but 
 on the average after 11.11 years — that is to say, Ti hundredths of a year or 
 270 days sooner. This number comes from a discussion of all the observa- 
 tions. Does there exist in the solar system a second cause which obliges a 
 phenomenon to advance thus on the perihelion of Jupiter ? Venus revolves 
 round the sun in 225 days, and about every 225 days meets the radius vector 
 of Jupiter. The earth revolves in 365 days, and meets the radius vector of 
 Jupiter every 399 days. These two planets certainly act on the sun in the 
 same way as the giant planets, but with less intensity. If this common 
 action were expressed by an increase of spots we should see in the fluctua- 
 tions of the solar spots combinatons of the period of 11.85 of Jupiter with 
 that of one year for the earth, of 0.62 for Venus, and of 0.24 for Mercury. 
 Unfortunately, this combination does not appear to produce the observed 
 effect. 
 
 "Whether it be the perihelion or the aphelion of Jupiter which causes the 
 maximum of solar spots, these maxima should always coincide with the same 
 positions. But, on the contrarj^, each revolution of Jupiter adds the differ- 
 ence of 0.74 which we have just noticed, and at the end of a certain time, of 
 thirteen to fourteen revolutions, the positions are reversed. We must, then, 
 although with regret, give up Jupiter. 
 
 ' ' Whatever may be the relation which exists between the two periods, the 
 connection is, then, purely accidental, for we cannot logically admit that 
 the same causes produce contrary effects and that the perihelion sometimes 
 induces a minimum and sometimes a maximum. 
 
 "However let us dismiss the idea of the variation of the distance of Jupi- 
 ter and consider only its imaginary circular revolution. Let us suppose 
 that the variation of distance does not act perceptibly. The fact still 
 remains that Jovian attraction makes the center of gravity turn round his 
 center of figure in 11.85 years. Are the spots always on the radius vector of
 
 11 
 
 Jupiter? No, the earth crosses this radius vector every thirteen months, 
 and we do not see more spots on that solar hemisphere than on the opposite 
 hemisphere. IMoreover the sun rotates on itself in 26 days and would bring 
 thes6 spots in view of the earth, since they turn with the solar surface. 
 Under whatever aspect we discuss the question, we are, then, led, in spite of 
 ourselves, to eliminate the action of Jupiter. It is the same and with much 
 stronger reason as regards all the other planets. 
 
 "It is difficult to conceive how the planets which are so small and so dis- 
 tant could produce in the sun disturbances so profound and so extensive. It 
 is scarce!}' possible that it should be their gravitation which acts, considering 
 that the attractive power of Venus on the solar surface would be about -^^^ 
 of that which the sun exercises on the earth ; and in the case of Mercury and 
 Jupiter the effect would be still less, about ^^\^ of the influence of the sun 
 on the earth. The sun, considered apart from the moon, raises on the deep 
 waters at the earth's equator a tide of a little less than 13 inches in height, 
 so that, taking into account the rarefaction of the substance of which the 
 photosphere is composed, it is very evident that any tide produced by n 
 planet can not directly explain the phenomena. If the solar spots are due 
 in any way to planetary action, this action must be that of a different and 
 much more subtle influence." — Flammarion Pop. Ast., pp. 285-287. 
 
 These authors summarize the efforts of astronomers to ascertain the 
 causes of the sun-spots and of their waxing and waning and of the efforts 
 to connect therewith the movements of some of the planets. It has been 
 shown that, beginning with Galileo and down to the efforts of De La Rue, 
 Stewart and Lowe, they partially examined for brief periods the effects 
 upon the motion of the sun of some of the planets, and abandoned their 
 efforts because they thought that the planets were too small and remote; 
 and, that such influences were inadequate and indeterminate as a cause. 
 
 I present herein some facts and tabulated calculations based upon long 
 periods of time — 28 centuries — to show that a sufficient physical cause of 
 the sun 's disturbance is to be found in the movements and attraction of the 
 four great planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune; and that the 
 physical disturbance of the mass and motion of the sun by the mass and 
 motion of those planets is synchronous with and proportionately variable 
 with all of the observed solar and terrestrial phenomena for which solar 
 action is now held responsible. That as the mass and motion of the planets 
 is concentrated in one direction upon the sun its excitement reaches a maxi- 
 mum; and as their masses and motions are dispersed that excitement is 
 allayed and reaches a minimum ; and that such concentration and dispersion 
 coincides in time and force with the facts reached by induction from obser- 
 vations upon sun-spots, prominences, auroras, coronas, magnetic declina- 
 tion, change of form of the sun, and other effects of solar activity.
 
 12 
 
 R. A. Proctor rrave the physical effects of the planets upon the sun in his 
 ' ' Old and New Astronomy ' ' as follows : 
 
 *'(713) : The sun's mass so enoraiously exceeds that of all the planets 
 taken together, that he is capable of swaying their motion without being 
 himself disturbed. He is not indeed quite fixed. We know from Newton's 
 third law that whatever force the sun exerts on any planet, the planet exerts 
 precisely the same force on hira; but then he is so massive that the pull 
 which compels a planet to circle round the sun displaces him very-^ slightly." 
 [In a note to this he says:] 
 
 "Not, however, quite so slightly as Sir John Herschel asserts in the fol- 
 lowing oft-quoted passage : 
 
 "If he pulls the planets, they pull him and each other; but siich family 
 struggles affect him but little. Thry amuse them he proceeds quaintly, but 
 don't disturb him. As all the gods in the ancient mythology hung dangling 
 from and tugging at the golden chain which linked them to the throne of 
 Jove, but without power to draw him from his seat, so, if all the planets 
 were in one straight line and exerting their joint attractions, the sun — 
 leaning a litttle back as it were to resist their force — would not be disturbed 
 by a space equal to his own radius ; and the fixed center, or, as an engineer 
 would call it, the center of gravity of our system, would lie still far within 
 the sun 's globe. ' ' 
 
 Proctor proceeds as follows : 
 
 "The distance of the center of gravity of the whole row of bodies from 
 the sun's center can, of course, be easily determined with precision in the 
 case imagined by Sir John Herschel, (all the planets in one straight line on 
 the same side of the sun). But in such an inquiry we can neglect minutiae 
 and need consider only the four primary planets, while we may regard the 
 distance of any one of these planets from the center of gravity of the whole 
 system as appreciably equal to the distance from the sun's center the differ- 
 ence of these distances being exceedingly small compared with either. 
 
 "Calling the sun's m.ass 1, and the distance of the center of gravity of 
 the sun from the center x, we find, taking moments about the common center 
 of gravity, 
 Sun's moment=Jupiter's4-Saturn's-(-Uranus'+Neptune's, or 
 
 1 v. 482,700.000 I 885.000,000 ■1,779,830,000. 2.788,500.000 
 '^ 1,048 ~r 3.500 I" 22,600 "T 19.380 
 
 ). e., x=460,0004-253,000+79,000+145,000=937,000 in round numbers. 
 
 "Showing that the center of gravity of the whole solar system would, 
 in the case supposed, lie more than half a million, more exactly, 505,000 
 (937,000—432,000) miles from the sun's surface."— Procf or 's Old and New 
 Astronomy , p. 304.
 
 13 
 
 Again he says : 
 
 " (759) : The orbit of the sun is complex in shape since it is compounded 
 of the circling motions which would severally result from the action of the 
 different planets. "We may neglect the movements due to the four inner 
 planets as insignificant in range, though of course in any exact computation 
 they would have to be taken into account. Taking the four giant planets 
 separately, we find from what is shown in the note to Art. 713 that the sun 
 would describe (1) if Jupiter alone were considered a circle (slightly eccen- 
 tric but not appreciably elliptical) round the center of gravity of Jupiter's 
 mass and his own, once in Jupiter's period, the radius of the orbit being 
 about 460,000 miles ; (2) considering Saturn alone, a circle round the center 
 of gravity of- Saturn 's mass and his own, once in Saturn 's period, the radius 
 of the orbit being 253,000 miles; (3) considering Uranus alone, a circle 
 79,000 miles in radius, round the center of gravity of Uranus' mass and 
 his own, once in Uranus' period; and (4) considering only Neptune a circle 
 145,000 miles in radius round the common center of gravity of his o^\ti mass 
 and Neptune's in Neptune's period. The actual motion of the sun would 
 be that compounded of these four circling motions with their different 
 periods, and such smaller motions as would result from the disturbing 
 actions of the several smaller planets, satellites, asteroids, etc. The curve 
 would be exceedingly complicated even if we considered only the motions 
 due to the four giant planets. Here we need only note that the greatest 
 range of the sun from the common center of gravity of the solar system can 
 never exceed 940,000 miles, and ver^^ seldom approaches that amount." — 
 Proctor Old and New Astronomy, p. 323. 
 
 ' ' The total mass of the solar system may be taken as follows : 
 " (Earth's mass=l.) 
 
 Sun 332,262 
 
 Jupiter 317 
 
 Saturn 95 
 
 Neptune 17.4 
 
 Uranus 14.6 
 
 Earth 1.0 
 
 Venus .8 
 
 Mars .11 
 
 ]\Iercury .06 
 
 Satellites .20 
 
 ]\Iinor planets .25 
 
 Total 332,708.42." 
 
 — Appendix, Note A, "Visible Universe" Gore. 
 
 Taking the latest accepted figures I find the mass effect of the eight great 
 planets upon the sun to be as follows :
 
 
 3r vS/^s^^w^-t^ 
 
 14 
 
 ^ Sun's mass equals 1.) 
 
 JiilMter's inass^Yi)^--35 , mean distance 483,000,000 miles; divided by 
 mass plus oue=461,010 miles, which is the distance by which tlie center of 
 irravity of the sun is displaced by the attraction of Jupiter. 
 
 Saturn's mass=3-^, mean distance 886,000,000; displacement=252,92G 
 miles. 
 
 Uranus' raass=2276o"' ^^^'^^ distance 1,781,900.000; di.splacement=78,287 
 miles. 
 
 Neptune's mass^j^^^, mean distance 2,791,600,000; displacement= 
 143.151 miles. 
 
 Total displacement of center of gravity of sun (or rather distance of cen- 
 ter of gravity of solar system from sun's center) by four great planets when 
 all pulling in one line on the same side equals 935,374 miles. 
 
 Earth's mass=33^^0Q, mean distance 92,900,000 miles; displacement= 
 280 miles. 
 
 Venus' mass= ^^^j^, mean distance 67,200,000 miles; displacement= 
 174 miles. 
 
 Mars' mass=^g-^g|-^ , mean distance 141,500,000; displacement=45 miles. 
 
 Mercury's mass= g 33^ ^^q , mean distance 36,000,000; displacement=5 
 miles. 
 
 Total displacement effected by last four planets, under same conditions, 
 'i^'b^^ 504 miles. 
 
 ^S^k>tC> Therefore the mere pulling influence of the last four planets may be 
 
 , /■7<r'i- 6 neglected as comparatively insignificant. 
 
 ^ y-^^^^ ^ l^ But any calculations based upon the ancient idea of the sun's immobility 
 
 will be misleading. For the purposes of this first chapter I will assume 
 
 '' • that the sun is moving through space from heliocentric longitude 90° 
 
 / 31 b^^ towards 270° at the speed of eleven miles a second; that being the most 
 
 conservative speed now stated by astronomers and it is entirely sufficient 
 
 -L^ /7' t? -^"^ ^^^^^ exposition. The question of the actual velocity of the sun in its 
 
 journe}' to its apex is involved in the next chapter. 
 
 All references herein to longitudes are to heliocoitric longitude unless 
 otherwise expressed. 
 
 I have calculated and used tables of the heliocentric mean longitude, to 
 the nearest degree, of the eight planets on the first day of January for each 
 year back to 1000 B. C. In such an investigation as this greater accuracy 
 is not necessary. 
 
 Upon these tables I have based the computations in Tables I, II, III, 
 appendix and the other tables in the body of this pamphlet. 
 
 A few instances will illustrate their use. 
 
 On January 1st, 1843, the heliocentric longitude of the four great planets 
 was as follows: Jupiter, 307°; Saturn, 288°; Uranus, 4°; Neptune, 321°. 
 
 V 
 
 '1 r-7
 
 15 
 
 The resultant of their combined attraction was to drive the sun out of its 
 course 870,000 miles from the center of gravity of the solar system which 
 was that distance away from the center of the sun in the direction 308° 
 longitude. This distance is the vector and it is the hypothenuse of a tri- 
 angle of which one side is the perpendicular distance of the sun — east or 
 west — from the line formed by the progress of the center of gravity of the 
 system ; the other side shows the distance at which the center of the sun is 
 ahead — plus — or behind^-minus — of center of gravity of the system, 
 measured in the path of the center of gravity and being plus or minus as 
 respects the solar apex. The two sides of the triangle give the ordinates of 
 the sun's position relative to the center of gravity of the solar system and 
 to the solar apex. 
 
 For the years 18-44 to 1851 the positions of the planets and their effect 
 upon the sun are given by Table II. Let us assume the fact that the center 
 of gravity of the solar system (hereinafter called the center of gravity) 
 follows a right line in the journey towards the solar apex and that the direc- 
 tion of that line is from 90° towards 270° ; then, by plotting the ordinates 
 of the sun 's position and the position of the center of gravity of the system 
 and joining them with the vector lines, for the years 1843 to 1851, we will 
 get the path pursued by the sun during those years. We can assume arbi- 
 trarily for the yearly advance of the sun one inch per year and plot the 
 ordinates on a scale of 200,000 miles^l inch. 
 
 From such a plat we find that the sun's path through space for those 
 years is a curved line on the west side— towards heliocentric longitude 180° 
 — of the straight line described by the advance of the center of gravity of 
 the system during that period ; and that, about the date 1850.2, the curved 
 line, formed by the advance of the center of the sun, crossed the straight 
 line ; formed by the center of gravity of the system ; and, at the end of the 
 year 1850 the sun's center had reached a point about 40,000 miles to the 
 east side of the straight line. That during this period the sun was in the 
 rear of the center of gravity until about the middle of the year 1845 after 
 which it was in advance of the center of gravity. Figure 1 shows a plotting 
 for the last 18 years. 
 
 Plotting, from the figures in Table II, the path of the sun's center and 
 of the center of gravity of the system for each year — from 1480 to 1910, 
 with the vector lines connecting, we will observe the following facts: 
 
 The path of the sun through space, following the general direction to its 
 apex from 90° to 270°, is a serpentine curve alternating on either side of a 
 straight line produced through space by the progress of the center of 
 gravity of the solar system. This curved path is caused by the varying posi- 
 tions of the planets and by the combined attraction of their mass and 
 motion.
 
 16 
 
 The extreme distanee of the center of the sun from the line of the center 
 of ^'ravity is reached when the phinets are in closest conjunction and may 
 at times amount to 934,000 miles. 
 
 The sun, relative to the direction of its motion is alternately in advance of 
 or in the rear of the center of gravity of the system, sometimes to the extent 
 of 934.000 miles and sometimes but a very few miles. The sun is therefore 
 retarded or assisted, in its progress through space by the position of the 
 planets and the direction and amount of their combined attraction. 
 
 These alternating conditions are periodical and the periods recur and are 
 caused as follows : Jupiter is in conjunction with Saturn every 19.855 
 yeare ; with Uranus every 13.81 years ; with Neptune every 12.78 years. All 
 four are nearly in conjunction as follows: Jupiter with Neptune every 
 38.345 years ; Jupiter with Saturn every 39.71 years ; Jupiter with Uraiuis 
 every 41.43 years. So that about every 40 yeara or thereabouts after or 
 before a perfect conjunction these planets would again be nearly in line. 
 
 But they make a more perfect conjunction as follows : Jupiter with 
 Saturn every 178.695 years; Jupiter with Neptune every 178.944 years; 
 Jupiter with Uranus every 179.553 years. 
 
 Assuming the planets to have started even from zero, by combination of 
 these periods we ought to get a series of periodical conjunctions more or 
 less perfect every 40, 138, 178, and 218 years and so on. 
 
 The four great planets were in very close conjunction about September 
 26, 1306. That is the closest position on line with the sun in which I have 
 found them as far back as 1000 B. C. On September 26, 1306 their longi- 
 tudes were Jupiter, 231°; Saturn, 217°; Uranus, 227°; Neptune 231°. 
 The resultant of their attraction w^as in the direction 226.5° and the dis- 
 tance of the center of gravity of the system from the sun's center was 
 934,000 miles. 
 
 In the early part of 1307 — my tables call for April 30th — all of the eight 
 great planets were gathered nearly on line with the sun between longitudes 
 213° and 258°. (My calculations are based upon mean longitude. No 
 account is taken of the exact positions of Mercury or Mars. Their pull 
 value is negligible so it does not matter where they were exactly on that 
 date.) 
 
 We can use, therefore, January 1, 1307 as a zero epoch whence we can 
 reckon, backward or forward, for recurrence of epochs of conjunction, of 
 the four great planets. 
 
 But it is impossible to completely describe, in words merely, the results 
 to be obtained from the figures in Table II of the appendix. They should 
 be plotted l)y the reader — such a plat is too bulky to print. I used 12 yards 
 of cross section paper ten inches wide to plat from 1480 to 1910. I assumed 
 an arbitrary scale of 1 inch per year to represent the advance of the sun to 
 its apex at any speed, and a scale of one inch ec^ual to 200,000 miles to plot
 
 
 ■::.,+-f 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 ...t-H- 
 
 -IV 
 
 /.Lj_J._i.- 
 
 -J- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 nr ; I ■ 
 
 
 ' 
 
 U ...,'.- . 
 
 :iTi 
 
 "'^i"!~h 
 
 1 f ' 1 
 
 to^F 
 
 Bi 
 
 mmmm 
 
 (. 
 
 
 r 1 
 
 ■Mni 
 
 w^ 
 
 ' ii-r^ 
 
 
 t— 
 
 
 ' 
 
 ■ ' 
 
 'III 
 
 ~i — ' — 1 — ~" 
 1 _ _ _ 
 
 - — , — ^ — 
 
 •■5 
 
 ■Iv-"^— f— 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ~ - ^ 
 
 --i- 
 
 
 
 r • 1 
 
 
 -I-iX*-"- 
 
 -T-p 
 
 LI 
 
 -j--) 
 
 ._;-l_ . 
 
 ~j_l4-+-- 
 
 : 1 i„ 
 
 —L -:-'*4_.J^. 
 
 ^ .1 . |.^. 
 
 .C J 
 
 
 — f 1- 
 I I 
 
 TM 
 
 Fit 
 
 ■ ; i ^: 
 
 l_ ' ' rv 
 
 M i 
 
 '" v 
 
 
 
 
 "^J_ 
 
 ! 1 
 
 I ■ ' • 
 
 mi 
 
 
 -J. 
 
 
 ■ ) 
 
 ■R-l 
 
 't TT t- 
 
 1 f i 1 
 
 i : ; .; 
 
 . 1 -'-4— 
 
 I 
 
 'Z 
 
 ; 7 1 T 
 
 lI 
 
 
 : ' ^ 1 
 
 1 
 
 '■ 
 
 '' 
 
 
 J-tr-i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^; 
 
 
 h-t 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 h-4- 
 
 
 ; , 1, 
 
 1 ! !" : 
 
 
 1 : i 1. 1 
 
 ;..'^" 
 
 j 
 
 o*Sii^
 
 17 
 
 the positions of the centers of gravity, the center of the sun, and the length 
 and direction of the vector line joining those centers. As the advance of 
 the sun is not represented to scale the positions of the center of gravit}^ will 
 lead to confusion unless that fact is kept in mind. With this plat we obtain 
 an exaggerated curve for the path of the sun's center similar to the exag- 
 gerated curve of an engineer's line of levels where two scales are used one — 
 horizontal — and arbitrary — the other — vertical — and true. 
 
 I will assume that the reader has made such a plat or that Figure ] 
 answers as an illustration. He will see that, when the vector line coincides 
 with the path of the center of the gravity, the sun, or the resultant of the 
 planets attractions, is ahead or astern with regard to the journey to the solar 
 apex. The exact moment is determined when the curved line of the sun's 
 center crosses the straight line generated by the center of gravity. If the 
 sun is ahead of the resultant, or center of gravity, then the sun will be 
 exerting its motive power to pull the planets along its path and to overcome 
 their resistance. If the center of gravity is ahead of the sun then the 
 planets are exerting their motive power to pull the sun along its path. This 
 results naturally from the operation of the Newtonian law that attractions 
 are equal and opposite and the general motion of the solar system is always 
 in one direction namely towards the apex. 
 
 During the period of a great year, namely every 178 years, or from the 
 perfect conjunction of the planets to another like epoch, we will find several 
 minor periods marked by the condition that, for a short period of yeare, the 
 sun is towing the planets ; and, during the next short period, the planets 
 are towing the sun. These shorter periods vary one from another as the 
 planets are concentrated or dispersed from time to time exerting more or less 
 force in opposition to the sun. Thus we get what we may call seasons in 
 this great year period — applying old terms to new uses. 
 
 The beginning and ending of each period which is marked by sun or 
 planets being in tow, is, of course, determined by the date when the vector 
 line from the sun's center to the center of gravity is at right angles to the 
 path of the center of gravity. 
 
 Therefore, in the determination of these periods, the beginning, the ending 
 and the maximum of each period are subjects of precise calculation and may 
 be graphically shown by the plat. 
 
 I will assume for the present, giving reasons later on, that the period dur- 
 ing which the sun is in the lead pulling the planets along its path is a period 
 of sun-spot maxima; and that the period during which the planets are in 
 the lead — that is when the center of gravity is in the lead — is a period of 
 sun-spot minimum. 
 
 The plat made therefrom and the Table II show that epochs of perfect 
 conjunction occurred in 1486, 1665 and 1844 ; and that, in 1486.35, 1663.65 
 and 1841.1 the sun was crossing the line of the center of gravity towards
 
 18 
 
 the west namely towards heliocentric longitude 180° ; in each instance being 
 in tow of the planets astern. These dates may then be taken as epochs, or 
 definite points of commencement of epochs, of similar solar and planetary 
 conditions. Arranging the ordinates of the sun's motion as in Table III, 
 we can examine the parallel conditions during these three periods, two of 
 which are completed; these periods covering our precise records of solar 
 activity. 
 
 From Table III and the plat it will be seen that the ordinates of the sun 's 
 path, as it crosses the path of the center of gravity, from side to side con- 
 form very nearly in every detail. Yet there is that difference, between 
 similar conditions, which would be expected from the more or less perfect 
 conjunctions of the planets and from the fact that such conjunctions never 
 consecutively occur in the same part of the heavens. As we have seen, at 
 the head of the three columns of Table III, the sun was crossing to the west 
 of the line. In 1489 the middle ordinate of the western curve w^as 540,000 ; 
 in 1667 it was 715,000 miles ; in 1845 it was 820,000. In 1493.24 the sun 
 was crossing the line to the east side, or towards the first point in Aries and 
 it was so crossing in 1671.95 and in 1850.3, each time commencing, as we 
 will see, a sun-spot maximum period. It began a new maximum period in 
 1504.07, 1681.9 and 1859.6 ; the intervals between these two sets of periods 
 being 10.83 years, 9.95 years and 9.3 years respectively. So that while 
 there was complete parallelism between these great year seasons there were 
 also systematic differences. 
 
 We are now ready to examine these tables in connection with observed 
 and tabulated events connected with the sun principally its sun-spot maxima 
 and minima. 
 
 In the tabulation of sun-spot periods following the accepted table of sun- 
 spot maxima and minima was taken from IMiss Gierke's History of Astron- 
 omy, Appendix. 
 
 I have paralleled the minima column with a column giving the dates con- 
 stituting the periods during which the planets — the center of gravity — was 
 in the lead of the sun and pulling it along its path. This column is also 
 paralleled with a column of dates when the center of gravity of the system 
 was directly in the lead ; the sun being astern like a ship being towed into 
 harbor. Alongside that column is another showing the intervals in years 
 between the latter epochs. This last column shows the same irregularity 
 which characterizes the generally accepted intervals between periods of 
 sun-spot maxima and minima and in this case it constitutes the strongest 
 item of evidence of the fact that this table, derived in this manner entirely 
 from data ahsolutely free from a douhtful assumption or theory, is in fact a 
 table which demonstrates the relation of cause and efl'eet between solar 
 agitation and planetary position and motion. The same system of tabula- 
 tion follows for the sun-spot maxima.
 
 19 
 
 TABLE OF SUN-SPOT MINIMA. 
 
 Sun-spot Minima 
 
 (from Agnes Clerlte's 
 
 History of Astronomy) 
 
 Period during which the 
 
 planets were pulling the 
 
 sun, i.e., center of gravity 
 
 was in the lead 
 
 Dates when the 
 
 sun was astern 
 
 of the center of 
 
 gravity 
 
 Intervals 
 between 
 
 
 Year 
 
 Intervals 
 
 between 
 
 years 
 
 years 
 
 
 Year Year 
 
 
 
 1610.8 
 
 
 1601 to 1608.1 
 
 1605.20 
 
 
 
 1619 
 
 8.2 
 
 1614 " 1618.2 
 
 1616.3 
 
 11.05 
 
 
 1634 
 
 15 
 
 1625 " 1632.5 
 
 1630.35 
 
 14.10 
 
 
 1645 
 
 11 
 
 1635 " 1643.7 
 
 1639.9 
 
 9.55 
 
 
 1655 
 
 10 
 
 1649 " 1655.5 
 
 1652.65 
 
 12.75 
 
 
 1666 
 
 11 
 
 1659.4 " 1668.4 
 
 1663.65 
 
 11 
 
 
 1679.5 
 
 13.5 
 
 1672.2 " 1677.8 
 
 1673.55 
 
 9.9 
 
 
 1689.5 
 
 10 
 
 1685 " 1691.3 
 
 1687.9 
 
 14.35 
 
 /^■^^ 
 
 1698X 
 
 9.4 
 
 1696 '' 1701.8 
 
 1698.05 
 
 10.15 
 
 
 1712 
 
 13.1 
 
 1710 " 1713.3 
 
 1711.76 
 
 13.71 
 
 
 1723.5 
 
 11.5 
 
 1720 " 1726.5 
 
 1723.28 
 
 11.52 
 
 
 1734 
 
 10.5 
 
 1733 " 1736.5 
 
 1734.15 
 
 10.87 
 
 
 1745 
 
 11 
 
 1744 " 1750.4 
 
 1747.8 
 
 13.65 
 
 
 1755.2 
 
 10.2 
 
 1755 " 1761 
 
 1758.1 
 
 10.3 
 
 
 1766.5 
 
 11.3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1769 " 1772.5 
 
 1771.9 
 
 13.8 
 
 
 1775.5 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 1784.7 
 
 9.2 
 
 1779 " 1786 
 
 1783.1 
 
 11.2 
 
 
 1798.3 
 
 13.6 
 
 1792 " 1796.5 
 
 1794.65 
 
 11.55 
 
 
 1810.6 
 
 12.3 
 
 1803 " 1811 
 
 1807.8 
 
 13.15 
 
 
 1823.3 
 
 ]2.7 
 
 1812 " 1821 
 
 1817.25 
 
 9.45 
 
 
 1833.9 
 
 10.6 
 
 1827 " 1833 
 
 1830.2 
 
 12.95 
 
 
 1843.5 
 
 9.6 
 
 1837 " 1845.8 
 
 1841 . 1 
 
 10.95 
 
 
 1856 
 
 12.5 
 
 1850.8 " 1855.3 
 
 1851.6 
 
 10.5 
 
 
 1867.2 
 
 11.2 
 
 1863 " 1869 
 
 1865.95 
 
 14.35 
 
 
 1878.9 
 
 11.7 
 
 1874 " 1879.5 
 
 1876.15 
 
 10.2 
 
 
 1890.2 
 
 11.3 
 
 1887.1 " 1891.4 
 
 1890.2 
 
 14.05 
 
 
 1901.9 
 
 11.7 
 
 1897.5 " 1904.8 
 
 1901.05 
 
 10.85
 
 20 
 
 TABLE OF SUN-SPOT MAXIMA. 
 
 Sun-spot Maxima 
 
 (from Agnes Gierke's 
 
 History of Astronomy) 
 
 Period during which the 
 sun was pulling the 
 
 planets, i. e., sun was in 
 
 the lead of center of 
 
 gravity 
 
 Dates when the 
 center of grav- 
 ity was astern 
 of the sun 
 
 Intervals 
 between 
 
 "\''po \* 
 
 Intervals 
 
 between 
 
 years 
 
 years 
 
 1 CTCtl 
 
 Year Year 
 
 
 1615.5 
 
 
 1608.1 to 1614 
 
 1610.8 
 
 
 1626 
 
 11.5 
 
 1618.2 " 1625 
 
 1621.3 
 
 10.5 
 
 1639.5 
 
 13.5 
 
 1632.5 " 1635 
 
 1632.7 
 
 11.4 
 
 1649 
 
 9.5 
 
 1643.7 " 1649 
 
 1646.45 
 
 13.75 
 
 1660 
 
 11 
 
 1655.5 " 1659.4 
 
 1657.05 
 
 10.6 
 
 1675 
 
 15 
 
 1668.4 " 1672.2 
 
 1671.95 
 
 14.9 
 
 1685 
 
 10 
 
 1677.8 " 1685 
 
 1681.9 
 
 9.95 
 
 1693 
 
 8 
 
 1691.3 " 1696 
 
 1694.1 
 
 12.2 
 
 1705.5 
 
 12.5 
 
 1701.8 " 1710 
 
 1706.3 
 
 12.2 
 
 1718.2 
 
 12.7 
 
 1713.3 " 1720 
 
 1716.2 
 
 9.9 
 
 1727.5 
 
 9.3 
 
 1726.5 " 1733 
 
 1730.2 
 
 14 
 
 1738.7 
 
 11.2 
 
 1736.5 " 1744 
 
 1740.5 
 
 10.3 
 
 1750.3 
 
 n.6 
 
 1750.4 " 1755 
 
 1752.8 
 
 12.3 
 
 1761.5 
 
 11.2 
 
 1761 " 1769 
 
 1765.05 
 
 12.97 
 
 1769.7 
 
 8.2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1772.5 " 1779 
 
 1774.8 
 
 9.75 
 
 1778.4 
 
 8.7 
 
 
 
 
 1788.1 
 
 9.7 
 
 1786 " 1792 
 
 1788.6 
 
 13.8 
 
 1804.2 
 
 16.1 
 
 1796.5 " 1803 
 
 1799.05 
 
 10.45 
 
 1816.4 
 
 12.2 
 
 1811 " 1812 
 
 1811.65 
 
 12.6 
 
 1829.9 
 
 7.3 
 
 1821 " 1827 
 
 1824.7 
 
 13.05 
 
 1837.2 
 
 12.6 
 
 1833 " 1837 
 
 1835.5 
 
 10.8 
 
 1848.1 
 
 10.9 
 
 1845.8 " 1850.8 
 
 1850.3 
 
 14.8 
 
 1860.1 
 
 12 
 
 1855.3 " 1863 
 
 1859.6 
 
 9.3 
 
 1870.6 
 
 10.5 
 
 1869 " 1874 
 
 1872 
 
 12.4 
 
 1884 
 
 14.4 
 
 1879.5 " 1887.1 
 
 1883.8 
 
 11.8 
 
 1894 
 
 10 
 
 1891.4 " 1897.5 
 
 1894.05 
 
 10.25 
 
 
 
 1904.8 " 
 
 1907.86 
 
 13.81
 
 21 
 
 "While examining these tables of sun-spots maxima and minima it must 
 not be forgotten that the original maker of the tables given by Miss Gierke — 
 Dr. Rudolf Wolf — did not claim precision for the dates. 
 
 Professor Young says : 
 
 "The observations both of the sun-spots and of the magnetic elements near 
 the close of the eighteenth century are so meager and unsatisfactory that the 
 evidence as to the precise time of maxima and minima is very incomplete. 
 It is even doubtful, as has been said before, whether there should not be 
 recognized an additional sun-spot maximum in 1795, over and above those 
 enumerated by Wolf." — Tlie Sun, p. 153. 
 
 Proctor gives the same table of sun-spot maxima and minima from 1705 
 to 1883.8 in which the "possible error in years" is given as follows: For 
 1705 it is two years; for 1717.5 and 1727.5 one year; for 1738.5 one and a 
 half years, and for 1750 one year. He says : 
 
 (821) : "Professor Wolf, in forming his estimate of the mean period of 
 spot variation, endeavored to judge, from the imperfect record of sun-spots 
 during the eighteenth century, at what times spots were most or least 
 numerous. This part of the evidence cannot he regarded as trustworthy. 
 Even if accepted as such, it can he interpreted in more ways than one, 
 insomuch that epochs regarded by Wolf as marked by minor maxima or 
 mimima — the crests or hollows of mere wavelets of disturbance riding on the 
 main waves — have by others been regarded as indicating true maxima or 
 minima." 
 
 After giving the table Proctor proceeds. (823) : "Taking this table as 
 it stands we have fifteen intervals from the maximum of 1705.0 to that of 
 1883.8, a range of 178.8 years, whence the mean spot period, 11.92 years, 
 would be deduced. The minima give fourteen intervals between 1712 and 
 1878.5, a range of 166.5 years, whence we get the mean spot period, 11.89. 
 Wolf estimate w^as 11.11 years. It has been suggested that a .small maxi- 
 mum may have occurred in 1797, which has here been overlooked; and a 
 period of 10.45 years has been inferred. All that can be regarded as cer- 
 tainly established is that the oscillation of spot frequency is irregular, the 
 interval between maxima having ranged from 7% to 15i/'2 years, and the 
 interval betweeen minima from 9 years to 13% years. No average period 
 even can at present he regarded as estahlished ; and as for the idea that we 
 may find in regular minor oscillations some way of making the main oscilla- 
 tions appear regular (as being regularly modified), we may regard all 
 attempts in that direction as not merely hopeless, but unscientific." — Proctor 
 Old and New Astronomy, 348-9. 
 
 Upon these and many other like authorities I do not think it would be 
 profitable to discuss the many reasons why the tables I give, based on 
 planetary motion, could be reconciled as to their differences with Dr. Wolf's 
 tables.
 
 22 
 
 The methods of observing: sim spots during the last forty years have been 
 totally ehanirod. Schwab and Wolf merely counted the spots and the days 
 of observation. Wolf relied upon his search in the records of the past as 
 to the number of spots seen by astronomers who chanced to record their 
 observations. 
 
 With the materials available to him he worked wonders and it seems to 
 me that had he pereisted in his theory of planetary influences, and had 
 taken into account the right planets, he would have crowned his work with 
 a perfect theory fortified by laborious induction. 
 
 The modern system of obsen'ing spots takes into account their area and 
 the repetition of the same spots also their correct position on the sun and 
 their time relations to terrestial phenomena, besides preserving photographs 
 of the spots. 
 
 The correspondence between the epochs of maxima and minima and the 
 tables I have given, from 1878.9 to date, is remarkable, considering that the 
 movements of the planets cannot be jocke3'ed nor the figures derivable there- 
 from "coaxed", to use Miss Gierke's term, and that the basis of each set of 
 tables are totally different in their elements. 
 
 But the greatest strain on sun or planets by their respective loads may 
 not always correspond to the moment when that load is directly astern ; so 
 that some variation may ultimately be made in the tables on that account. 
 
 Returning now to the plat of the positions of the sun and center of gravity 
 of the sj'stem it will be soon observed therefrom that marked periods occur 
 at lesser, but irregular, intervals, besides those before given, on theory, from 
 the calculated positions of the conjunction of the planets, viz., 40, 138, 178 
 and 218 years. 
 
 Owing to the slow^er or faster motion of some one of the planets in arriving 
 at the conjunction goal, the 178 year period changes epoch. A more perfect 
 conjunction occurs at a different date. I find the great year epochs change 
 according to the following table, which gives merely the date and vector 
 of the center of gravity of the system. Each column, it will be seen, con- 
 sists of dates a great year's distance apart, but it will be noticed that the 
 conjunction w^axes and wanes.
 
 a 
 
 y 
 
 23 
 
 TABLE OF EPOCHS OF CONJUNCTION OF PLANETS. 
 
 B.C. 
 
 
 B.C. 
 
 
 B.C. 
 
 
 917 
 
 925,000 
 
 981 
 
 
 
 
 738 
 
 910,000 
 
 802 
 
 
 839 
 
 
 560 
 
 885,000 
 
 623 
 
 
 660 
 
 
 380 
 
 890,000 
 
 444 
 
 
 481 
 
 
 202 
 
 855,000 
 
 265 
 
 
 303 
 
 
 23 
 
 800,000 
 
 83 
 
 905,000 
 
 123 
 
 
 A.D. 
 
 
 A.D. 
 
 
 A.D. 
 
 
 153 
 
 
 93 
 
 870,000 
 
 54 
 
 
 332 
 
 
 272 
 
 895,000 
 
 233 
 
 810,000 
 
 512 
 
 
 451 
 
 910,000 
 
 412 
 
 840,000 
 
 690 
 
 
 630 
 
 920,000 
 
 590 
 
 860,000 
 
 870 
 
 
 809 
 
 920,000 
 
 770 
 
 870.000 
 
 1048 
 
 
 988 
 
 930,000 
 
 948 
 
 920,000 
 
 1227 
 
 
 1167 
 
 910,000 
 
 1127 
 
 930,000 
 
 1406 
 
 
 1346 
 
 890,000 
 
 1306 
 
 934,000 
 
 1586 
 
 
 1525 
 
 865,000 
 
 1486 
 
 920,000 
 
 1764 
 
 
 1704 
 
 835,000 
 
 1665 
 
 905,000 
 
 
 
 1883 
 
 810,000 
 
 1844 
 
 880,000 
 
 The complete data for these epochs is given in Table I, Appendix. 
 
 From each of these dates a new set of subordinate periods will arise, 
 originating the great rollers and wavelets, about which Miss Clerke and 
 Proctor have written. This table, with the plat and Table III of the appen- 
 dix, will show how high and in what order these figurative waves are raised. 
 They will almost enable us to measure the great waves of convulsed gases 
 which sweep around the sun and dash into the heavens their spray for hun- 
 dreds of thousands of miles. 
 
 We have outlined in figures a condition from which the reader can see 
 that at times the sun is towing its whole convoy of cruising planets through 
 the boundless ocean of space, now with a very long tow line, again with a 
 very short one ; if we can conceive that the vector length between the sun 's 
 center and the center of gravity of the system is the tow line. Sometimes 
 the sun tows a heavy load, sometimes a light load, as measured by the dis- 
 placement of the sun, which is effected from time to time by the united or 
 separated attraction of the planets. This displacement varies from 10,000 
 to 934,000 miles. 
 
 At other times the planets become tow boats for the colossal battleship, 
 towing him in like manner as he tows them. 
 
 So far we have dealt merely with the coincidence of the dates of these 
 alternating results of solar and planetary motion with the dates determined 
 from observations for the solar disturbances— the maxima and minima of
 
 24 
 
 sun spots. "We have now to consider the physical consequences to the sun 
 and planets of the alternating conditions of their progress towards the apex. 
 
 An illustration of the nature of this varying condition is hinted at by Sir 
 John Herschel's comparison, heretofore quoted, which was criticised, as we 
 have seen by Proctor. 
 
 IMost of my readers are familiar with hammer-throwing as a Held sport. 
 The "hammer" is usually a ball of lead, 16 pounds weight, fastened to a 
 light rod of iron as a long handle. Conceive the sun "leaning a little hack 
 as it were to resist their force" — as Herschel said. Conceive a hammer- 
 thrower trjdng to maintain a vertical and rigid position while the hammer 
 is swiftly circling about him preparatory to the throw. He would be 
 speedily thrown on his face. The hammer-thrower must lean back from the 
 direction of the ball until his pull equals the pull of the ball. But let us 
 figure him swinging at once four hammers of varying size, which, as they 
 circle about him, separate at varying angles and, now and then, join on 
 one line and exert all their pull in one direction. The hammer-thrower 
 will be in alternating conditions of stress ; now he is pulled one way hy the 
 united force, again the pull comes from four directions at once, each ham- 
 mer's pull neutralizing the pull of another. Again let us imagine him 
 moving rapidly — say on roller skates, and, thus moving, swinging his ham- 
 mers, and we w411 have a varying condition of strain in all directions, now 
 urging him forward, again sideways, or even arresting his progress, as the 
 motion of the hammers in their circuits may cause. 
 
 Such is the condition of the sun. As it glides through space to its apex 
 it is urged sideways, backwards or forwards with an energy immeasurably 
 greater than our conceptions of horsepower or kilowatts can express. It 
 is subject to a constant and variable physical stress from without that must 
 act upon its mobile mass as a shaking grate acts upon a boiler fire. 
 
 Sir R. S. Ball says : 
 
 "There are no absolutely rigid bodies known in nature, for the hardest 
 mineral or toughest steel must yield to some extent when large forces are 
 applied to it, and as the bodies in the system are not mere points or par- 
 ticles of inconsiderable dimensions they will experience stresses something 
 like those to which our earth is subjected in that action of the moon and 
 sun which produces the tides. In consequence of the influences of each body 
 on the rest, there will be certain relative changes in tlie parts of each body; 
 there will be as it were tidal movements in their li(iuid parts, and even in 
 their solid substance." — The Earth's Beginning, p. 219; also ^VinchclVs 
 ^Yorld Life, 2d Ed. 1883, pp. 222, et seq. 
 
 The strength of the gravitational force binding the earth to the sun has 
 been likened to that of innumerable steel telegraph wires set as thickly in 
 the earth as blades of grass. Let us imagine that such l)onds of force — 
 invisible — envelop like a net Jupiter and the sun and control in their
 
 25 
 
 meshes every particle of the solid and gaseous materials of those bodies, the 
 strands between forming rigid cables uniting the bodies. When by their 
 motions- — Jupiter circling about the sun, the sun rushing towards its apex — 
 those bodies change their relative positions one to the other, there will result 
 a drawing of these nets and a compression of the enclosed spheres changing 
 their forms to pear-shaped spheroids with their smaller ends pointed towards ? 
 each other; a tide of matter will be literally squeezed out on that side of y 
 each globe nearest to the other and will course around each sphere as each ?• 
 body rotates upon its axis. j 
 
 So if all four of the great planets are so bound, pulling upon their net-like 
 bonds a bulging of the mass of the sun and a squeezing of its material 
 towards the opposing planets must result. At the moment when all four 
 are in one line on one side of the sun compression will be exerted to the 
 uttermost upon the elastic gases of the sun as if it were in the socket of a ball 
 and socket joint when the screw was being tightened. At these times motion 
 is compelled in the sun's mass towards the planets ; and, upon those parts of 
 the sun which are denuded of such tide-forming material, outbreaks of the 
 submerged matter and guess — relieved temporarily of super-incvimbent 
 weight — wall occur as a result of their expansion, which may be so violent as 
 to constitute an explosion. 
 
 Now reverse the order of the procession, putting the planets in the lead 
 moving towards the apex, then the pull upon the sun's mass will, to that 
 extent, be relaxed. Then the compressed gases of the sun will expand and 
 will be redistributed by gravitation about the sun, and it will regain its 
 speroidal form. Thus the sun will have alternating periods of compression 
 and expansion of varying degrees of intensity proportional to the amount 
 and direction of the attractive forces of the planets and the degree of 
 unity or diversity in their action. 
 
 Now let us see how far observation tends to support these suggestions. We 
 need merely mention the fact that Helmholtz propounded the generally 
 accepted theory of the gravitational shrinkage of the sun as the cause of 
 its heat; and that Sir Wm, Herschel, Arago and others have traced an 
 annual variability in the quantity of heat by the variable crops and their 
 prices, corresponding to sun-spots periods. 
 
 In 1884 Dr. J. Helfiker published a pamphlet in which he discussed the 
 variability of the solar diameter, using 3,468 transits of the sun observed 
 during 22 years at the Neuchatel Observatory and found that such changes 
 in the diameter of the sun bore a relation to the period of the sun-spots ; 
 that is to say, that the greatest diameter coincided with the minimum 
 of the period of sun-spots and vice versa. — Observatory for Sept. 1884, p. 
 263; T. Ililfiker, Premiere etude sur Ics ohservations du diametre du Soliel. 
 Bulletin de la Societe des Sciences Naturelle, Neuchatel Tome. XIV.
 
 / 
 
 \ 
 
 ( 
 
 26 
 
 Professor Charles Lane Poor, in June, 1905, published an article on the 
 "Figure of the Sun", giving photographic evidence "that the ratio between 
 the polar and equatorial radii of the sun is variable, and that the period of 
 this variability is the same as the sun-spot period." He says: "The sun 
 appears to be a vibrating body whose equatorial diameter on the average 
 exceeds the polar diameter. At times, however, the polar diameter becomes 
 equal to and even greater than the equatorial — the sun passing from an 
 oblate to a prolate spheroid. In this variable figure may be the explana- 
 tion of the anomalies in the motions of Mercury, Venus and Mars." — Astro- 
 physkal Journal, Vol. 22, p. 113. 
 
 "]\Ieasurements made by the same person, however, and with the same 
 instruments, but at different times, sometimes differ enough to raise a suspi- 
 cion that the diameter is slightly variable, which would be nothing surpris- 
 ing, considering the nature of the solar surface. — Young, "Sun," p. 45, Ed. 
 1881. 
 
 In the facts and events suggested by this chapter we have a sufficient 
 cause for the shrinkage and expansion of the sun which fits all of the 
 observations and theories of solar activity, both as to the time of their 
 occurrence and as to the variable intensity of their action. 
 
 We may summarize as follows : 
 
 There is a disturbance of the sun 's mass and motion by the planets which 
 is sufficient at times to drive the whole mass of the sun aside from its 
 path to the extent of twice the diameter of the moon 's orbit. Such a force, 
 acting upon a body of elastic gas, must raise what — for want of a better 
 name — we must call a tide or tides of great height. The flow of these tides 
 relieves the pressure upon portions of the sun, allowing submerged gases — 
 too heavy to be ordinarily exposed — to manifest their existence by ebullition 
 and explosion, giving rise to phenomena only periodically displayed. 
 
 The tables show that the energy of the planets is maintained almost con- 
 stantly upon the sun's motion. It is very frequently sufficient to drive the 
 sun aside from its path 600,000 miles ; still more frequently 200,000 miles ; 
 the exceptions to the latter force being as infrequent as to the exertion of 
 the greatest force — viz., that exceeding 600,000 miles. 
 
 It is therefore probable that this merely physical disturbance of the sun's 
 mass — this constant and variable raking of the solar fires — gives rise to all 
 of the effects known as spots, prominences, coronas, magnetic storms and 
 other phenomena of solar activity.
 
 27 
 
 EARTHQUAKES WHICH ARE PROBABLY CAUSED BY 
 SOLAR AND PLANETARY ACTION. 
 
 The theory of the generation of the moon, propounded by Professor 
 G. H. Darwin — see his work on "Tides" — outlines the first case of solar 
 action producing an earthquake, for which we have his mathematical 
 authority. As such it antedates all geological records displayed to us in 
 faults, fissures, mountains and volcanoes. Prof. Wm. II. Pickering, in an 
 article published in Harper's Magazine for June, 1907, briefly outlines this 
 theory of the moon's generation. 
 
 Not all earthquakes are the result of solar action. An earthquake is a 
 shaking of the earth's crust. A shock produced by the explosion of a 
 giant powder factory will give the same effects as a slight earthquake. Some 
 earthquakes are directly traceable to explosions of steam and some to explo- 
 sions of other gases. 
 
 Some are indeterminate, perhaps partly terrestrial and partly solar in 
 origin. 
 
 Prof. G. H. Darwnn says : 
 
 "Earthquakes are probably due to unequal shrinkage of the planet in 
 cooling, and each shock would tend to bring the strata into their position of 
 rest ; thus the earth 's surface would avail itself of the opportunity afforded 
 by earthquakes of acquiring its proper shape." — Darwin's Tides, p. 300-1. 
 
 Both Darwin and Sir R. S. Ball unite substantially in the following 
 opinion : 
 
 "The attractions of the moon and sun must certainly act not only on the 
 sea, but also on the solid earth ; and, since the earth is not perfectly rigid 
 or stiff, they must produce an alternating change in its shape. Even if the 
 earth is now so stiff that the changes in its shape escape detection through 
 their minuteness, yet such changes of shape must exist." — Darwin's Tides, 
 p. 3; Ball, The Earth's Beginning, pp. 163, 164, 168, 176. 
 
 At certain periods of the progress of the solar system during the past 28 
 centuries violent earthquakes have occurred. Our information is for the 
 most part confined to those occurring in Europe or around the Mediter- 
 ranean Sea. After the beginning of the 16th century, A. D., America was 
 included in the catalogue. Such early Chinese and Japanese records as are 
 available strengthen the inferences to be drawn herein from the European 
 records. 
 
 As to the \QTy early records it may be safely asserted that only those 
 records of earthquakes of great and widespread intensity have been handed 
 down, because early civilization and reliable history centers about the 
 Mediterranean Sea, which has always been earthquake territory. Conse-
 
 28 
 
 qiiently a commonplace, ordinary (juake would pass nnnotieod, and, in most 
 instances, the early records manifestly deal with grreat eartlKpiakes only. 
 
 The few instances of Chinese and Japanese ancient records also deal w itli 
 world-shakin*; events. 
 
 The epochs when all tlie great planets were in conjnnction, as shown by 
 Table I, appendix, have been historically marked by world-shaking quakes 
 in almost every instance, as will be seen from an examination of IMallett's 
 "Earth(iuake Catalogue" R. and F. W. ]\Iallet 1858. 
 
 The dates when the sun is crossing the line of the center of gravity, as 
 shown l)y Table III, either, while in tow of, or while being towed by the 
 planets, are also the dates of many great earthquakes. 
 
 The periods during which the sun makes its widest departures, East or 
 West, of the path of the center of gravity, namely in excess of 500,000 
 miles, are also periods when many of our great quakes happen. 
 
 The same effects must be produced upon each planet by the alternating 
 conditions of progress, as are visibly produced upon the sun when it varies 
 from maxima to minima of violent disturbance, that is, great commotion 
 and movement in its fluid or gaseous, or even solid materials, and shrinkage 
 or expansion around the equatorial zone. 
 
 Whether this shrinkage or expansion can be measured depends on the 
 condition of the planet. A movement of the crust of the earth, horizontally 
 or vertically, for 10 or 20 feet will not represent, as to the whole globe, 
 much of a shrinkage or expansion, but it may result in the ruin of a city 
 or a state. To the extent that the earth is mobile and plastic enough to 
 respond to the stress put upon it during seasons of great stress, to that 
 extent should its crust yield to the shrinkage or expansion of its interior. 
 Even cold steel and iron can be made to yield and change form under cold 
 pressure in the mechanic arts, not alone in minute, but in great masses. 
 The idea that the earth is rigid or stiff enough, therefore, to resist the 
 almost immeasurable stresses put upon it by the solar system can have no 
 foundation. If great cataclysms in the past have rent it through and 
 through, establishing fissures deeply and extensively across the earth it 
 would be reasonable to expect that, when the strain was again felt, the 
 earth would again yield practically along -the same lines, reopening the 
 same Assures. Observation in mines and elsewhere shows such repeated 
 breaks. Periodical recurrence of earthquakes along the same line, which 
 are not accompanied by evidence of explosive force, or of falling, and 
 which affect, during short intervals, the whole sphere along a great circle, 
 and which occur uniformly with certain conditions of the progress of the 
 solar system, point to a causal relation of the two conditions. 
 
 The visible condition of the moon is that it is a wreck of moon quake 
 activities, seamed with fissiires, honeycombed with volcanoes and wrinkled 
 with mountain chains, the product of shrinkage.
 
 29 
 
 The visible condition of the sun is an almost ''continuous performance" 
 of sun quake, varying in intensity, as we have seen. 
 
 The condition of the other planets seems to be the same so far as observa- 
 tion can determine. 
 
 Referring to Tables I and II, the reader will see that the year 1804 was a 
 conjunction epoch, the four great planets being nearly in line, Saturn 
 lagging back. 
 
 August 5th, 1803, Schroter found Saturn not perfectly spheroidal in 
 figure. In April and May, 1805, Sir Wm. Herschel, after most careful 
 observations to exclude all instrumental or other errors, found that Saturn 
 "resembles a parallelogram, one side whereof is parallel to the equatorial, 
 the other to the polar diameter, with the four corners rounded off so as to 
 leave both the equatorial and the polar regions flatter than they would be 
 in a regular spheroidal figure." He renewed these observations in 1806 
 v/ith the same result. But he found that in 1807 a change had taken place 
 in the aspect of the planet. In 1818 Kitchener saw the same figure. The 
 changing form of the planet has been often noticed. 
 
 Proctor concludes: "We seem almost compelled, therefore, to accept 
 the conclusion that the planet Saturn is subject to the influence of forces 
 which either upheave portions of its surface from time to time, or cause 
 vast masses of cloud to rise to an enormous height above the mean level of 
 Saturn's cloud envelope. * * * which — to be discernable from our dis- 
 tant standpoint — would imply the expansion and contraction of whole 
 zones of Saturn's surface through 4,000 or 5,000 miles at least." — Proc- 
 tors Familiar Science Studies, p. 61; Proctor's Other Worlds Than Ours, 
 Saturn; Proctor's Astronomical Essays, 101; Arago Pop. Ast., Vol. 2, p. 599. 
 
 Jupiter also exhibits these changes of form. 
 
 Proctor says : 
 
 "We have seen, however, that evidence is not wanting to prove that 
 Jupiter is really liable to occasional changes of figure, though not to such 
 an extent as to change the general aspect of the planet." — Other Worlds 
 Than Ours, pp. 151, 157, 173; Familiar Science Studies, pp. 60, 75; Arago 
 Pop. Ast., Vol. 2, p. 521. 
 
 The "canals" of Mars may be, in part at least, immense fissures. There 
 is no reason apparent why any planet should differ from another in being 
 subject to such planet quakes. 
 
 Another form of force is manifested by the sun as a product of its com- 
 motions, different from the merely mechanical energy of its moving mass. 
 The electrical effects upon the earth, which have been traced to the sun as a 
 cause, are as closely connected with its variable condition as are its spots. 
 Such effects as "magnetic storms" have been connected with particular 
 meridians and latitudes of the sun. A "storm" having been observed to 
 originate when a particular spot appeared, a repetition of the storm has
 
 30 
 
 been observed when tbe synodical rotation of that part of the sun had again 
 brought it to bear upon the earth. But as the rotation speed of the sun 
 varies the repetition of the phenomena will occur at a longer or shorter 
 interval. The sidereal rotation of the sun at the equator requires 25 days 
 41 o hours, while at North latitude 50° and South latitude 45° it requires 
 27 days IO34 hours. We must add 2 days to the sidereal time in order to 
 get the synodical time of rotation, so that some latitudes of the sun require 
 the same length of time to complete a revolution, respecting the earth, as 
 does the moon. Thus, for those latitudes of the sun, the moon becomes a 
 clock Avith which to time the rotation of those portions of the sun ; and, as 
 such portions are very active, we may have here the reason for the popular 
 belief in the moon as a cause of many terrestrial phenomena which in fact 
 have their origin in the sun, eartlKpiakes among the number. 
 
 Pcrrey's catalogues of earthquakes and his efforts to connect the phases 
 of the moon therewith may have great value when examined from the view 
 of the sun being the cause. 
 
 In an article published in Harper's Magazine for May, 1905, "Magnetic 
 Storms and the Sun", Professor ^Maunder says that he noticed that when 
 certain great sun-spots reached the center of the sun's disc a great magnetic 
 storm broke out on the earth, accompanied in one instance by a most re- 
 markable aurora. He says that he "noticed four disturbances toward the 
 end of the year 1886 and four in the middle of the following year, which 
 succeeded each other at almost equal intervals of time ; the intervals being, 
 on the average, about twenty-seven days eight hours — just the interval 
 which it takes, on the average, for a sun-spot to pass from the center of the 
 sun's disc round to that center a second time." 
 
 From this article it would seem as if great electrical guns were mounted 
 upon the sun which now and then, loaded by its energy and, getting our 
 range as they s\Aing round, give us a shot to emphasize our mortality. These 
 electrical discharges may prove to be of many kinds and from different 
 latitudes of the sun. 
 
 I refer again to the long list of earthquakes extending over a great period 
 of time catalogued by Mallet, which were accompanied by auroras, loud 
 detonations, electrical storms and other electrical phenomena of a most 
 extraordinary character. It is also to be remarked that extraordinary 
 alternations of heat and cold, wind and rain, storms of great violence, mark 
 earth(|uake years, as evidenced hy that catalogue and by the years 1906 
 and 1907. 
 
 It is also to be noticed that the time within which magnetic or electrical 
 forces reach the earth after starting from the sun is in doubt, it appearing 
 that some forms of this force are instantaneous, quicker than light, while 
 other forms are very slow comparatively. Ricco and Arrenhius calculate
 
 31 
 
 45 hours as the time required for electrical force to reach the earth from 
 the sun.— Set. Am. Supi). July 15th, W05, p. 20,698. 
 
 But, in the article already quoted, Prof. ]\Iaunder makes the suggestion 
 that when the magnetic or electrical streams proceeding from the sun hap- 
 pen to intersect the earth they cause a release of energy in the electrical 
 forces of the earth " as a spark may set free the disruptive forces in a store 
 of gunpowder. The solar action Avill be indeed the cause of the storm, but 
 it will be so, not as supplying the forces put forth in it, but as giving them 
 the opportunity to reveal themselves. ' '
 
 32 
 
 A PRELIMINARY CHAPTER ON SOLAR AND 
 PLANETARY MOTION. 
 
 The object of this chapter is to briefly state some facts, in a new relation, 
 which tend to show that the sun's motion towards the sohir apex has a 
 critical speed which it must maintain in order to furnish planetary paths 
 conformable to observation, and that such speed exceeds that given by 
 some authorities and need not be as great as allowed by others. The most 
 recent authorities are very conservative, but as their observations govern 
 their results it cannot be said that any bias exists in favor of a great or a 
 slow speed. They give a speed of about 12 miles a second. ]\Iiss Gierke, 
 however, exhibited the natural bias of an elderly lady in saying: "We are 
 not whirled in the train of such a stellar projectile as 1830 Groombridge. " 
 
 There is another purpose in this chapter, which is to secure attention 
 to the true motion of the solar system, which is certainly quite different from 
 that set forth by Gopernicus or Kepler, but which, nevertheless, still con- 
 forms to the mathematical relations stated by Kepler and Newton when 
 proper allowance is made for the solar and planetary motion towards the 
 solar apex. 
 
 In 1890 IMiss Gierke summed up the conclusions of astronomers as to the 
 direction of the sun's motion by placing the apex in R. A. 273° 21', north 
 declination 27° 19'; and gave the speed at 14i/o miles per second — History 
 of Astronomy, pp. 324, 325, 3rd Ed. 
 
 Again she said: 
 
 "But when from the direction we attempt to pass to the amount of solar 
 motion, the case becomes widely ditt'erent. Flagrant contradictions abound. 
 Estimates of velocity range at large between five and 150 miles a second; 
 the criteria of truth are at the mercy of individual judgment. The cause 
 of these discrepancies lies in the uncertainty still prevailing as to the dis- 
 tances of the stars. * * * 
 
 "It is nevertheless tolerably certain that the solar pace has nothing 
 headlong about it. We are not whirled in the train of such a stellar pro- 
 jectile as 1830 Groombridge or Zeta Toucani. Our condition were it so 
 would be betrayed by unmistakable tokens. Everything, on the contrary, 
 suggests the inference that our sun is among the sedately moving stars." — 
 System of the Stars, p. 326, Agnes M. Gierke, Oct., 1890. 
 
 Again she says : 
 
 "We do not know the plane of the sun's orbit — only the direction of one 
 line in it, and that line, pointing towards the constellation Hercules, makes 
 an angle of about 60° with the sun's equator. Tims, the solar movements 
 of rotation and translation would seem to he unrelated one to the other;
 
 33 
 
 and the same remark applies to the planetary revolutions conducted, on the 
 whole, along levels of space differing very little from that of the great 
 globe's axial movement. Our whole system is then driven obliquely upward 
 by a power which, taking no apparent account of its domestic economy 
 owned doubtless an origin totally disconnected from that of gyrations given, 
 through it influence, the helicoidal shape illustrated in Fig. 48." (Here 
 follows a figure showing the sun's way directed upward at an angle of 55° 
 from an ellipse to represent perhaps the principal plane of the solar system, 
 and about it the path of the earth consisting of a long arc followed by a 
 small loop similar to figure 3 herein.) — Gierke, System of the Stars, p. 330. 
 
 The speed of 14.5 miles per second equals 460 million miles per annum. 
 
 Sir John Ilerschel rates the speed of the sun at 154 million miles per 
 annum, or nearly 5 miles a second, very much the slowest of any speed 
 assigned. — Outlines of Astronomy, Art. 858. 
 
 Prof. Newcomb, in ''The Stars", published in 1902, cites many authori- 
 ties giving different directions and speeds and sums up as follows : 
 
 "From all these results it would seem that the most likely apex of the 
 solar motion is towards a point in Right Ascension 280°, Declination 30° 
 North. This point is situated in the constellation Lyra about 4° from the 
 first magnitude star, Vega. — Tlie Stars, Newcomh, p. 91. 
 
 At page 93 he gives a speed of 19 kilometers per second, or 11.8 miles, or 
 372 million miles per year. 
 
 Maedler estimated the sun's motion towards the apex at 30 miles per 
 second, or 946,728,000 miles yearly. — Gierke's Hist, of Ast., 49. -^ -, 
 
 And Rancken estimated it at 9.79 times the radii of the earth's orbit.— y^ ^1 ^FC 
 Phil. Soc. Wash., Vol. XI, pp. 143, 17 1 c? - 
 
 Rancken 's estimate is over 907 million miles yearly — about 28 miles a / 7f , /^ 
 
 second. 
 
 Miss Gierke does not cite the authorities who assign a velocity up to 150 
 miles a second. 
 
 As a result we find professional astronomers estimating the sun's motion 
 through space at a speed of from five to 150 miles a second, with a direction 
 that varies in longitude from 260° to 289°, and in declination from +14° 
 to +53°. Professor W. W. Campbell, the latest cited, places the declination 
 at +20°. 
 
 In ordinary terms the sun's path is in a plane inclined to the ecliptic 
 and to the principal plane of the solar system and the angle of inclination 
 is in dispute to the extent of 40°. 
 
 The speed and the angle of inclination of the sun's path to the principal 
 plane of the solar system are of most consequence in this chapter. 
 
 By reference to many books it will be seen that the sun's path through 
 space is depicted like that of a rocket rising into the heavens from a field 
 bounded by an ellipse to represent the principal plane of the solar system,
 
 34 
 
 while the earth is shown winding upwards and around the sun's path in an 
 ascending: spiral, like a ball under the feet of a performer in a circus. 
 
 See Miss Gierke's "System of the Stars", p. 330. 
 
 Variety is given to this by Flammarion; he shows the same spiral, but 
 descending, "falling" literally, he says. (Pop. Ast., p. 52.) 
 
 Still more elaborate is an illustration in Gillet and Rolfe's Astronomy, 
 p. 369, showing the spiral paths of all the planets with earth and moon 
 prominently wiggling their compound way "up dem golden stairs." 
 
 According to these illustrations, the solar system follows an inclined 
 cylindrical path upwards at an angle of about 55° from the plane of revolu- 
 tion of the solar system, in which plane the horizontal trace of the spiral 
 path of each planet forms a closed ellipse. 
 
 This, of course, is very foreign to the Copernican system. But the sta- 
 tionary sun called for by that system is now replaced by a body which, as 
 we have seen, is said to move at a velocity' somewhere between 5 and 150 
 miles per second, and it is felt that something must be said to reconcile the 
 two repugnant ideas — namely revolutions of the planets, in closed ellipses 
 with a swiftly moving body around which such revolutions take place. 
 
 Miss Gierke says: "We do not know the plane of the sun's orbit — only 
 the direction of one line in it." That was an oversight, because the fact 
 that the sun makes an irregular cycloidal revolution about the center of 
 gravity of the system was no doubt well known to her. As we have already 
 seen this orbit may extend at times 934,000 miles or more to one side of 
 that center. So we have a plane nearly two million miles across, with 
 a line in that plane formed by the motion of the center of gravity. There- 
 fore, we have a plane nearly 2 million miles wide and infinitely long, 
 extending in the general direction from 90° to 270° heliocentric longitude, 
 in which the sun moves. The plane of the sun's motion by virtue of the 
 sun 's mass is approximately the principal plane of the solar system. — Ball 's 
 Earth's Beginning, pp. 208, 210. 
 
 But all the motions of the great planets take place within two planes 
 very closely parallel to the principal plane according to ohscrvation, whether 
 such motion is in closed ellipses, epicycles, spirals, serpentine or other 
 curved paths. 
 
 The proposition involved is whether planetary motion through space 
 with the sun, and as viewed from the stars, is cylindrical and spiral or 
 whether it is essentially confined to a plane (using that term here to signify 
 a fiat space confined within two planes) and the planetary motions are in 
 open or closed curves. 
 
 Is the principal plane of the solar system like the floor of an elevator 
 moving up or down a shaft? 
 
 With reference to the walls of the shaft, does the astronomer see the 
 bricks of the shaft moving up or down in lines perpendicular to the floor
 
 35 
 
 of the elevator, or, in lines oblique to that floor? If he sees the stars moving 
 in lines very oblique to the principal plane of the system then the spiral 
 paths of the planets — if they are spiral — will be very flat and maj^ be fairly 
 represented by their horizontal trace in the plane of the solar system. 
 
 But under any of the modern theories of this motion — as to direction 
 and speed — it is evident that the path of a planet cannot be a closed ellipse 
 unless the solar apex lies in a line perpendicular to the principal plane of 
 the solar system. 
 
 The motions of the moon have been more closely studied than those of 
 any other body. The papers and books of Prof. G. H. Darwin have pre- 
 sented them again in a new way. In his papers and books on tidal forces 
 he traces mathematically the history of the earth and moon "until the 
 moon nearly touches the earth, and the two go round each other like a single 
 solid body in about three to five hours." — Tides, p. 278. * * * "It is 
 by methods of rigorous argument that the moon is traced back to the initial 
 unstable condition when she revolved close to the earth. But the argument 
 here breaks down, and calculation is incompetent to tell us what occurred 
 before, and how she attained that unstable mode of motion. — Tides, p. 281. 
 ************ 
 
 "We have grounds for conjecturing that the moon is composed of frag- 
 ments of the primitive planet which we now call the earth, which detached 
 themselves when the planet spun very swiftly, and afterwards became 
 consolidated. ' ' — Same, p. 282. 
 
 lie then mathematically traces the history of earth and moon forward, 
 saying : 
 
 "The moon must then always face the same part of the earth's surface, 
 and the two bodies must move as though they were united with a bar. The 
 outcome of the lunar tidal friction will therefore be that the moon and 
 the earth go round as though locked together in a period of fifty-five of our 
 present days, with the day and the month of identical length." — p. 276. 
 ************ 
 
 "The series of changes then proceed until the two periods come again 
 to an identity, when we have the earth and the moon as they were at the 
 beginning, revolving in the same period, with the moon always facing the 
 same side of the earth. But in her final condition the moon will be a long 
 way off the earth, instead of being quite close to it. ' ' — p. 280. 
 
 "When there is only one day in the month, the earth and the moon 
 go round at the same rate, so that the moon always looks at the same side 
 of the earth, and so far as concerns the motion they might be fastened to- 
 gether by a rigid bar." — p. 277. 
 
 In this argument the professor does not indicate that the present motion 
 of the moon is other than that most usually indicated in the books, namely 
 a motion of the moon around the earth in a closed ellipse. Nor does he indi-
 
 36 
 
 cate when the present mode of motion of the moon began, nor when it will 
 end. But he does emphatically say that when the moon was nearly touching 
 the earth the two went round each other like a dumb-bell pivoted in the 
 handle and that in the end they will go round in the same way, except that 
 the handle of the dumb-bell will be very much longer. 
 
 But the moon does not move about the earth in that manner )ww. 
 
 Flammarion described the present mode of motion of the moon and 
 claims to be the first to correctly describe that motion. 
 
 He said: 
 
 "A rather curious fact generally forgotten is that this sinuous curve is 
 so elongated that it scarcely ditt'ers from that which the earth annually 
 describes round the sun; and instead of being (as it is always drawn in 
 astronomical treatises) convex to the sun, at the epoch of every new moon, 
 it is always concave to the sun! I have represented it exactly (Fig. 42) on 
 the scale of 1 millimetre to 100,000 leagues. In this figure the arc of the 
 terestrial orbit is drawn with an opening of the compass of 37 centimetres 
 for 37 millions." — 1 (In a note he says) : 
 
 "Tliis true form of the lunar orbit was drawn for the first time in 1876 in 
 the first edition of our Terres du del." — Flammarion Pop. Ast., p. 108. 
 
 Proctor was particularly careful to illustrate and describe the path of 
 the moon about the earth correctly. He, indeed, classes the moon as a 
 planet which travels in the same orbit as the earth. — Old and New Astron- 
 omy, p. 492. 
 
 Perhaps he was so careful because he had scolded the "paradoxists" so 
 vigorously in his "Myths and Marvels of Astronomy," p. 274, while at the 
 same time admitting that the fault laj^ with the text writers. He did not 
 effect a reform in that respect. Holden's Astronomy, published in 1899, 
 by Henry Holt, pp. 216 and 217, repeats the old error by description and 
 illustration. 
 
 But the books do not give the figures which show simply the real path 
 and elements of the moon's motion. As that is the foundation upon which 
 I wish to build I will briefly outline the figures. 
 
 The geocentric longitude and radial distances of the moon are facts of 
 observation. Let us assiune that the earth is motionless for 27 Va days, and 
 that the moon starts a "revolution" of the earth at longitude 90° while in 
 perigee there. Calculating the position of the moon for each two days Ave 
 will get columns 1 to 9 of Table IV, appendix. By plotting the figures 
 of cols. 5, 6 and 9 we get points in a closed ellipse. 
 
 Now let us give the earth its motion and assume it to travel in a straight 
 line towards longitude 270'^, and, adding that motion for each two days to 
 the moon's ordinates, which lie in the major axis of the ellipse, we get 
 columns 10 and 11 of the same tal)le. Plotting colunnis 5, 6 and 11 of the 
 table we get the actual path of the moon about the earth, namely a serpen-
 
 37 
 
 tine curve formed of two ares, one on each side of the earth's path, the 
 chord of the first arc being about 97 times lono:er than its middle ordinate. 
 This path of the moon is like that of Fig. 5, illustrating a theoretical patli 
 for iMercury. 
 
 The real path of the moon is not a closed ellipse, yet it is derived from the 
 theory of a closed elliptical orbit. 
 
 But Professor Darwin's description of the original motion of the earth 
 and moon, immediately after their separation, calls for an epicycle curve; 
 that is, if the planets move forward with the sun as if fastened ivith a bar, 
 the earth not rotating. If the bar were removed we can easily conceive 
 them moving as they do now, no matter at what distance they were sep- 
 arated. But the original mode of motion of the moon and the present mode 
 constitute a problem in planetary evolution which we may well leave with 
 Professor Darwin. 
 
 Does Mercury "revolve" around the sun or does it circulate about it as 
 the moon now circulates about the earth? 
 
 Is the path of Mercury, as seen from the stars, a closed ellipse, or an 
 epicycle which completely encircles the sun, or an epicycle which does not 
 encircle the sun, or is it an epicycle of any sort ? 
 
 The mathematical theory of the motion of Mercury, as of all the other 
 planets, deals with them as if they moved around a stationary body, the sun, 
 in a closed ellipse. And as the observations of the motions of the planet 
 in their orbits can be reconciled with these mathematical theories we must 
 conclude tJiat the sun does not move or else that these theories of closed 
 elliptical orbits can be reconciled with the sun's motion in the same way as 
 we did the motion of the moon in a serpentine path about the earth. 
 
 The constants of observation as to the heliocentric longitude and radial 
 distance of Mercury from the sun and the plane of its motion are facts. 
 
 So long as the sun was conceived to be an island in space around which 
 the planetary ships coasted the course of Mercury was settled as a closed 
 ellipse. 
 
 Let us continue that assumption during one "revolution" of Mercury 
 and let us start Mercury at 90° heliocentric longitude, and from that point 
 tabulate its courses for every five days, except the last course, and we will 
 get columns 1 to 9 of Table V of the appendix. Plotting the figures in 
 columns 6, 7 and 9 we get points in a closed ellipse. 
 
 Now let us assume that the sun moves at a uniform speed in the direc- 
 tion from 90° to 270°. By adding that motion to the ordinates of Mer- 
 cury, which lie in the path of the sun's motion, for each five days, we can 
 examine the different orbits or paths which ]\Iercury would pursue based 
 upon the different rates of speed assigned to the sun. 
 
 If we begin at the slowest speed, that given by Sir John Herschel, 5 
 miles a second, we will get columns 10 and 11 of Table V. By plotting
 
 38 
 
 these figures, with cols. 5 and 6, yield a true epicycle which encircles the 
 sun, and by repeating the path for 264 days we see the planet making 
 loops about the sun and crossing its own path on the 6th course when making 
 its 21st course. See Figure 2. 
 
 But such an orbit is declared to be impossible by one astronomer. — Corn- 
 stock Text Book of Astronomy, 59-60. 
 
 If we take the next highest rate of speed for the sun, between 11.8 and 
 18.5 miles a second — say 16 miles as a mean — and tabulate that speed we 
 get columns 12 and 13 of Table V. Plotting these figures, namely columns 
 5, 6, 12 and 13 of Table V, (see Figure 3), we get a large curve for the 
 first 9 courses on the west side of the sun's path, then a small loop for 
 the remainder of the planet's journey, the loop beginning when the planet 
 crosses the line of the sun's path. On the 13th course you will notice that 
 the planet makes on the 13th course but about one-fourth of the distance 
 that it made on the first course. This loop in Mercury's path — "to port" 
 — is like that famous loop made by Admiral Schley in the "Brooklyn" at 
 the sea battle of Santiago, about which there was so much controversy. 
 
 But about this loop in the path of Mercury, upon a supposed speed of 
 the sun at 16 miles a second, or 11.8 miles, or 14.5 miles, or 18.5 miles, all 
 of which have been assigned, there should he no controversy. If the sun 
 proceeds to its "apex" at any such rate then Mercury makes such a loop, 
 larger or smaller, as the sun's speed varies, between those figures, and that 
 real loop should be observable when the earth is on the line of the sun's 
 way or near the line, at 90° or 270° heliocentric longitudes. Such occa- 
 sions often happen. Mercury is then at its greatest elongation. Apparent 
 loops in Mercury's path are observed soon after Mercury has commenced 
 this real loop and before it is finished, and such apparent loops are very 
 large and open, more so than that of any planet except that of Venus. 
 — Proctor's Old and New Astronomy, p. 158. 
 
 Proctor says: "In the case of INIercury, it is the large inclination of 
 the planet's path to the eliptic which causes the loop to undergo remark- 
 able changes of shape." 
 
 So that no difficulty ought to exist in observing a real loop if any such 
 was made. But as none has been observed it must be assumed that none 
 is so made and it follows that the sun does not move at any such rate of 
 speed. 
 
 Tabulating the speed of the sun at 33 miles a second, we get columns 
 14 and 15 of Table V. (Remember the speed assigned to the sun by 
 Rancken was 28 miles a second and by ^Madler 30 miles a second.) 
 
 Plotting the path upon this new speed, see Figure 4, we get a peculiar 
 figure. The first 13 courses give a large curve on the west side of the 
 sun crossing the line on the 9th course. At the beginning of the 14th 
 course Mercury spins around, on its heel as it were, and takes up a new 
 
 I
 
 r,\ c V :_».cV U ^ i^am. ■ V 5 ^^«- '• 
 
 
 
 TKwTAiv^rtji, \'4vt 1. 
 
 .;IlVLv .'/^ :»; tli'.* .^ -S^^OruK
 
 <_^,-^^?5^1i^5aJ 
 
 Oc->\.C OO MV.UV., = ( i'iuIl 

 
 39 
 
 course, almost retrograde to the 13th course, and from that point starts a 
 new curve like that of the previous courses. At this speed of 33 miles 
 Mercury ceases to form a loop in its path. It is not conceivable, however, 
 that the planet actually performs such a maneuver. 
 
 Assuming that the sun moves 0,000,000 miles a day, 69.4 miles a second, 
 we get columns 16 and 17 of Table V, which yield, by plotting, see Figure 
 5, a path about the sun like that of the moon about the earth, except that 
 the chords of the arcs are not nearly so long compared with tlie middla 
 ordinate. 
 
 The closed elliptical orbit of Mercury, when combined with the sun's 
 motion at a certain speed, gives the same results as we obtain for the moon. 
 
 Therefore no ditHculty is encountered with the elliptical mathematical 
 theory when combined with the proper — shall we say "critical"? — speed 
 of the sun. IMoreover, at that speed, 69.4 miles per second, all of the 
 planets will be found pursuing the same sort of a path about the sun when 
 the tabling of their "orbits" is made upon the same basis. 
 
 We have seen that some claim is made that the sun moves 150 miles a 
 second, which is over twice as great a speed as is necessary to make the 
 paths of the planets serpentine curves. 
 
 There is nothing about the speed of 69.4 miles a second which is im- 
 probable. 
 
 That speed would require 2689 years to cover one light year's distance. 
 
 Nor is it true that all celestial bodies move in elliptical orbits. The 
 sun is not known to so move. Nor are many of the stars, some of which 
 have very great proper motion, with immense velocity. — Newcomh's Stars, 
 p. 158. 
 
 Maxwell Hall and others have endeavored to assign an elliptical orbit 
 and position of central sun with the modest period of 20 million years for 
 one revolution. The sun's path in that orbit would be a straight line — 
 humanly speaking. 
 
 Having, therefore, precedent in the motions of the sun and moon, we can 
 say that not all of the members of the solar system move in a closed ellipse, 
 or epicycle, and that there is ground for dispute that any of the planets 
 so move. 
 
 There are some conclusions to be drawn from this method of examina- 
 tion. The most important is that, as the sun's plane of motion is the prin- 
 cipal plane of the solar system, and such plane determines the planes of the 
 planets' movements, then there are certain rates of speed of the sun 
 which cannot be reconciled with the known movements of the planets. 
 
 The speed of the sun also determines the actual speed of the planets. 
 For instance, the earth is ordinarily said to move in its orbit at 18.5 miles 
 a second. But that is based upon the assumption that the orbit is a 
 closed ellipse around an anchored sun. When Ave add the motion of the sun
 
 40 
 
 we increase to an extent, dependent upon the rate of speed of the sun, the 
 velocity of the earth, which it is therefore certain very much exceeds 18.5 
 miles a second. 
 
 Upon the actual speed of the sun and its planets depends the estimates 
 of force exerted by one upon the other during their separated or com- 
 bined actions as discussed in chapter one. 
 
 I'^pon the actual position of the principal plane of the solar system, and 
 the speed in that plane, as well as the direction therein of the moving 
 bodies, depends all those estimates of energy exerted by the sun upon 
 the planets and by the planets upon the sun. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 TABLE I. 
 
 Position of planets in heliocentric lon- 
 gitude on January 1st of each year 
 
 Direction and dis- 
 tance from sun to 
 center of gravity of 
 system 
 
 Sun's position relative to its 
 
 apex and to center of 
 
 gravity 
 
 Year 
 B. C. 
 
 Jup. 
 
 Sat. 
 
 Ura. 
 
 Nep. 
 
 Direction 
 
 in heliocer 
 
 trie long 
 
 1- Distance 
 in miles 
 
 On the 
 course, 
 miles 
 
 Off the 
 course, 
 miles 
 
 917 
 
 62^ 
 
 38° 
 
 58° 
 
 59° 
 
 55° 
 
 925,000 
 
 +760,000 
 
 W 535,000 
 
 738 
 
 94° 
 
 66° 
 
 105° 
 
 90° 
 
 87° 
 
 910,000 
 
 +910,000 
 
 W 45,000 
 
 560 
 
 97° 
 
 81° 
 
 148° 
 
 119° 
 
 100° 
 
 885,000 
 
 +870,000 
 
 E 155,000 
 
 380 
 
 160° 
 
 130° 
 
 199° 
 
 152° 
 
 154° 
 
 890,000 
 
 +390,000 
 
 E 800,000 
 
 202 
 
 196° 
 
 172° 
 
 289° 
 
 210° 
 
 166.5° 
 
 855,000 
 
 +205,000 
 
 E 830,000 
 
 83 
 
 53° 
 
 110° 
 
 15° 
 
 70° 
 
 75° 
 
 905,000 
 
 +870,000 
 
 W 230,000 
 
 Year, 
 
 A. D. 
 
 93 
 
 116° 
 
 149° 
 
 67° 
 
 103° 
 
 119° 
 
 870,000 
 
 +760,000 
 
 E 420,000 
 
 272 
 
 148° 
 
 176° 
 
 114° 
 
 134° 
 
 151° 
 
 895,000 
 
 +440,000 
 
 E 780,000 
 
 451 
 
 181° 
 
 202° 
 
 160° 
 
 165° 
 
 183° 
 
 910,000 
 
 — 40,000 
 
 E 910,000 
 
 630 
 
 213° 
 
 229° 
 
 206° 
 
 195° 
 
 213° 
 
 920,000 
 
 — 55,000 
 
 E 770,000 
 
 809 
 
 246° 
 
 256° 
 
 254° 
 
 225° 
 
 247° 
 
 920,000 
 
 —840,000 
 
 E 375,000 
 
 948 
 
 144° 
 
 154° 
 
 130° 
 
 168° 
 
 149° 
 
 920,000 
 
 +500,000 
 
 E 790,000 
 
 988 
 
 279° 
 
 283° 
 
 301° 
 
 256° 
 
 280° 
 
 930,000 
 
 —915,000 
 
 W 150,000 
 
 1127 
 
 177° 
 
 180° 
 
 176° 
 
 199° 
 
 181° 
 
 930,000 
 
 — 20,000 
 
 E 930,000 
 
 1167 
 
 311° 
 
 309° 
 
 348° 
 
 286° 
 
 309° 
 
 910,000 
 
 —705,000 
 
 W 575,000 
 
 1306 
 
 231° 
 
 217° 
 
 227° 
 
 231° 
 
 226.5° 
 
 934,000 
 
 —700,000 
 
 E 625,000 
 
 1486 
 
 272° 
 
 246° 
 
 275° 
 
 263° 
 
 263.5° 
 
 925,000 
 
 —920,000 
 
 E 95,000 
 
 1665 
 
 304° 
 
 274° 
 
 322° 
 
 293° 
 
 295.5° 
 
 905,000 
 
 —820,000 
 
 W 40,000 
 
 1804 
 
 202° 
 
 172° 
 
 197° 
 
 236° 
 
 199° 
 
 880,000 
 
 —280,000 
 
 E 835,000 
 
 1844 
 
 335° 
 
 298° 
 
 1° 
 
 323° 
 
 327.5° 
 
 880.000 
 
 -^65,000 
 
 W 750,000
 
 41 
 
 TABLE II. 
 
 Position of planets in heliocentric lon- 
 gitude on January 1st of each year 
 
 Direction and dis- 
 tance from sun to 
 center of gravity of 
 system 
 
 Sun's position 
 apex and 
 gra 
 
 relative to its 
 to center of 
 /ity 
 
 Year 
 
 Jup. 
 
 Sat. 
 
 Ura. 
 
 Nep. 
 
 Direction 
 in heliocen- Distance 
 trie long. in miles 
 
 On the 
 course, 
 miles 
 
 Off the 
 course, 
 miles 
 
 A. D. 
 
 1480 
 
 90 = 
 
 173° 
 
 249° 
 
 250° 
 
 150° 
 
 435,000 
 
 1 
 
 +280,000 
 
 1 
 
 E 330,000 
 
 1481 
 
 121° 
 
 185° 
 
 254° 
 
 252° 
 
 164° 
 
 580,000 
 
 +155,000 
 
 E 550,000 
 
 1482 
 
 151° 
 
 197° 
 
 258° 
 
 254° 
 
 186° 
 
 700,000 
 
 — 30,000 
 
 E 700,000 
 
 1483 
 
 181° 
 
 209° 
 
 262° 
 
 257° 
 
 206° 
 
 805,000 
 
 —350,000 
 
 E 725,000 
 
 1484 
 
 212° 
 
 222° 
 
 267° 
 
 259° 
 
 226° 
 
 890,000 
 
 —635,000 
 
 E 620,000 
 
 1485 
 
 242° 
 
 234° 
 
 271° 
 
 261° 
 
 245° 
 
 925,000 
 
 —840,000 
 
 E 395,000 
 
 1486 
 
 272° 
 
 246° 
 
 275° 
 
 263° 
 
 263° 
 
 925,000 
 
 —920,000 
 
 E 95,000 
 
 1487 
 
 303° 
 
 258° 
 
 280° 
 
 265° 
 
 283° 
 
 880,000 
 
 —860,000 
 
 W 190,000 
 
 1488 
 
 333° 
 
 270° 
 
 284° 
 
 268° 
 
 302° 
 
 810.000 
 
 —690,000 
 
 W 430,000 
 
 1489 
 
 3° 
 
 283° 
 
 288° 
 
 270° 
 
 320° 
 
 700,000 
 
 -^45,000 
 
 W 540,000 
 
 1490 
 
 34° 
 
 295° 
 
 292° 
 
 272° 
 
 340° 
 
 555,000 
 
 —190,000 
 
 W 520,000 
 
 1491 
 
 64° 
 
 307° 
 
 297° 
 
 274° 
 
 358° 
 
 400,000 
 
 — 15,000 
 
 W 400,000 
 
 1492 
 
 94° 
 
 319° 
 
 301° 
 
 276° 
 
 19° 
 
 225,000 
 
 + 75,000 
 
 W 210,000 
 
 1493 
 
 125° 
 
 332° 
 
 305° 
 
 278° 
 
 61° 
 
 50,000 
 
 + 45,000 
 
 W 25,000 
 
 1494 
 
 155° 
 
 344° 
 
 310° 
 
 281° 
 
 224° 
 
 120,000 
 
 — 80,000 
 
 E 85,000 
 
 1495 
 
 185° 
 
 356° 
 
 314° 
 
 283° 
 
 256° 
 
 290,000 
 
 —260,000 
 
 E 120,000 
 
 1496 
 
 216° 
 
 8° 
 
 318° 
 
 285° 
 
 267° 
 
 435,000 
 
 —430,000 
 
 E 30,000 
 
 1497 
 
 246° 
 
 21° 
 
 323° 
 
 287° 
 
 286° 
 
 550,000 
 
 —530,000 
 
 W 145,000 
 
 1498 
 
 277° 
 
 33° 
 
 327° 
 
 289° 
 
 307° 
 
 630,000 
 
 —510,000 
 
 W 375,000 
 
 1499 
 
 307° 
 
 45° 
 
 331° 
 
 292° 
 
 327° 
 
 690,000 
 
 —380,000 
 
 W 575,000 
 
 1500 
 
 337° 
 
 58° 
 
 335° 
 
 294° 
 
 348.5° 
 
 700,000 
 
 —140,000 
 
 W 690,000 
 
 1501 
 
 8° 
 
 70° 
 
 339° 
 
 295° 
 
 15.5° 
 
 690,000 
 
 +130,000 
 
 W 680,000 
 
 1502 
 
 38° 
 
 82° 
 
 343° 
 
 297° 
 
 35.5° 
 
 660,000 
 
 +380,000 
 
 W 535,000 
 
 1503 
 
 68° 
 
 94° 
 
 347° 
 
 299° 
 
 60° 
 
 610,000 
 
 +625,000 
 
 W 300,000 
 
 1504 
 
 99° 
 
 106° 
 
 352° 
 
 302° 
 
 88.5° 
 
 560,000 
 
 +560,000 
 
 W 15.000
 
 42 
 
 Table II (Continued). 
 
 Position of planets in heliocentric lon- 
 gitude on January 1st of each year 
 
 Direction and dis- 
 tance from sun to 
 center of gravity of 
 system 
 
 Sun's position relative to its 
 
 apex and to center of 
 
 gravity 
 
 Year 
 
 Jup. 
 
 Sat. 
 
 Ura. 
 
 Nep. 
 
 Direction 
 in heliocen- Distance 
 trie long. in mile;? 
 
 On the 
 course, 
 miles 
 
 Off the 
 c<iurse, 
 miles 
 
 1505 
 
 129^ 
 
 118° 
 
 356° 
 
 304° 
 
 119° 515,000 j 
 
 +455,000 
 
 E 250,000 
 
 1506 
 
 159° 
 
 130° 
 
 0° 
 
 306° 
 
 151.5° 490,000 
 
 +235,000 
 
 E 425,000 
 
 1507 
 
 190° 
 
 143° 
 
 5° 
 
 308° 
 
 184° 485,000 
 
 — 35,000 
 
 E 480,000 
 
 1508 
 
 220° 
 
 155° 
 
 9° 
 
 310° 
 
 214° 500,000 
 
 —280,000 
 
 E 410,000 
 
 1509 
 
 250° 
 
 167° 
 
 13° 
 
 312° 
 
 244° 520,000 
 
 —465,000 
 
 E 230,000 
 
 1510 
 
 281° 
 
 179° 
 
 18° 
 
 314° 
 
 271° 530.000 
 
 —530,000 
 
 W 10,000 
 
 1511 
 
 311° 
 
 191° 
 
 22° 
 
 316° 
 
 296.5° 520,000 
 
 465,000 
 
 W 230,000 
 
 1512 
 
 341° 
 
 204° 
 
 26° 
 
 319° 
 
 320° 505,000 
 
 —320,000 
 
 W 390,000 
 
 1513 
 
 12° 
 
 216° 
 
 30° 
 
 321° 
 
 345.5° 440,000 
 
 —105,000 
 
 W 425,000 
 
 1514 
 
 42° 
 
 228° 
 
 35° 
 
 323° 
 
 12.5° 355,000 
 
 + 75,000 
 
 W 345,000 
 
 1515 
 
 72° 
 
 240° 
 
 39° 
 
 326° 
 
 45° 270,000 
 
 +190,000 
 
 W 190,000 
 
 1516 
 
 103° 
 
 253° 
 
 43° 
 
 328° 
 
 90° 190,000 
 
 +185,000 
 
 00 
 
 1517 
 
 133° 
 
 265° 
 
 47° 
 
 330° 
 
 157° 175,000 
 
 + 80,000 
 
 E 165,000 
 
 1518 
 
 164° 
 
 277° 
 
 52° 
 
 332° 
 
 209° 270,000 
 
 —125,000 
 
 E 235,000 
 
 1519 
 
 194° 
 
 290° 
 
 56° 
 
 334° 
 
 241° 390,000 
 
 —340,000 
 
 E 180,000 
 
 1520 
 
 224° 
 
 301° 
 
 60° 
 
 336° 
 
 266° 525,000 
 
 —520,000 
 
 E 35,000 
 
 1521 
 
 255° 
 
 314° 
 
 65° 
 
 339° 
 
 295.5° 640,000 
 
 —600,000 
 
 W 215,000 
 
 1522 
 
 285° 
 
 326° 
 
 69° 
 
 341° 
 
 311.5° 745.000 
 
 —560,000 
 
 W 490,000 
 
 1523 
 
 315° 
 
 338° 
 
 73° 
 
 343° 
 
 331.5° 815,000 
 
 —390,000 
 
 W 710,000 
 
 1524 
 
 346° 
 
 350° 
 
 77° 
 
 345° 
 
 352.5° 865,000 
 
 —115,000 
 
 W 850,000 
 
 1525 
 
 16° 
 
 3° 
 
 82° 
 
 347° 
 
 12.5° 865,000 
 
 +180,000 
 
 W 845,000 
 
 1526 
 
 46° 
 
 15° 
 
 86° 
 
 350° 
 
 32° 845,000 
 
 +450,000 
 
 W 715,000 
 
 1527 
 
 77° 
 
 27° 
 
 90° 
 
 352° 
 
 53.5° 780,000 
 
 +665,000 
 
 W 465,000 
 
 1528 
 
 107° 
 
 40° 
 
 95° 
 
 354° 
 
 74° 695,000 
 
 +625,000 
 
 W 190,000 
 
 1529 
 
 137° 
 
 52° 
 
 99° 
 
 356° 
 
 95° 585,000 
 
 +580,000 
 
 E 60,000 
 
 1530 
 
 168° 
 
 64° 
 
 103° 
 
 .358° 
 
 119° 450,000 
 
 +395,000 
 
 E 215,000 
 
 1531 
 
 198° 
 
 76° 
 
 107° 
 
 0° 
 
 145° 315.000 
 
 + 180,000 
 
 E 255,000 
 
 1532 
 
 228° 
 
 88° 
 
 112° 
 
 2° 
 
 181° 185,000 
 
 000 
 
 E 190,000 
 
 1533 
 
 259° 
 
 101° 
 
 116° 
 
 4° 
 
 264° 135,000 
 
 —130,000 
 
 E 35,000 
 
 1534 
 
 289° 
 
 113° 
 
 120° 
 
 7° 
 
 320° 190,000 
 
 —120,000 
 
 W 150,000 
 
 1535 
 
 319° 
 
 125° 
 
 125° 
 
 9° 
 
 358° 300,000 
 
 — 10,000 
 
 W 300,000 
 
 1536 
 
 350° 
 
 137° 
 
 129° 
 
 11° 
 
 26° 400,000 
 
 + 170,000 
 
 W 355,000 
 
 1537 
 
 20° 
 
 149° 
 
 133° 
 
 13° 
 
 51.5° 480,000 
 
 +370,000 
 
 W 300,000 
 
 1538 
 
 51° 
 
 162° 
 
 137° 
 
 15° 
 
 76.5° 535,000 
 
 +520,000 
 
 W 130,000 
 
 1539 
 
 81° 
 
 174° 
 
 142° 
 
 17° 
 
 100.5° 585,000 
 
 +570,000 
 
 E 105,000 
 
 1540 
 
 111° 
 
 186° 
 
 146° 
 
 20° 
 
 124.5° 610,000 
 
 +500,000 
 
 E 345,000 
 
 1541 
 
 142° 
 
 198° 
 
 150° 
 
 22° 
 
 150° 620.000 
 
 +310,000 
 
 E 540,000
 
 43 
 
 
 
 
 
 Table 
 
 II (Continutd). 
 
 
 
 Position of planets in 
 gitude on January Is 
 
 lieliocentric lon- 
 5t of eacli year 
 
 Direction and dis- 
 tance from sun to 
 center of gravity of 
 system 
 
 Sun's position relative to its 
 
 apex and to center of 
 
 gravity 
 
 Year 
 
 J up. 
 
 Sat. 
 
 Ura. 
 
 Nep. 
 
 Direction 
 in heliocen- Distance 
 trie long. in miles 
 
 On the 
 course, 
 miles 
 
 Off the 
 course, 
 miles 
 
 1542 
 
 172° 
 
 211° 
 
 155° 
 
 24° 
 
 178° 615,000 
 
 4- 20,000 
 
 E 615,000 
 
 1543 
 
 202° 
 
 223° 
 
 159° 
 
 26° 
 
 202° 615,000 
 
 —240,000 
 
 E 565,000 
 
 1544 
 
 233° 
 
 235° 
 
 163° 
 
 28° 
 
 231.5° 610,000 
 
 —480,000 
 
 E 375,000 
 
 1545 
 
 263° 
 
 247° 
 
 167° 
 
 31° 
 
 261° 610,000 
 
 —600,000 
 
 E 110,000 
 
 1546 
 
 293° 
 
 259° 
 
 172° 
 
 33° 
 
 285.5° 605,000 
 
 —585,000 
 
 W 160,000 
 
 1547 
 
 324° 
 
 272° 
 
 176° 
 
 35° 
 
 313.5° 605,000 
 
 —440,000 
 
 W 420,000 
 
 1548 
 
 354° 
 
 284° 
 
 180° 
 
 37° 
 
 338.5° 595,000 
 
 —215,000 
 
 W 550,000 
 
 1549 
 
 24° 
 
 296° 
 
 185° 
 
 39° 
 
 4° 560,000 
 
 + 35,000 
 
 W 560,000 
 
 1550 
 
 55° 
 
 308° 
 
 189° 
 
 41° 
 
 30° 515,000 
 
 +225,000 
 
 W 440,000 
 
 1551 
 
 85° 
 
 321° 
 
 193° 
 
 44° 
 
 56° 460,000 
 
 +380,000 
 
 W 260,000 
 
 1552 
 
 115° 
 
 333° 
 
 197° 
 
 46° 
 
 83° 380,000 
 
 +375,000 
 
 W 50,000 
 
 1553 
 
 146° 
 
 345° 
 
 202° 
 
 48° 
 
 114° 290,000 
 
 +265,000 
 
 E 120,000 
 
 1554 
 
 176° 
 
 357° 
 
 206° 
 
 50° 
 
 154° 215,000 
 
 + 95,000 
 
 E 190,000 
 
 1555 
 
 206° 
 
 9° 
 
 210° 
 
 53° 
 
 214° 175,000 
 
 — 95,000 
 
 E 140,000 
 
 1556 
 
 237° 
 
 22° 
 
 215° 
 
 55° 
 
 270° 220,000 
 
 —220,000 
 
 000 
 
 1557 
 
 267° 
 
 34° 
 
 219° 
 
 57° 
 
 310° 345,000 
 
 —270,000 
 
 W 215,000 
 
 1558 
 
 298° 
 
 46° 
 
 223° 
 
 59° 
 
 337.5° 435,000 
 
 —165,000 
 
 W 400,000 
 
 1559 
 
 328° 
 
 58° 
 
 227° 
 
 61° 
 
 3.5° 540,000 
 
 + 30,000 
 
 W 550,000 
 
 1560 
 
 358° 
 
 70° 
 
 232° 
 
 63° 
 
 26° 625,000 
 
 +275,000 
 
 W 560,000 
 
 1561 
 
 29° 
 
 83° 
 
 236° 
 
 66° 
 
 50° 690,000 
 
 +530,000 
 
 W 440,000 
 
 1562 
 
 59° 
 
 95° 
 
 240° 
 
 68° 
 
 72° 740,000 
 
 +640,000 
 
 W 230,000 
 
 1563 
 
 89° 
 
 107° 
 
 245° 
 
 70° 
 
 94° 765.000 
 
 +765,000 
 
 E 50,000 
 
 1564 
 
 120° 
 
 119° 
 
 249° 
 
 72° 
 
 116.5° 760,000 
 
 +680,000 
 
 E 340,000 
 
 1565 
 
 150° 
 
 131° 
 
 253° 
 
 74° 
 
 139° 730,000 
 
 +480,000 
 
 E 550,000 
 
 1566 
 
 180° 
 
 144° 
 
 257° 
 
 77° 
 
 163° 685,000 
 
 +205,000 
 
 E 655,000 
 
 1567 
 
 211° 
 
 156° 
 
 262° 
 
 79° 
 
 187° 620,000 
 
 — 75,000 
 
 E 610,000 
 
 1568 
 
 241° 
 
 168° 
 
 266° 
 
 81° 
 
 213.5° 540,000 
 
 —290,000 
 
 E 450,000 
 
 1569 
 
 271° 
 
 180° 
 
 270° 
 
 83° 
 
 241° 460,000 
 
 ■ 
 
 —405,000 
 
 E 220,000 
 
 1570 
 
 302° 
 
 192° 
 
 275° 
 
 85° 
 
 271° 390,000 
 
 —390,000 
 
 W 10,000 
 
 1571 
 
 332° 
 
 205° 
 
 279° 
 
 87° 
 
 307.5° 330,000 
 
 —220,000 
 
 W 200,000 
 
 1572 
 
 2° 
 
 217° 
 
 283° 
 
 90° 
 
 345° 290,000 
 
 — 75,000 
 
 W 275,000 
 
 1573 
 
 33° 
 
 229° 
 
 287° 
 
 92° 
 
 20° 290,000 
 
 + 95,000 
 
 W 270.000 
 
 1574 
 
 63° 
 
 241° 
 
 292° 
 
 94° 
 
 43° 165,000 
 
 +110,000 
 
 W 120,000 
 
 1575 
 
 93° 
 
 254° 
 
 296° 
 
 96° 
 
 104° 295,000 
 
 +285,000 
 
 E 70,000 
 
 1576 
 
 124° 
 
 266° 
 
 300° 
 
 98° 
 
 143° 325,000 
 
 +190,000 
 
 E 265,000 
 
 1577 
 
 154° 
 
 278° 
 
 305° 
 
 101° 
 
 177° 370,000 
 
 + 20,000 
 
 E 370,000 
 
 1578 
 
 184° 
 
 291° 
 
 309° 
 
 103° 
 
 208.5° 400,000 
 
 — 30,000 
 
 E 355,000
 
 44 
 
 
 
 
 
 Table 
 
 II (Con 
 
 tinned). 
 
 
 
 Position of planets in 
 gitude on January Is 
 
 bieliocentric lon- 
 t of each year 
 
 Direction and dis- 
 tance from sun to 
 center of gravity of 
 system 
 
 Sun's position relative to its 
 
 apex and to center of 
 
 gravity 
 
 Year 
 
 Jup. 
 
 Sat. 
 
 Ura. 
 
 Nep. 
 
 Direction 
 in heliocen- Distance 
 trie long. in miles 
 
 On the 
 course, 
 miles 
 
 Off the 
 
 course, 
 
 miles 
 
 1579 
 
 215° 
 
 302° 
 
 313° 
 
 105° 
 
 241° 
 
 420,000 
 
 —370,000 
 
 E 200,000 
 
 1580 
 
 245° 
 
 315° 
 
 317° 
 
 107° 
 
 270° 
 
 520,000 
 
 —520,000 
 
 000 
 
 1581 
 
 275° 
 
 327° 
 
 322° 
 
 109° 
 
 297° 
 
 570,000 
 
 —515,000 
 
 W 260,000 
 
 1582 
 
 306° 
 
 339° 
 
 326° 
 
 111° 
 
 323° 
 
 645.000 
 
 —390.000 
 
 W 510,000 
 
 1583 
 
 336° 
 
 351° 
 
 330° 
 
 114° 
 
 347.5° 
 
 690,000 
 
 —150,000 
 
 W 675,000 
 
 1584 
 
 6° 
 
 4° 
 
 335° 
 
 116° 
 
 12.5° 
 
 735,000 
 
 +160,000 
 
 W 715,000 
 
 1585 
 
 37° 
 
 16° 
 
 339° 
 
 118° 
 
 36° 
 
 750,000 
 
 +435,000 
 
 W 610,000 
 
 1586 
 
 67° 
 
 28° 
 
 343° 
 
 120° 
 
 57° 
 
 755,000 
 
 +630,000 
 
 W 410,000 
 
 1587 
 
 97° 
 
 41° 
 
 347° 
 
 122° 
 
 81° 
 
 720,000 
 
 +710,000 
 
 W 115,000 
 
 1588 
 
 128° 
 
 53° 
 
 352° 
 
 125° 
 
 101° 
 
 680,000 
 
 +670,000 
 
 E 130.000 
 
 1589 
 
 158° 
 
 65° 
 
 356° 
 
 127° 
 
 122.5° 
 
 605,000 
 
 +505.000 
 
 E 330,000 
 
 1590 
 
 188° 
 
 77° 
 
 0° 
 
 129° 
 
 144° 
 
 500,000 
 
 +290,000 
 
 E 410,000 
 
 1591 
 
 219° 
 
 89° 
 
 5° 
 
 131° 
 
 167.5° 
 
 375,000 
 
 + 80,000 
 
 E 370,000 
 
 1592 
 
 249° 
 
 102° 
 
 9° 
 
 133° 
 
 197° 
 
 250,000 
 
 — 70,000 
 
 E 235,000 
 
 1593 
 
 279° 
 
 114° 
 
 13° 
 
 136° 
 
 239.5° 
 
 120,000 
 
 —105,000 
 
 E 55,000 
 
 1594 
 
 310° 
 
 126° 
 
 18° 
 
 138° 
 
 342° 
 
 120,000 
 
 — 40,000 
 
 W 115,000 
 
 1595 
 
 340° 
 
 138° 
 
 22° 
 
 140° 
 
 31° 
 
 245,000 
 
 +125,000 
 
 W 210,000 
 
 1596 
 
 11° 
 
 150° 
 
 26° 
 
 142° 
 
 60° 
 
 390,000 
 
 +325,000 
 
 W 195,000 
 
 1597 
 
 41° 
 
 163° 
 
 30° 
 
 144° 
 
 82° 
 
 495,000 
 
 +490,000 
 
 W 70,000 
 
 1598 
 
 72° 
 
 175° 
 
 35° 
 
 146° 
 
 105° 
 
 610,000 
 
 +585,000 
 
 E 160,000 
 
 1599 
 
 102° 
 
 187° 
 
 39° 
 
 149° 
 
 127° 
 
 675.000 
 
 +640,000 
 
 E 400,000 
 
 1600 
 
 132° 
 
 200° 
 
 43° 
 
 151° 
 
 150° 
 
 720,000 
 
 +370,000 
 
 E 620,000 
 
 1601 
 
 163° 
 
 212° 
 
 47° 
 
 153° 
 
 170° 
 
 740,000 
 
 +125,000 
 
 E 730,000 
 
 1602 
 
 193° 
 
 224° 
 
 52° 
 
 155° 
 
 193° 
 
 745,000 
 
 —170,000 
 
 E 725,000 
 
 1603 
 
 223° 
 
 236° 
 
 56° 
 
 157° 
 
 215° 
 
 695,000 
 
 400,000 
 
 E 565,000 
 
 1604 
 
 254° 
 
 248° 
 
 60° 
 
 160° 
 
 239° 
 
 620,000 
 
 —535,000 
 
 E 315,000 
 
 1605 
 
 284° 
 
 260° 
 
 65° 
 
 162° 
 
 266° 
 
 565,000 
 
 —565,000 
 
 E 45,000 
 
 1606 
 
 314° 
 
 273° 
 
 69° 
 
 164° 
 
 294° 
 
 500,000 
 
 455.000 
 
 W 200,000 
 
 1607 
 
 345° 
 
 285° 
 
 73° 
 
 166° 
 
 327.5° 
 
 465,000 
 
 —250,000 
 
 W 395,000 
 
 1608 
 
 15° 
 
 297° 
 
 77° 
 
 168° 
 
 360° 
 
 445,000 
 
 000.000 
 
 W 445.000 
 
 1609 
 
 45° 
 
 309° 
 
 82° 
 
 171° 
 
 33.5° 
 
 425,000 
 
 +235,000 
 
 W 350,000 
 
 1610 
 
 76° 
 
 322° 
 
 86° 
 
 173° 
 
 65° 
 
 430,000 
 
 +390,000 
 
 W 180,000 
 
 1611 
 
 106° 
 
 334° 
 
 90° 
 
 175° 
 
 96° 
 
 425,000 
 
 +420,000 
 
 E 45,000 
 
 1612 
 
 136° 
 
 346° 
 
 95° 
 
 177° 
 
 124° 
 
 420,000 
 
 +350,000 
 
 E 235,000 
 
 1613 
 
 167° 
 
 358° 
 
 99° 
 
 179° 
 
 153° 
 
 395,000 
 
 +175,000 
 
 E 350,000 
 
 1614 
 
 197° 
 
 10° 
 
 103° 
 
 181° 
 
 182° 
 
 355,000 
 
 — 10,000 
 
 E 350.000 
 
 1615 
 
 227° 
 
 23° 
 
 107° 
 
 184° 
 
 214° 
 
 305,000 
 
 —170.000 
 
 E 250.000
 
 45 
 
 Table II (Continued). 
 
 Position of planets in 
 
 heliocentric lon- 
 
 Direction and dis- 
 tance from sun to 
 
 Sun's position 
 
 relative to its 
 
 gitude on January 1st of eacli year 
 
 center of gravity of 
 system 
 
 apex and to center of 
 gravity 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Direction 
 
 On the 
 
 Off the 
 
 Year 
 
 Jup. 
 
 Sat. 
 
 Ura. 
 
 Nep. 
 
 in iieliocen- Distance 
 trie long. in miles 
 
 course, 
 miles 
 
 course, 
 miles 
 
 1616 
 
 258° 
 
 35° 
 
 112° 
 
 186° 
 
 257° 230,000 
 
 —225,000 
 
 E 50,000 
 
 1617 
 
 288° 
 
 47° 
 
 116° 
 
 188° 
 
 287° 245,000 
 
 —200,000 
 
 W 140,000 
 
 1618 
 
 318° 
 
 59° 
 
 120° 
 
 190° 
 
 351° 395,000 
 
 — 45,000 
 
 W 290,000 
 
 1619 
 
 349° 
 
 72° 
 
 125° 
 
 192° 
 
 29.5° 380,000 
 
 4-185,000 
 
 W 340,000 
 
 1620 
 
 19° 
 
 84° 
 
 129° 
 
 195° 
 
 57° 505,000 
 
 +425,000 
 
 W 270,000 
 
 1621 
 
 49° 
 
 96° 
 
 133° 
 
 197° 
 
 82.5° 625,000 
 
 +620,000 
 
 W 80,000 
 
 1622 
 
 80° 
 
 108° 
 
 137° 
 
 199° 
 
 104.5° 690,000 
 
 +670,000 
 
 E 170,000 
 
 1623 
 
 110° 
 
 120° 
 
 142° 
 
 201° 
 
 127° 815,000 
 
 +650,000 
 
 E 485,000 
 
 1624 
 
 140° 
 
 133° 
 
 146° 
 
 203° 
 
 147.5° 870,000 
 
 +470,000 
 
 E 730,000 
 
 1625 
 
 171° 
 
 145° 
 
 150° 
 
 205° 
 
 167.5° 890,000 
 
 +195,000 
 
 E 865,000 
 
 1626 
 
 201° 
 
 157° 
 
 155° 
 
 208° 
 
 186.5° 870,000 
 
 —100,000 
 
 E 855,000 
 
 1627 
 
 231° 
 
 169° 
 
 159° 
 
 210° 
 
 205° 825,000 
 
 —350,000 
 
 E 740,000 
 
 1628 
 
 262° 
 
 181° 
 
 163° 
 
 212° 
 
 224.5° 730,000 
 
 —505,000 
 
 E 520,000 
 
 1629 
 
 292° 
 
 194° 
 
 167° 
 
 214° 
 
 243.5° 620,000 
 
 —550,000 
 
 E 280,000 
 
 1630 
 
 322° 
 
 206° 
 
 172° 
 
 216° 
 
 262° 480,000 
 
 —475,000 
 
 E 30,000 
 
 1631 
 
 353° 
 
 218° 
 
 176° 
 
 219° 
 
 282° 305,000 
 
 —300,000 
 
 W 60,000 
 
 1632 
 
 23° 
 
 230° 
 
 180° 
 
 221° 
 
 303° 130,000 
 
 —110,000 
 
 W 70,000 
 
 1633 
 
 53° 
 
 243° 
 
 185° 
 
 223° 
 
 124.5° 45,000 
 
 + 35,000 
 
 E 25,000 
 
 1634 
 
 84° 
 
 255° 
 
 189° 
 
 225° 
 
 254° 230,000 
 
 +100,000 
 
 E 200,000 
 
 1635 
 
 114° 
 
 267° 
 
 193° 
 
 227° 
 
 174° 275,000 
 
 + 40,000 
 
 E 380,000 
 
 1636 
 
 144° 
 
 279° 
 
 197° 
 
 229° 
 
 193° 515,000 
 
 —115,000 
 
 E 500,000 
 
 1637 
 
 175° 
 
 291° 
 
 202° 
 
 232° 
 
 213° 635,000 
 
 —345,000 
 
 E 530,000 
 
 1638 
 
 205° 
 
 304° 
 
 206° 
 
 234° 
 
 232° 710,000 
 
 —560,000 
 
 E 435,000 
 
 1639 
 
 235° 
 
 315° 
 
 210° 
 
 236° 
 
 252° 750,000 
 
 —710,000 
 
 E 240,000 
 
 1640 
 
 266° 
 
 328° 
 
 215° 
 
 238° 
 
 277° 760,000 
 
 —760,000 
 
 W 30,000 
 
 1641 
 
 296° 
 
 340° 
 
 219° 
 
 240° 
 
 293° 740,000 
 
 —680,000 
 
 W 295,000 
 
 1642 
 
 326° 
 
 353° 
 
 223° 
 
 243° 
 
 316.5° 695,000 
 
 —480,000 
 
 W 500,000 
 
 1643 
 
 357° 
 
 5° 
 
 227° 
 
 245° 
 
 342° 625,000 
 
 —190,000 
 
 W 590,000 
 
 1644 
 
 27° 
 
 17° 
 
 232° 
 
 247° 
 
 8.5° 550,000 
 
 + 80,000 
 
 W 545,000 
 
 1645 
 
 57° 
 
 29° 
 
 236° 
 
 249° 
 
 38.5° 485,000 
 
 +300,000 
 
 W 375,000 
 
 1646 
 
 88° 
 
 42° 
 
 240° 
 
 251° 
 
 74° 430,000 
 
 +415,000 
 
 W 110,000 
 
 1647 
 
 118° 
 
 54° 
 
 245° 
 
 253° 
 
 110° 425,000 
 
 +395,000 
 
 E 145,000 
 
 1648 
 
 148° 
 
 66° 
 
 249° 
 
 256° 
 
 144° 435,000 
 
 +250,000 
 
 E 355,000 
 
 1649 
 
 179° 
 
 78° 
 
 253° 
 
 258° 
 
 176° 460,000 
 
 + 25,000 
 
 E 465,000 
 
 1650 
 
 209° 
 
 90° 
 
 257° 
 
 260° 
 
 204° 485,000 
 
 —195,000 
 
 E 445,000 
 
 1651 
 
 239° 
 
 103° 
 
 262° 
 
 262° 
 
 230° 500,000 
 
 —375,000 
 
 E 325,000 
 
 1652 
 
 270° 
 
 115° 
 
 266° 
 
 264° 
 
 255° 480,000 
 
 —460,000 
 
 E 130,000
 
 46 
 
 
 
 
 
 Table 
 
 II (Continued). 
 
 
 
 Position of planets in 
 gitude on January Is 
 
 leliocentric lon- 
 t of each year 
 
 Direction and dis- 
 tance from sun to 
 center of gravity of 
 system 
 
 Sun's position 
 
 apex and t 
 
 gra\ 
 
 relative to its 
 o center of 
 •ity 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Direction 
 
 On the 
 
 Off the 
 
 Year 
 
 J up. 
 
 Sat. 
 
 Ura. 
 
 Nep. 
 
 in heliocen- Distance 
 trie long. in miles 
 
 course, 
 miles 
 
 course, 
 miles 
 
 1G53 
 
 300° 
 
 127° 
 
 270° 
 
 267° 
 
 280° 435,000 
 
 —430,000 
 
 W 70,000 
 
 1654 
 
 330° 
 
 139° 
 
 275° 
 
 269° 
 
 304° 365,000 
 
 —300,000 
 
 W 210,000 
 
 1655 
 
 1° 
 
 151° 
 
 279° 
 
 271° 
 
 340° 275,000 
 
 —100,000 
 
 W 250,000 
 
 1656 
 
 sr 
 
 164° 
 
 283° 
 
 273° 
 
 24.5° 195,000 
 
 + 80,000 
 
 W 180,000 
 
 1657 
 
 61° 
 
 176° 
 
 287° 
 
 275° 
 
 86° 195,000 
 
 +200,000 
 
 W 10,000 
 
 1658 
 
 92° 
 
 188° 
 
 292° 
 
 277° 
 
 137.5° 305,000 
 
 +205,000 
 
 E 220,000 
 
 1659 
 
 122° 
 
 200° 
 
 296° 
 
 280° 
 
 168° 440,000 
 
 + 90,000 
 
 E 425,000 
 
 1660 
 
 152° 
 
 213° 
 
 300° 
 
 282° 
 
 193° 570,000 
 
 —130,000 
 
 E 550,000 
 
 1661 
 
 183° 
 
 225° 
 
 305° 
 
 284° 
 
 216.5° 695,000 
 
 415,000 
 
 E 550,000 
 
 1662 
 
 213° 
 
 237° 
 
 309° 
 
 286° 
 
 237° 795,000 
 
 —665,000 
 
 E 430,000 
 
 1663 
 
 343° 
 
 249° 
 
 313° 
 
 288° 
 
 257° 865,000 
 
 —840,000 
 
 E 200,000 
 
 1664 
 
 274° 
 
 261° 
 
 317° 
 
 291° 
 
 276.5° 900,000 
 
 —900,000 
 
 W 100,000 
 
 1665 
 
 304° 
 
 274° 
 
 322° 
 
 293° 
 
 295.5° 905,000 
 
 —820,000 
 
 W 400,000 
 
 1666 
 
 334° 
 
 286° 
 
 326° 
 
 295° 
 
 313.5° 865,000 
 
 —625,000 
 
 W 610,000 
 
 1667 
 
 5° 
 
 298° 
 
 330° 
 
 297° 
 
 334° 795,000 
 
 —390,000 
 
 W 715,000 
 
 1668 
 
 35° 
 
 310° 
 
 335° 
 
 299° 
 
 352° 685,000 
 
 — 95,000 
 
 W 680,000 
 
 1669 
 
 66° 
 
 323° 
 
 339° 
 
 302° 
 
 12° 555,000 
 
 +115,000 
 
 W 540,000 
 
 1670 
 
 96° 
 
 335° 
 
 343° 
 
 304° 
 
 31.5° 400,000 
 
 +210,000 
 
 W 335,000 
 
 1671 
 
 126° 
 
 347° 
 
 347° 
 
 306° 
 
 53° 225,000 
 
 +175,000 
 
 W 135,000 
 
 1672 
 
 157° 
 
 359° 
 
 352° 
 
 308° 
 
 96° 50,000 
 
 + 50,000 
 
 E 5,000 
 
 1673 
 
 187° 
 
 11° 
 
 356° 
 
 310° 
 
 253° 135,000 
 
 —130,000 
 
 E 40,000 
 
 1674 
 
 218° 
 
 24° 
 
 0° 
 
 312° 
 
 287.5° 280,000 
 
 —275,000 
 
 W 35,000 
 
 1675 
 
 248° 
 
 36° 
 
 5° 
 
 314° 
 
 300° 430,000 
 
 —375,000 
 
 W 210,000 
 
 1676 
 
 279° 
 
 48° 
 
 9° 
 
 316° 
 
 319.5° 550,000 
 
 —355,000 
 
 W 420,000 
 
 1677 
 
 309° 
 
 60° 
 
 13° 
 
 319° 
 
 341° 620,000 
 
 —215,000 
 
 W 600,000 
 
 1678 
 
 339° 
 
 73° 
 
 18° 
 
 321° 
 
 1° 690,000 
 
 + 15,000 
 
 W 690,000 
 
 1679 
 
 10° 
 
 85° 
 
 22° 
 
 323° 
 
 12° 725,000 
 
 +270,000 
 
 W 670,000 
 
 1680 
 
 40° 
 
 97° 
 
 26° 
 
 326° 
 
 44° 710,000 
 
 +475,000 
 
 W 490,000 
 
 1681 
 
 70° 
 
 109° 
 
 30° 
 
 328° 
 
 67° 695,000 
 
 +640,000 
 
 W 275,000 
 
 1682 
 
 101° 
 
 121° 
 
 35° 
 
 330° 
 
 92.5° 640,000 
 
 +640,000 
 
 E 30.000 
 
 1683 
 
 131° 
 
 134° 
 
 39° 
 
 332° 
 
 117° 580,000 
 
 +515,000 
 
 E 275,000 
 
 1684 
 
 161° 
 
 146° 
 
 43° 
 
 334° 
 
 148° 530,000 
 
 +280,000 
 
 E 450,000 
 
 1685 
 
 192° 
 
 158° 
 
 47° 
 
 336° 
 
 181° 500,000 
 
 — 5,000 
 
 E 495,000 
 
 1686 
 
 222° 
 
 170° 
 
 52° 
 
 339° 
 
 212° 480,000 
 
 —250,000 
 
 E 410,000 
 
 1687 
 
 252° 
 
 182° 
 
 56° 
 
 341° 
 
 243° 475,000 
 
 425,000 
 
 E 215,000 
 
 1688 
 
 283° 
 
 195° 
 
 60° 
 
 343° 
 
 275° 480,000 
 
 —490,000 
 
 W 30,000 
 
 1689 
 
 313^^ 
 
 207° 
 
 65° 
 
 345° 
 
 302° 480.000 
 
 —410,000 
 
 W 250,000
 
 47 
 
 
 
 
 
 Table 
 
 II (Contmued). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Direction and dis- 
 
 
 
 Position of planets in 
 
 heliocentric lon- 
 
 tance from sun to 
 
 Sun's position 
 
 relative to its 
 
 gitude on January 1st of each year 
 
 center of gravity of 
 system 
 
 apex and to center of 
 gravity 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Direction 
 
 On the 
 
 Off the 
 
 Year 
 
 Jup. 
 
 Sat. 
 
 Ura. 
 
 Nep. 
 
 in heliocen- Distance 
 trie long. in miles 
 
 course, 
 miles 
 
 course, 
 miles 
 
 1690 
 
 343° 
 
 219° 
 
 69° 
 
 347° 
 
 329° 490,000 
 
 —250,000 
 
 W 420,000 
 
 1691 
 
 14° 
 
 231° 
 
 73° 
 
 350° 
 
 356.5° 460,000 
 
 — 30,000 
 
 W 450,000 
 
 1692 
 
 44° 
 
 244° 
 
 77° 
 
 352° 
 
 23° 415,000 
 
 +155,000 
 
 W 385,000 
 
 1693 
 
 74° 
 
 256° 
 
 82° 
 
 354° 
 
 51° 340,000 
 
 +265,000 
 
 W 210,000 
 
 1694 
 
 105° 
 
 268° 
 
 86° 
 
 356° 
 
 85° 265,000 
 
 +260,000 
 
 W 20,000 
 
 1695 
 
 135° 
 
 280° 
 
 90° 
 
 358° 
 
 130° 210,000 
 
 +160,000 
 
 E 135,000 
 
 1696 
 
 165° 
 
 292° 
 
 95° 
 
 0° 
 
 188° 215,000 
 
 — 30,000 
 
 E 215,000 
 
 1697 
 
 196° 
 
 305° 
 
 '99° 
 
 2° 
 
 237° 300,000 
 
 —255,000 
 
 E 165,000 
 
 1698 
 
 226° 
 
 316° 
 
 103° 
 
 4° 
 
 268° 415,000 
 
 -—110,000 
 
 E 10,000 
 
 1699 
 
 256° 
 
 329° 
 
 107° 
 
 7° 
 
 294° 425,000 
 
 —485,000 
 
 W 210,000 
 
 1700 
 
 287° 
 
 341° 
 
 112° 
 
 9° 
 
 319° 645,000 
 
 —425,000 
 
 W 485,000 
 
 1701 
 
 317° 
 
 354° 
 
 116° 
 
 11° 
 
 341° 730,000 
 
 —240,000 
 
 W 690,000 
 
 1702 
 
 347° 
 
 6° 
 
 120° 
 
 13° 
 
 1.5° 795,000 
 
 + 25,000 
 
 W 790,000 
 
 1703 
 
 18° 
 
 18° 
 
 125° 
 
 15° 
 
 23° 830,000 
 
 +315,000 
 
 W 765,000 
 
 1704 
 
 48° 
 
 30° 
 
 129° 
 
 17° 
 
 42.5° 835,000 
 
 +565,000 
 
 W 615,000 
 
 1705 
 
 78° 
 
 43° 
 
 133° 
 
 20° 
 
 65° 830,000 
 
 +750,000 
 
 W 350,000 
 
 1706 
 
 109° 
 
 55° 
 
 137° 
 
 22° 
 
 85° 750,000 
 
 +745,000 
 
 W 70,000 
 
 1707 
 
 139° 
 
 67° 
 
 142° 
 
 24° 
 
 106° 660,000 
 
 +635,000 
 
 E 180,000 
 
 1708 
 
 169° 
 
 79° 
 
 146° 
 
 26° 
 
 126.5° 565,000 
 
 +445,000 
 
 E 340,000 
 
 1709 
 
 200° 
 
 91° 
 
 150° 
 
 28° 
 
 151.5° 435,000 
 
 +205,000 
 
 E 380,000 
 
 1710 
 
 230° 
 
 104° 
 
 155° 
 
 31° 
 
 180° 310,000 
 
 000,000 
 
 E 310,000 
 
 1711 
 
 260° 
 
 116° 
 
 159° 
 
 33° 
 
 219° 195,000 
 
 —120,000 
 
 E 145,000 
 
 1712 
 
 291° 
 
 128° 
 
 163° 
 
 35° 
 
 288° 135,000 
 
 —130,000 
 
 W 45,000 
 
 1713 
 
 321° 
 
 140° 
 
 167° 
 
 37° 
 
 352° 200,000 
 
 — 25,000 
 
 W 195,000 
 
 1714 
 
 351° 
 
 152° 
 
 172° 
 
 39° 
 
 30° 305,000 
 
 + 150,000 
 
 W 260,000 
 
 1715 
 
 22° 
 
 165° 
 
 176° 
 
 41° 
 
 55° 355,000 
 
 +290,000 
 
 W 210,000 
 
 1716 
 
 52° 
 
 177° 
 
 180° 
 
 44° 
 
 84° 480,000 
 
 +470,000 
 
 W 45,000 
 
 1717 
 
 82° 
 
 189° 
 
 185° 
 
 46° 
 
 107° 535,000 
 
 +510,000 
 
 E 195,000 
 
 1718 
 
 113° 
 
 201° 
 
 189° 
 
 48° 
 
 133° 580,000 
 
 +420,000 
 
 E 400,000 
 
 1719 
 
 143° 
 
 214° 
 
 193° 
 
 50° 
 
 158.5° 610,000 
 
 +220,000 
 
 E 565,000 
 
 1720 
 
 174° 
 
 226° 
 
 197° 
 
 53° 
 
 184° 630,000 
 
 — 50,000 
 
 E 625,000 
 
 1721 
 
 204° 
 
 238° 
 
 202° 
 
 55° 
 
 210° 630,000 
 
 —310,000 
 
 E 550,000 
 
 1722 
 
 234° 
 
 250° 
 
 206° 
 
 57° 
 
 235° 635,000 
 
 —525,000 
 
 E 360,000 
 
 1723 
 
 265° 
 
 262° 
 
 210° 
 
 59° 
 
 263° 630,000 
 
 —625,000 
 
 E 80,000 
 
 1724 
 
 295° 
 
 275° 
 
 215° 
 
 61° 
 
 290° 630,000 
 
 —595,000 
 
 W 205,000 
 
 1725 
 
 325° 
 
 287° 
 
 219° 
 
 63° 
 
 315° 625,000 
 
 —440,000 
 
 W 440,000 
 
 1726 
 
 356° 
 
 299° 
 
 223° 
 
 66° 
 
 335° 620,000 
 
 —260,000 
 
 W 565,000
 
 48 
 
 
 
 
 
 Table II (Continued). 
 
 
 
 Position of planets in heliocentric lon- 
 gitude on January 1st of each year 
 
 Direction and dis- 
 tance from sun to 
 center of gravity of 
 system 
 
 Sun's position relative to its 
 
 apex and to center of 
 
 gravity 
 
 Year 
 
 Jup. 
 
 Sat. 
 
 Ura. 
 
 Nep. 
 
 Direction 
 in heliocen- Distance 
 trie long. in miles 
 
 On the 
 course, 
 miles 
 
 Off the 
 
 course, 
 
 miles 
 
 1727 
 
 26^ 
 
 311° 
 
 227° 
 
 6S° 
 
 8° 
 
 575,000 
 
 + 80,000 
 
 W 570.000 
 
 1728 
 
 56° 
 
 324° 
 
 232° 
 
 70° 
 
 33° 
 
 555,000 
 
 +300,000 
 
 W 465,000 
 
 1729 
 
 86" 
 
 336° 
 
 236° 
 
 72° 
 
 58° 
 
 500,000 
 
 +425,000 
 
 W 265,000 
 
 1730 
 
 117° 
 
 348° 
 
 240° 
 
 74° 
 
 86° 
 
 430,000 
 
 +430,000 
 
 W 30,000 
 
 1731 
 
 147° 
 
 0° 
 
 245° 
 
 77° 
 
 113° 
 
 345,000 
 
 +310,000 
 
 E 135,000 
 
 1732 
 
 177° 
 
 12° 
 
 249° 
 
 79° 
 
 148° 
 
 255,000 
 
 + 135,000 
 
 E 215.000 
 
 1733 
 
 208° 
 
 25° 
 
 253° 
 
 81° 
 
 195° 
 
 185,000 
 
 — 50,000 
 
 E 180,000 
 
 1734 
 
 238° 
 
 37° 
 
 257° 
 
 83° 
 
 262° 
 
 185,000 
 
 —185,000 
 
 E 25,000 
 
 1735 
 
 268° 
 
 49° 
 
 262° 
 
 85° 
 
 304° 
 
 260,000 
 
 —210,000 
 
 W 150,000 
 
 1736 
 
 299° 
 
 61° 
 
 266° 
 
 87° 
 
 340° 
 
 365,000 
 
 —130,000 
 
 W 345,000 
 
 1737 
 
 329° 
 
 74° 
 
 270° 
 
 90° 
 
 8° 
 
 465,000 
 
 + 60,000 
 
 W 460,000 
 
 1738 
 
 0° 
 
 86° 
 
 275° 
 
 92° 
 
 33° 
 
 570,000 
 
 +215,000 
 
 W 470.000 
 
 1739 
 
 30° 
 
 98° 
 
 279° 
 
 94° 
 
 56° 
 
 640,000 
 
 +540,000 
 
 W 360,000 
 
 1740 
 
 60° 
 
 110° 
 
 283° 
 
 96° 
 
 79° 
 
 715,000 
 
 +700,000 
 
 W 145,000 
 
 1741 
 
 91° 
 
 122° 
 
 287° 
 
 98° 
 
 101° 
 
 725,000 
 
 +710,000 
 
 E 140.000 
 
 1742 
 
 122° 
 
 135° 
 
 292° 
 
 101° 
 
 123.5° 
 
 760,000 
 
 +630,000 
 
 E 430,000 
 
 1743 
 
 152° 
 
 147° 
 
 296° 
 
 103° 
 
 145° 
 
 730,000 
 
 +420,000 
 
 E 615,000 
 
 1744 
 
 182° 
 
 159° 
 
 300° 
 
 105° 
 
 168° 
 
 705,000 
 
 +140,000 
 
 E 690,000 
 
 1745 
 
 213° 
 
 171° 
 
 305° 
 
 107° 
 
 192° 
 
 650,000 
 
 —140,000 
 
 E 630,000 
 
 1746 
 
 243° 
 
 183° 
 
 309° 
 
 109° 
 
 218° 
 
 575,000 
 
 —350,000 
 
 E 450,000 
 
 1747 
 
 273° 
 
 196° 
 
 313° 
 
 111° 
 
 245° 
 
 500,000 
 
 —455,000 
 
 E 220,000 
 
 1748 
 
 304° 
 
 208° 
 
 317° 
 
 114° 
 
 278° 
 
 420,000 
 
 —420,000 
 
 W 55,000 
 
 1749 
 
 334° 
 
 220° 
 
 322° 
 
 116° 
 
 308° 
 
 365,000 
 
 —285,000 
 
 W 220,000 
 
 1750 
 
 4° 
 
 232° 
 
 326° 
 
 118° 
 
 345° 
 
 315,000 
 
 — 85,000 
 
 W 305,000 
 
 1751 
 
 35° 
 
 245° 
 
 330° 
 
 120° 
 
 25° 
 
 295,000 
 
 +120,000 
 
 W 265,000 
 
 1752 
 
 65° 
 
 257° 
 
 335° 
 
 122° 
 
 65° 
 
 290,000 
 
 +255,000 
 
 W 125,000 
 
 1753 
 
 95° 
 
 269° 
 
 339° 
 
 125° 
 
 109° 
 
 295,000 
 
 +290,000 
 
 E 35,000 
 
 1754 
 
 126° 
 
 281° 
 
 343° 
 
 127° 
 
 138° 
 
 320,000 
 
 +210,000 
 
 E 235,000 
 
 1755 
 
 156° 
 
 293° 
 
 347° 
 
 129° 
 
 170° 
 
 340,000 
 
 + 50,000 
 
 E 335,000 
 
 1756 
 
 186° 
 
 306° 
 
 352° 
 
 131° 
 
 205° 
 
 360,000 
 
 —155,000 
 
 E 325,000 
 
 1757 
 
 217° 
 
 317° 
 
 356° 
 
 133° 
 
 240° 
 
 405,000 
 
 —350,000 
 
 E 205.000 
 
 1758 
 
 247° 
 
 330° 
 
 0° 
 
 136° 
 
 272° 
 
 445,000 
 
 —445,000 
 
 W 15.000 
 
 1759 
 
 277° 
 
 342° 
 
 5° 
 
 138° 
 
 301° 
 
 510,000 
 
 --435,000 
 
 W 260,000 
 
 1760 
 
 308° 
 
 355° 
 
 9° 
 
 140° 
 
 330° 
 
 570,000 
 
 —280,000 
 
 W 500,000 
 
 1761 
 
 338° 
 
 7° 
 
 13° 
 
 142° 
 
 356° 
 
 645,000 
 
 — 35,000 
 
 W 640,000 
 
 1762 
 
 9° 
 
 19° 
 
 17° 
 
 144° 
 
 22° 
 
 705,000 
 
 +260,000 
 
 W 655,000 
 
 1763 
 
 39° 
 
 31° 
 
 22° 
 
 146° 
 
 45° 
 
 750,000 
 
 +525,000 
 
 W 535,000
 
 49 
 
 Table II (Continutd). 
 
 Position of planets in heliocentric lon- 
 gitude on January 1st of each year 
 
 Year Jup. 
 
 Sat. Ura. 
 
 Nep. 
 
 Direction and dis- 
 tance from sun to 
 center of gravity of 
 system 
 
 Direction 
 in iieliocen- Distance 
 trie long. in miles 
 
 Sun's position relative to its 
 
 apex and to center of 
 
 gravity 
 
 On the 
 course, 
 
 miles 
 
 Off the 
 
 course, 
 
 miles 
 
 1764 
 
 69 = 
 
 44° 
 
 26° 
 
 149° 
 
 67° 
 
 770,000 
 
 +715,000 
 
 W 300,000 
 
 1765 
 
 100° 
 
 56° 
 
 30° 
 
 151° 
 
 89° 
 
 765,000 
 
 +765,000 
 
 W 15,000 
 
 1766 
 
 130° 
 
 68° 
 
 35° 
 
 153° 
 
 112° 
 
 725,000 
 
 +675,000 
 
 E 270,000 
 
 1767 
 
 160° 
 
 80° 
 
 39° 
 
 155° 
 
 131° 
 
 660,000 
 
 +505,000 
 
 E 430,000 
 
 1768 
 
 191° 
 
 92° 
 
 43° 
 
 157° 
 
 152° 
 
 600,000 
 
 +280,000 
 
 E 535,000 
 
 1769 
 
 221° 
 
 105° 
 
 47° 
 
 160° 
 
 173° 
 
 500,000 
 
 + 55,000 
 
 E 490,000 
 
 1770 
 
 251° 
 
 117° 
 
 52° 
 
 162° 
 
 197° 
 
 365,000 
 
 —105,000 
 
 E 350,000 
 
 1771 
 
 282° 
 
 129° 
 
 56° 
 
 164° 
 
 223° 
 
 220,000 
 
 —150,000 
 
 160,000 
 
 1772 
 
 312° 
 
 141° 
 
 60° 
 
 166° 
 
 280° 
 
 85,000 
 
 — 80,000 
 
 W 15,000 
 
 1773 
 
 342° 
 
 154° 
 
 65° 
 
 168° 
 
 33° 
 
 135,000 
 
 + 70,000 
 
 W 95,000 
 
 1774 
 
 13° 
 
 166° 
 
 69° 
 
 171° 
 
 71° 
 
 290,000 
 
 +270,000 
 
 W 110,000 
 
 1775 
 
 43° 
 
 178° 
 
 73° 
 
 173° 
 
 94° 
 
 430,000 
 
 +430,000 
 
 E 30,000 
 
 1776 
 
 73° 
 
 190° 
 
 77° 
 
 175° 
 
 114° 
 
 560,000 
 
 +510,000 
 
 E 235.000 
 
 1777 
 
 104° 
 
 202° 
 
 82° 
 
 177° 
 
 136° 
 
 645,000 
 
 +445,000 
 
 E 465,000 
 
 1778 
 
 134° 
 
 215° 
 
 86° 
 
 179° 
 
 159° 
 
 710,000 
 
 +260,000 
 
 E 665,000 
 
 1779 
 
 164° 
 
 227° 
 
 90° 
 
 181° 
 
 178° 
 
 755,000 
 
 + 20,000 
 
 E 755,000 
 
 1780 
 
 195° 
 
 239° 
 
 95° 
 
 184° 
 
 199° 
 
 770,000 
 
 —250,000 
 
 E 725,000 
 
 1781 
 
 225° 
 
 251° 
 
 99° 
 
 186° 
 
 222° 
 
 745,000 
 
 --190,000 
 
 E 560,000 
 
 1782 
 
 255° 
 
 263° 
 
 103° 
 
 188° 
 
 244° 
 
 710,000 
 
 —640,000 
 
 E 310,000 
 
 1783 
 
 286° 
 
 276° 
 
 107° 
 
 190° 
 
 268° 
 
 645,000 
 
 —645,000 
 
 E 20,000 
 
 1784 
 
 316° 
 
 288° 
 
 112° 
 
 192° 
 
 295° 
 
 570,000 
 
 —520,000 
 
 W 240,000 
 
 1785 
 
 346° 
 
 300° 
 
 116° 
 
 195° 
 
 324° 
 
 495,000 
 
 —300,000 
 
 W 400,000 
 
 1786 
 
 17° 
 
 312° 
 
 120° 
 
 197° 
 
 357° 
 
 435,000 
 
 — 20,000 
 
 W 435,000 
 
 1787 
 
 48° 
 
 325° 
 
 124° 
 
 199° 
 
 34° 
 
 400,000 
 
 +220,000 
 
 W 330,000 
 
 1788 
 
 78° 
 
 337° 
 
 129° 
 
 201° 
 
 79° 
 
 390,000 
 
 +365,000 
 
 W 140,000 
 
 1789 
 
 108° 
 
 349° 
 
 133° 
 
 203° 
 
 112° 
 
 400,000 
 
 +390,000 
 
 E 85,000 
 
 1790 
 
 139° 
 
 1° 
 
 137° 
 
 205° 
 
 144° 
 
 410,000 
 
 +300,000 
 
 E 280,000 
 
 1791 
 
 169° 
 
 13° 
 
 142° 
 
 208° 
 
 162° 
 
 425,000 
 
 + 130,000 
 
 E 400,000 
 
 1792 
 
 199° 
 
 25° 
 
 146° 
 
 210° 
 
 179" 
 
 420,000 
 
 + 10,000 
 
 E 420,000 
 
 1793 
 
 230° 
 
 38° 
 
 150° 
 
 212° 
 
 219° 
 
 370,000 
 
 —235,000 
 
 E 290,000 
 
 1794 
 
 260° 
 
 50° 
 
 155° 
 
 214° 
 
 248° 
 
 330.000 
 
 —310,000 
 
 E 120,000 
 
 1795 
 
 290° 
 
 62° 
 
 159° 
 
 216° 
 
 284° 
 
 280,000 
 
 —270,000 
 
 W 65,000 
 
 1796 
 
 321° 
 
 73° 
 
 163° 
 
 219° 
 
 334° 
 
 270,000 
 
 —120,000 
 
 W 245,000 
 
 1797 
 
 351° 
 
 86° 
 
 167° 
 
 221° 
 
 18° 
 
 300,000 
 
 + 90,000 
 
 W 290.000 
 
 1798 
 
 21° 
 
 99° 
 
 172° 
 
 223° 
 
 58° 
 
 385,000 
 
 +325,000 
 
 W 200,000 
 
 1799 
 
 51° 
 
 111° 
 
 176° 
 
 225° 
 
 88° 
 
 500,000 
 
 +500,000 
 
 W 15,000 
 
 1800 
 
 81° 
 
 123° 
 
 180° 
 
 227° 
 
 113° 
 
 615,000 
 
 +560,000 
 
 E 245,000
 
 50 
 
 
 
 
 
 Table 
 
 II (Con 
 
 tinucd). 
 
 
 
 Position of planets in heliocentric lon- 
 gitude on January 1st of each year 
 
 Direction and dis- 
 tance from sun to 
 center of gravit\- of 
 system 
 
 Sun's position relative to its 
 
 apex and to center of 
 
 gravity 
 
 Year 
 
 Jup. 
 
 Sat. 
 
 Ura. 
 
 Nep. 
 
 Direction 
 in lieliocen- Distance 
 trie long, in miles 
 
 On the 
 course, 
 miles 
 
 Off the 
 course, 
 miles 
 
 1801 
 
 111^ 
 
 135° 
 
 185° 
 
 229° 
 
 136° 
 
 710,000 
 
 -f490,000 
 
 E 515,000 
 
 1802 
 
 142° 
 
 147° 
 
 189° 
 
 232° 
 
 158° 
 
 795,000 
 
 +300,000 
 
 E 735,000 
 
 1803 
 
 172° 
 
 160° 
 
 193° 
 
 234° 
 
 179° 
 
 850,000 
 
 + 20,000 
 
 E 850,000 
 
 1804 
 
 202° 
 
 172° 
 
 197° 
 
 236° 
 
 199° 
 
 880,000 
 
 —280,000 
 
 E 835,000 
 
 1805 
 
 234° 
 
 184° 
 
 202° 
 
 238° 
 
 218° 
 
 865,000 
 
 —540,000 
 
 E 680,000 
 
 1806 
 
 264° 
 
 196° 
 
 206° 
 
 240° 
 
 237° 
 
 820,000 
 
 —690,000 
 
 E 445,000 
 
 1807 
 
 294° 
 
 209° 
 
 210° 
 
 243° 
 
 257° 
 
 725,000 
 
 —705,000 
 
 E 180,000 
 
 1808 
 
 325° 
 
 221° 
 
 215° 
 
 245° 
 
 276° 
 
 605,000 
 
 —600,000 
 
 W 55,000 
 
 1809 
 
 355° 
 
 233° 
 
 219° 
 
 247° 
 
 293.5° 
 
 480,000 
 
 —440,000 
 
 W 195,000 
 
 1810 
 
 25° 
 
 245° 
 
 223° 
 
 249° 
 
 311° 
 
 310,000 
 
 —230,000 
 
 W 205,000 
 
 1811 
 
 56° 
 
 257° 
 
 227° 
 
 251° 
 
 329° 
 
 115,000 
 
 — 60,000 
 
 W 105,000 
 
 1812 
 
 86° 
 
 270° 
 
 232° 
 
 253° 
 
 171° 
 
 60,000 
 
 + 10,000 
 
 E 60,000 
 
 1813 
 
 116° 
 
 282° 
 
 236° 
 
 256° 
 
 190° 
 
 230,000 
 
 — 40,000 
 
 E 225,000 
 
 1814 
 
 147° 
 
 294° 
 
 240° 
 
 258° 
 
 209° 
 
 395,000 
 
 —190,000 
 
 E 345,000 
 
 1815 
 
 177° 
 
 306° 
 
 245° 
 
 260° 
 
 228° 
 
 550,000 
 
 ^00,000 
 
 E 375,000 
 
 1816 
 
 207° 
 
 319° 
 
 249° 
 
 262° 
 
 245° 
 
 650,000 
 
 —585,000 
 
 E 275,000 
 
 1817 
 
 238° 
 
 331° 
 
 253° 
 
 264° 
 
 265° 
 
 740,000 
 
 —740,000 
 
 E 60,000 
 
 1818 
 
 268° 
 
 343° 
 
 257° 
 
 267° 
 
 285° 
 
 780,000 
 
 —760,000 
 
 W 205,000 
 
 1819 
 
 298° 
 
 355° 
 
 262° 
 
 269° 
 
 305° 
 
 800,000 
 
 —660,000 
 
 W 455,000 
 
 1820 
 
 329° 
 
 7° 
 
 266° 
 
 271° 
 
 326° 
 
 770,000 
 
 —435,000 
 
 W 640,000 
 
 1821 
 
 359° 
 
 20° 
 
 270° 
 
 273° 
 
 348° 
 
 730,000 
 
 —145,000 
 
 W 715,000 
 
 1822 
 
 30° 
 
 32° 
 
 274° 
 
 275° 
 
 12° 
 
 650,000 
 
 +135,000 
 
 W,635,000 
 
 1823 
 
 60° 
 
 44° 
 
 279° 
 
 277° 
 
 38° 
 
 570,000 
 
 +355,000 
 
 W 440,000 
 
 1824 
 
 90° 
 
 56° 
 
 283° 
 
 280° 
 
 67° 
 
 490,000 
 
 +450,000 
 
 W 190,000 
 
 1825 
 
 121° 
 
 69° 
 
 287° 
 
 282° 
 
 102° 
 
 420,000 
 
 +405,000 
 
 E 90.000 
 
 1826 
 
 151° 
 
 81° 
 
 292° 
 
 284° 
 
 139° 
 
 390,000 
 
 +255,000 
 
 E 290,000 
 
 1827 
 
 181° 
 
 93° 
 
 296° 
 
 286° 
 
 176° 
 
 400,000 
 
 + 30,000 
 
 E 400,000 
 
 1828 
 
 212° 
 
 105° 
 
 300° 
 
 288° 
 
 208° 
 
 425,000 
 
 —205,000 
 
 E 370,000 
 
 1829 
 
 242° 
 
 117° 
 
 304° 
 
 291° 
 
 240° 
 
 450,000 
 
 —385,000 
 
 E 225,000 
 
 1830 
 
 272° 
 
 130° 
 
 309° 
 
 293° 
 
 264° 
 
 470,000 
 
 470,000 
 
 E 45,000 
 
 1831 
 
 303° 
 
 142° 
 
 313° 
 
 295° 
 
 291° 
 
 460,000 
 
 —425,000 
 
 W 160,000 
 
 1832 
 
 333° 
 
 154° 
 
 317° 
 
 297° 
 
 318° 
 
 420,000 
 
 —280,000 
 
 W 320,000 
 
 1833 
 
 3° 
 
 166° 
 
 322° 
 
 299° 
 
 346° 
 
 360,000 
 
 — 90,000 
 
 W 350,000 
 
 1834 
 
 34° 
 
 178° 
 
 326° 
 
 302° 
 
 18° 
 
 290,000 
 
 + 90,000 
 
 W 275,000 
 
 1835 
 
 64° 
 
 191° 
 
 330° 
 
 304° 
 
 65° 
 
 225,000 
 
 +200,000 
 
 W 100,000 
 
 1836 
 
 94° 
 
 203° 
 
 334° 
 
 306° 
 
 116° 
 
 230,000 
 
 +200,000 
 
 E 100,000 
 
 1H37 
 
 125° 
 
 215° 
 
 339° 
 
 308° 
 
 167° 
 
 290,000 
 
 + 60,000 
 
 E 285,000
 
 51 
 
 
 
 
 
 Table 
 
 II (Coi 
 
 tinned). 
 
 
 
 Position of planets in 
 gitude on January Is 
 
 heliocentric lon- 
 ,t of each year 
 
 Direction and dis- 
 tance from sun to 
 center of gravity of 
 system 
 
 Sun's position relative to its 
 
 apex and to center of 
 
 gravity 
 
 Year 
 
 Jup. 
 
 Sat. 
 
 Ura. 
 
 Nep. 
 
 Direction 
 in heliocen- Distance 
 trie long, in miles 
 
 On the 
 course, 
 miles 
 
 Off the 
 course, 
 miles 
 
 1838 
 
 155° 
 
 227° 
 
 343° 
 
 310° 
 
 197° 
 
 440,000 
 
 —120,000 
 
 E 420,000 
 
 1839 
 
 185° 
 
 240° 
 
 347° 
 
 312° 
 
 224° 
 
 560,000 
 
 —390,000 
 
 E 400,000 
 
 1840 
 
 216° 
 
 252° 
 
 352° 
 
 315° 
 
 247° 
 
 680,000 
 
 620,000 
 
 E 270,000 
 
 1841 
 
 246° 
 
 264° 
 
 356° 
 
 317° 
 
 268° 
 
 770,000 
 
 —775,000 
 
 E 30,000 
 
 1842 
 
 272° 
 
 276° 
 
 354° 
 
 319° 
 
 288° 
 
 845,000 
 
 —805,000 
 
 W 270,000 
 
 1843 
 
 303° 
 
 287° 
 
 357° 
 
 321° 
 
 307.5° 
 
 880,000 
 
 —705,000 
 
 W 535,000 
 
 1844 
 
 335° 
 
 298° 
 
 1° 
 
 323° 
 
 327.5° 
 
 880,000 
 
 —465,000 
 
 W 750,000 
 
 1845 
 
 8° 
 
 309° 
 
 5° 
 
 326° 
 
 347.5° 
 
 840,000 
 
 —175,000 
 
 W 825,000 
 
 1846 
 
 42° 
 
 320° 
 
 9° 
 
 328° 
 
 7° 
 
 775,000 
 
 + 95,000 
 
 W 770,000 
 
 1847 
 
 74° 
 
 332° 
 
 13° 
 
 330° 
 
 25° 
 
 680,000 
 
 +285,000 
 
 W 610,000 
 
 1848 
 
 105° 
 
 343° 
 
 17° 
 
 332° 
 
 45° 
 
 525,000 
 
 +375,000 
 
 W 370,000 
 
 1849 
 
 135° 
 
 355° 
 
 21° 
 
 334° 
 
 65° 
 
 390,000 
 
 +350,000 
 
 W 170,000 
 
 1850 
 
 163° 
 
 8° 
 
 25° 
 
 336° 
 
 86° 
 
 220,000 
 
 +215,000 
 
 W 15,000 
 
 1851 
 
 191° 
 
 20° 
 
 29° 
 
 339° 
 
 134° 
 
 50,000 
 
 + 35,000 
 
 E 40,000 
 
 1852 
 
 218° 
 
 33° 
 
 33° 
 
 341° 
 
 285° 
 
 120,000 
 
 —120,000 
 
 W 30,000 
 
 1853 
 
 247° 
 
 46° 
 
 37° 
 
 343° 
 
 312° 
 
 285,000 
 
 —215,000 
 
 W 190,000 
 
 1854 
 
 277° 
 
 62° 
 
 41° 
 
 345° 
 
 334° 
 
 440,000 
 
 —200,000 
 
 W 390,000 
 
 1855 
 
 308° 
 
 74° 
 
 45° 
 
 347° 
 
 353° 
 
 565,000 
 
 — 65,000 
 
 W 560,000 
 
 1856 
 
 340° 
 
 88° 
 
 50° 
 
 350° 
 
 13° 
 
 640,000 
 
 + 145,000 
 
 W 625,000 
 
 1857 
 
 13° 
 
 101° 
 
 54° 
 
 352° 
 
 34° 
 
 710,000 
 
 +400,000 
 
 W 595,000 
 
 1858 
 
 46° 
 
 114° 
 
 58° 
 
 354° 
 
 55° 
 
 735,000 
 
 +600,000 
 
 W 430,000 
 
 1859 
 
 78° 
 
 128° 
 
 62° 
 
 356° 
 
 76° 
 
 730,000 
 
 +710,000 
 
 W 170,000 
 
 1860 
 
 109° 
 
 142° 
 
 66° 
 
 357° 
 
 100° 
 
 710,000 
 
 +700,000 
 
 E 120,000 
 
 1861 
 
 139° 
 
 154° 
 
 71° 
 
 359° 
 
 124° 
 
 660,000 
 
 +545,000 
 
 E 370,000 
 
 1862 
 
 167° 
 
 167° 
 
 75° 
 
 1° 
 
 150° 
 
 610,000 
 
 +305.000 
 
 E 530,000 
 
 1863 
 
 194° 
 
 179° 
 
 79° 
 
 4° 
 
 179° 
 
 555,000 
 
 + 10,000 
 
 E 555,000 
 
 1864 
 
 222° 
 
 192° 
 
 83° 
 
 5° 
 
 208° 
 
 510,000 
 
 —250,000 
 
 E 450,000 
 
 1865 
 
 251° 
 
 204° 
 
 88° 
 
 7° 
 
 238.5° 
 
 480,000 
 
 —410,000 
 
 E 245,000 
 
 1866 
 
 280° 
 
 215° 
 
 92° 
 
 10° 
 
 270° 
 
 460,000 
 
 —460,000 
 
 W 10,000 
 
 1867 
 
 311° 
 
 226° 
 
 96° 
 
 12° 
 
 302.5° 
 
 460,000 
 
 —390,000 
 
 W 245,000 
 
 1868 
 
 341° 
 
 238° 
 
 101° 
 
 14° 
 
 334° 
 
 445,000 
 
 —200,000 
 
 W 400,000 
 
 1869 
 
 18° 
 
 249° 
 
 105° 
 
 16° 
 
 2° 
 
 445,000 
 
 + 10,000 
 
 W 445,000 
 
 1870 
 
 51° 
 
 260° 
 
 110° 
 
 19° 
 
 29° 
 
 410,000 
 
 +200,000 
 
 W 360,000 
 
 1871 
 
 82° 
 
 271° 
 
 114° 
 
 21° 
 
 66° 
 
 355,000 
 
 +295.000 
 
 W 200,000 
 
 1872 
 
 113° 
 
 282° 
 
 119° 
 
 23° 
 
 90° 
 
 315,000 
 
 +305,000 
 
 000,000 
 
 1873 
 
 143° 
 
 293° 
 
 124° 
 
 25° 
 
 128° 
 
 365,000 
 
 +205,000 
 
 E 160,000 
 
 1874 
 
 171° 
 
 304° 
 
 128° 
 
 28° 
 
 176° 
 
 230,000 
 
 + 15,000 
 
 E 230,000
 
 52 
 
 Table II (Continued). 
 
 Position of planets In heliocentric lon- 
 gitude on January 1st of each year 
 
 Direction and dis- 
 tance from sun to 
 center of gravity of 
 system 
 
 Sun's position relative to its 
 
 apex and to center of 
 
 gravity 
 
 Year 
 
 J up. 
 
 Sat. 
 
 Ura. 
 
 Nep. 
 
 Diiection 
 in heliocen- Distance 
 trie lonK- in miles 
 
 On the 
 course, 
 miles 
 
 Off the 
 
 course, 
 
 miles 
 
 1875 
 
 199^^ 
 
 316° 
 
 133° 
 
 30° 
 
 222° 
 
 250,000 
 
 —165,000 
 
 E 180,000 
 
 1876 
 
 226° 
 
 327° 
 
 137° 
 
 32° 
 
 265° 
 
 335,000 
 
 —335,000 
 
 E 30,000 
 
 1877 
 
 255° 
 
 339° 
 
 142° 
 
 34° 
 
 298° 
 
 435,000 
 
 —390,000 
 
 W 200,000 
 
 1878 
 
 284° 
 
 350° 
 
 142° 
 
 36° 
 
 323.5° 
 
 550,000 
 
 —330,000 
 
 W 445,000 
 
 1879 
 
 316° 
 
 3° 
 
 152° 
 
 38° 
 
 347° 
 
 645,000 
 
 —150,000 
 
 W 630,000 
 
 1880 
 
 348° 
 
 15° 
 
 156° 
 
 41° 
 
 10° 
 
 730,000 
 
 +120,000 
 
 W 720,000 
 
 1881 
 
 22° 
 
 28° 
 
 161° 
 
 43° 
 
 32° 
 
 785,000 
 
 +405,000 
 
 W 670,000 
 
 1882 
 
 55° 
 
 41° 
 
 166° 
 
 45° 
 
 53° 
 
 810,000 
 
 +640,000 
 
 W 485,000 
 
 1883 
 
 87° 
 
 54° 
 
 170° 
 
 48° 
 
 74° 
 
 810,000 
 
 +775,000 
 
 W 225,000 
 
 1884 
 
 118° 
 
 68° 
 
 175° 
 
 50° 
 
 95° 
 
 775,000 
 
 +770,000 
 
 E 60,000 
 
 1885 
 
 147° 
 
 81° 
 
 180° 
 
 52° 
 
 116° 
 
 715,000 
 
 +655,000 
 
 E 315,000 
 
 1886 
 
 175° 
 
 95° 
 
 185° 
 
 54° 
 
 138° 
 
 630,000 
 
 +425,000 
 
 E 470,000 
 
 1887 
 
 203° 
 
 109° 
 
 189° 
 
 57° 
 
 160° 
 
 530,000 
 
 +175,000 
 
 E 500,000 
 
 1888 
 
 230° 
 
 122° 
 
 194° 
 
 59° 
 
 187° 
 
 395,000 
 
 ' _ 45,000 
 
 E 390,000 
 
 1889 
 
 259° 
 
 136° 
 
 199° 
 
 61° 
 
 217° 
 
 280,000 
 
 —165,000 
 
 E 225,000 
 
 1890 
 
 289° 
 
 149° 
 
 203° 
 
 63° 
 
 261° 
 
 185,000 
 
 —180,000 
 
 E 35,000 
 
 1891 
 
 321° 
 
 162° 
 
 208° 
 
 66° 
 
 330° 
 
 150,000 
 
 — 75,000 
 
 W 135,000 
 
 1892 
 
 354° 
 
 174° 
 
 213° 
 
 68° 
 
 25° 
 
 225,000 
 
 + 95,000 
 
 W 200,000 
 
 1893 
 
 27° 
 
 187° 
 
 217° 
 
 70° 
 
 60° 
 
 310,000 
 
 +270,000 
 
 AV 155,000 
 
 1894 
 
 60° 
 
 199° 
 
 222° 
 
 72° 
 
 88° 
 
 405,000 
 
 +405,000 
 
 W 10,000 
 
 1895 
 
 92° 
 
 210° 
 
 226° 
 
 75° 
 
 115° 
 
 480,000 
 
 +435,000 
 
 E 200,000 
 
 1896 
 
 122° 
 
 222° 
 
 231° 
 
 77° 
 
 140° 
 
 540,000 
 
 +340,000 
 
 E 410,000 
 
 1897 
 
 151° 
 
 233° 
 
 235° 
 
 79° 
 
 166° 
 
 590,000 
 
 +140,000 
 
 E 570,000 
 
 1898 
 
 179° 
 
 245° 
 
 240° 
 
 81° 
 
 190° 
 
 620.000 
 
 —110,000 
 
 E 605,000 
 
 1899 
 
 207° 
 
 256° 
 
 244° 
 
 84° 
 
 217° 
 
 630,000 
 
 —380,000 
 
 E 500,000 
 
 1900 
 
 235° 
 
 267° 
 
 249° 
 
 86° 
 
 243° 
 
 640,000 
 
 —570,000 
 
 E 300,000 
 
 1901 
 
 263° 
 
 278° 
 
 253° 
 
 88° 
 
 268° 
 
 645,000 
 
 —645,000 
 
 E 10,000 
 
 1902 
 
 294° 
 
 288° 
 
 257° 
 
 90° 
 
 296° 
 
 645,000 
 
 —585,000 
 
 W 280,000 
 
 1903 
 
 326° 
 
 300° 
 
 262° 
 
 92° 
 
 320° 
 
 640,000 
 
 410,000 
 
 W 500,000 
 
 1904 
 
 359° 
 
 311° 
 
 266° 
 
 95° 
 
 347° 
 
 630,000 
 
 —140,000 
 
 W 620,000 
 
 1905 
 
 32° 
 
 322° 
 
 270° 
 
 97° 
 
 15° 
 
 570,000 
 
 +145,000 
 
 W 555,000 
 
 1906 
 
 65° 
 
 333° 
 
 274° 
 
 99° 
 
 42° 
 
 540,000 
 
 +355,000 
 
 W 400,000 
 
 1907 
 
 96° 
 
 346° 
 
 279° 
 
 101° 
 
 68° 
 
 490,000 
 
 1 +450,000 
 
 W 180,000 
 
 1908 
 
 126° 
 
 358° 
 
 283° 
 
 103° 
 
 93° 
 
 420.000 
 
 1 +425.000 
 
 E 25,000 
 
 1909 
 
 155° 
 
 10° 
 
 287° 
 
 106° 
 
 121° 
 
 340,000 
 
 1 +290,000 
 
 E 180,000 
 
 1910 
 
 183° 
 
 23° 
 
 291° 
 
 108° 
 
 150° 
 
 280,000 
 
 1 +135,000 
 
 E 235,000
 
 TABLE III. 
 
 OF Path of Sun During Three Great Tear Periods. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X Slenlfies s 
 
 un cr 
 
 sBine path 
 
 oI_ce 
 
 nter of eravl 
 
 y- 
 
 
 
 
 
 Middle ordl- 
 
 
 
 
 Middle ordl- 
 
 MIddleordI 
 
 
 
 
 Middle ordl- 
 
 Middle ordi 
 
 
 
 
 Middle nrdl- 
 
 West — miles 
 
 X 
 
 Year 
 1486.35 
 
 
 East— miles 
 
 West — miles 
 
 X 
 
 1663.65 
 
 C-. 
 
 East— miles 
 
 West— miles 
 
 X 
 
 1841.1 
 
 X 
 
 East-mlles 
 
 540,000 
 
 .n 
 
 1489 
 
 
 
 715,000 
 
 
 1667 
 
 -I' 
 
 
 820,000 
 
 
 1845 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 1493.24 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 ^: 
 
 1671.95 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 1850.3 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 1495 
 
 •p 
 
 120,000 
 
 
 "^■ 
 
 1673 
 
 o 
 
 400,000 
 
 
 
 1851 
 
 
 30,000 
 
 
 X 
 
 1496.2 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 1673.55 
 
 =\ 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 18.51.6 
 
 ". 
 
 
 690,000 
 
 .o 
 
 1500 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 690,000 
 
 in 
 
 1678 
 
 c; 
 
 
 620,000 
 
 m 
 
 1856 
 
 
 
 
 '"■ 
 
 1504.07 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 1681.9 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 1859.6 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 " 
 
 1507 
 
 CO 
 
 480,000 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 1685 
 
 ^J 
 
 500,000 
 
 
 " 
 
 1863 
 
 _^ 
 
 560,000 
 
 
 X 
 
 1509.95 
 
 '^■ 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 1687.9 
 
 O) 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 1865.95 
 
 « 
 
 
 425,000 
 
 s 
 
 1513 
 
 '-' 
 
 
 450,000 
 
 in 
 
 1691 
 
 '"' 
 
 
 440,000 
 
 
 1869 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 1516 
 1518 
 
 X 
 
 230,000 
 
 
 d 
 
 1694.1 
 1696 
 
 X 
 
 210,000 
 
 
 d 
 
 1S72 
 1874 
 
 X 
 
 230,000 
 
 
 X 
 
 1520.15 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 1698.05 
 
 ii 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 1876.15 
 
 rt 
 
 
 850,000 
 
 in 
 
 1524 
 
 '" 
 
 
 785,000 
 
 f-t 
 
 1702 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 710.000 
 
 i_- 
 
 1880 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 1528.75 
 1531 
 
 X 
 
 260,000 
 
 
 n 
 
 1706.3 
 1709 
 
 X 
 
 380,000 
 
 
 -1* 
 
 1883.8 
 1887 
 
 X 
 
 500,000 
 
 
 X 
 
 1533.2 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 1711.76 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 1890.2 
 
 d 
 
 
 360,000 
 
 - 
 
 1536 
 1538.55 
 
 X 
 
 
 260,000 
 
 - 
 
 1714 
 1716.2 
 
 X 
 
 
 200.000 
 
 » 
 
 1892 
 1894.05 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 *"• 
 
 1542 
 
 
 615,000 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 1720 
 
 
 630,000 
 
 
 2 
 
 1898 
 
 
 600,000 
 
 
 X 
 
 1545.4 
 
 t^ 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 1723.28 
 
 = 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 1901.05 
 
 ^. 
 
 
 560,000 
 
 
 1549 
 
 s 
 
 
 570.000 
 
 ,^ 
 
 1727 
 
 -*> 
 
 
 600,000 
 
 
 1904 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 1552.3 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 *. 
 
 1730.02 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 1907.86 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 1554 
 
 
 185,000 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 1732 
 
 
 210.000 
 
 
 
 1910 
 
 
 230,000 
 
 
 X 
 
 1556 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 1734.15 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 560,000 
 
 X 
 
 1560 
 1562.8 
 1566 
 1569.95 
 
 X 
 
 055,000 
 
 470,000 
 
 X 
 
 1738 
 1740.5 
 1744 
 1747.8 
 
 X 
 
 CO 
 
 690,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 275,000 
 
 in 
 
 1572 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 300.000 
 
 n 
 
 1750 
 
 *"* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 d 
 
 1574.65 
 1577 
 
 X 
 
 370,000 
 
 
 o 
 c 
 
 1752.8 
 1755 
 
 X 
 t- 
 
 335,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 1580 
 
 '-^ 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 1758.1 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 720,000 
 
 X 
 
 1584 
 1587.5 
 1590 
 1593.3 
 
 X 
 
 410,000 
 
 650,000 
 
 X 
 
 1762 
 1765.05 
 1768 
 1771.9 
 
 X 
 
 530,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 210,000 
 
 X 
 
 1595 
 1597.3 
 1601 
 1605.2 
 
 X 
 
 730,000 
 
 110,000 
 
 X 
 
 1774 
 1774.8 
 1779 
 1783.1 
 
 X 
 
 750,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 445,000 
 
 .n 
 
 1608 
 
 3 
 
 
 430.000 
 
 .n 
 
 1786 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 1610.8 
 1613.5 
 
 X 
 
 350,000 
 
 
 S 
 
 1788.6 
 1792 
 
 X 
 
 420,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 1616.25 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 1794.65 
 
 -1^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 340,000 
 
 o 
 
 1619 
 1621.3 
 
 X 
 
 
 290.000 
 
 " 
 
 1797 
 1799.05 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rt 
 
 1625 
 
 ^ 
 
 870,000 
 
 
 s 
 
 1S03 
 
 ■^ 
 
 850,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 1630.35 
 
 _; 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 1807.8 
 
 ci 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 70,000 
 
 X 
 
 1632 
 1632.7 
 1637 
 1639.9 
 
 X 
 
 530,000 
 
 200,000 
 
 X 
 
 1810 
 1811.65 
 1815 
 1817,25 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 375,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 590,000 
 
 t— 
 X 
 
 1643 
 1646.45 
 1649 
 1652.65 
 
 X 
 
 460,000 
 
 710,000 
 
 X 
 
 1821 
 1824.7 
 
 1827 
 1830.2 
 
 X 
 
 400,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 250,000 
 
 o 
 
 1655 
 
 
 
 350,000 
 
 m 
 
 1833 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1657.05 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 ^. 
 
 1S35.5 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 1660.5 
 
 
 550.000 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 1838 
 
 
 420,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 m
 
 > 
 
 LJ 
 
 -I 
 ffl 
 
 < 
 I-
 
 
 
 
 
 Table of Mercury's Orbit 
 
 
 
 Sun advancing 
 
 miles per sec- 
 
 Sun's speed 
 
 at IS n-lles 
 
 
 at 33 miles 
 
 sun's speed 
 
 It fill t miles. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 end. 5 days = 
 
 
 
 2.000 miles* 
 
 
 
 
 of 
 
 Ef 
 
 Heliocentric 
 longitude 
 
 Vector 
 
 Depart 
 
 re Departure 
 
 Mercury's latitude south of 
 starling point 
 
 rlflamirde 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 coursB 
 
 Sun's 
 
 Mercury's 
 
 <5un'5 
 
 Mercury's 
 
 Sun's 
 
 Mercur 's 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Plus 
 
 „,„„. 
 
 
 
 latitude 
 
 position 
 
 laUluJe' 
 
 position 
 
 latitude 
 
 position 
 
 LamuTe' 
 
 
 
 
 
 90° 00' 
 
 28.500.000 
 
 
 I.I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 28.500.000 
 
 
 
 28,500,000 
 
 
 
 28.500,000 
 
 
 
 28.500,000 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 120° 19' 
 
 29,800,000 
 
 15,100 
 
 Olio 
 
 2.700.000 
 
 
 2,700,000 
 
 30.660,000 
 
 4,860,000 
 
 35,400,000 
 
 9,610,000 
 
 42.750,000 
 
 16.9.50,000 
 
 58,500,000 
 
 32,700.000 
 
 2 
 
 10 
 
 147° 16' 
 
 32,100,000 
 
 27,0110 
 
 null 
 
 8,300,000 
 
 
 11,000,000 
 
 32,820,000 
 
 15.320,000 
 
 42,320,000 
 
 24,820.000 
 
 57.010.000 
 
 39,510,000 
 
 88,500,000 
 
 71,400,000 
 
 3 
 
 15 
 
 170° 19' 
 
 33,800,000 
 
 34,300 
 
 mill 
 
 11,500,000 
 
 
 22,500,000 
 
 34,980,000 
 
 28,980,000 
 
 49,240,000 
 
 43,240,000 
 
 71.270.000 
 
 65.270.000 
 
 118,500.000 
 
 112.500,000 
 
 i 
 
 20 
 
 190° 00' 
 
 37,300,000 
 
 36,8011 
 
 mill 
 
 12,600,000 
 
 
 35,100,000 
 
 37,140,000 
 
 43,740.000 
 
 56,140,000 
 
 62,740,000 
 
 85.520,000 
 
 92,120,000 
 
 148.500,000 
 
 155.100.000 
 
 5 
 
 25 
 
 207° 11' 
 
 39,600,000 
 
 35,200 
 
 mill 
 
 11,600,000 
 
 
 46,700,000 
 
 39,300,000 
 
 57,500,000 
 
 63,060,000 
 
 81,260,000 
 
 99.780.000 
 
 117,980,000 
 
 178,500,000 
 
 196.700,000 
 
 6 
 
 30 
 
 222° 40' 
 
 41,350,000 
 
 30,400 
 
 Olio 
 
 9,800,000 
 
 
 56,500,000 
 
 41,460,000 
 
 69,460,000 
 
 69,970,000 
 
 97,970,000 
 
 114.040.000 
 
 142.040,000 
 
 208,500.000 
 
 236,500,000 
 
 7 
 
 35 
 
 237° 05' 
 
 42,550,000 
 
 23.200 
 
 lino 
 
 7,900,000 
 
 
 64,400.000 
 
 43.620,000 
 
 79,520,000 
 
 76,880.000 
 
 112.780,000 
 
 128.290,000 
 
 164.190.000 
 
 238.500.000 
 
 274,400,000 
 
 8 
 
 40 
 
 250° 56' 
 
 43,100.000 
 
 14.2011 
 
 Olio 
 
 4,900,000 
 
 
 69,300.000 
 
 45,780,000 
 
 86.580,000 
 
 83,790,000 
 
 124.590.000 
 
 142,550,000 
 
 183,350,000 
 
 268,500,000 
 
 309,300,000 
 
 9 
 
 45 
 
 264° 41' 
 
 43,100,000 
 
 4,000 
 
 IIOll 
 
 2,100,000 
 
 
 71,400,000 
 
 47,940,000 
 
 90,840,000 
 
 90,710,000 
 
 133.610.000 
 
 156,800.000 
 
 199,700,000 
 
 298,500,000 
 
 341.400,000 
 
 
 47 
 
 270° 15' 
 
 42.900.000 
 
 
 
 
 
 71,400.000 
 
 50.100,000 
 
 
 
 93,470,000 
 
 136.370.000 
 
 
 
 
 
 316,500,000 
 
 351,500,000 
 
 10 
 
 3 
 
 278° 46' 
 
 42.300.000 
 
 
 6.500,000 
 
 
 1.100.000 
 
 70.300.000 
 
 52,260,000 
 
 94.060.000 
 
 97,020.000 
 
 139.420.000 
 
 171.000.000 
 
 212,286,000 
 
 328,500.000 
 
 370,300,000 
 
 11 
 
 8 
 
 293° 37' 
 
 41.000.000 
 
 
 16.400.000 
 
 
 4.300,000 
 
 66,000,000 
 
 54.420,000 
 
 91.920,000 
 
 104.530.000 
 
 142,030.000 
 
 185.000.000 
 
 222,820,000 
 
 358,500.000 
 
 396.000,000 
 
 12 
 
 13 
 
 309° 46' 
 
 39.100.000 
 
 
 25,000,000 
 
 
 7,400,000 
 
 58,600,000 
 
 56,580,000 
 
 86,680,000 
 
 111.440,000 
 
 141,540.000 
 
 199,570.000 
 
 229,670,000 
 
 388.500,000 
 
 418,600,000 
 
 13 
 
 18 
 
 327° 51' 
 
 36.700,000 
 
 
 31,000,000 
 
 1 
 
 10,400,000 
 
 48,200,000 
 
 58,740,000 
 
 78,440,000 
 
 118,360,000 
 
 138,060,000 
 
 213.830.000 
 
 233,530.000 
 
 418.500.000 
 
 438,200,000 
 
 14 
 
 23 
 
 348° 35' 
 
 33.900.000 
 
 
 33,350,000 
 
 
 12,900,000 
 
 35,300,000 
 
 60,900,000 
 
 67,700,000 
 
 125,270,000 
 
 132,070.000 
 
 228,080,000 
 
 2.34,880,000 
 
 448,500,000 
 
 455,300,000 
 
 15 
 
 28 
 
 12° 32' 
 
 31,400,000 
 
 
 30,600,000 
 
 
 13,700,000 
 
 21.600,000 
 
 63,060,000 
 
 56,160,000 
 
 132,180,000 
 
 125,280,000 
 
 242,340,000 
 
 235,440,000 
 
 478,500,000 
 
 471,600,000 
 
 16 
 
 33 
 
 40° 20' 
 
 29,300,000 
 
 
 22.400.000 
 
 
 12,100.000 
 
 9,500,000 
 
 65.220,000 
 
 46,220,000 
 
 139,100,000 
 
 120,100,000 
 
 256,600,000 
 
 237,600,000 
 
 508,500,000 
 
 489.500,000 
 
 17 
 
 38 
 
 71° 4' 
 
 28,400,000 
 
 
 9.200.000 
 
 
 7,900.000 
 
 1,600,000 
 
 67.380,000 
 
 40,480,000 
 
 146,000,000 
 
 119.100.000 
 
 270,850,000 
 
 243.950,000 
 
 538.500,000 
 
 511.600.000 
 
 18 
 
 41 
 
 90° 00' 
 
 28.500.000 
 
 
 
 
 
 1.600.000 
 
 
 
 68.650,000 
 
 40.150.000 
 
 150,100,000 
 
 121.600.000 
 
 279,290,000 
 
 250,790.000 
 
 556,260,000 
 
 527.760.000 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 13 
 
 14 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 17
 
 PERNAU PUBLISHING CO. 
 
 423 HAYES STREET 
 
 SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.
 
 QC 
 -^3 
 
 Lynch - Solar and planetary physics and 
 motion, preliminary chapters, 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBr14RY 
 
 Los i*'- 
 
 SOUTHERN REGfA^y°; ?a"fornJa 
 405 Hilgard Avenue '^o^s^'of.^^'Jy '^^CIL/TY 
 
 Return this ma?ert?to'fhe Sh ^°°24-i388 
 
 CWnKsrrr of cALrniimu 
 
 LIBRAKY
 
 ■•-T 
 
 A 000 169 875 2 
 
 JIJL72