Letter | Published:

The Solar Parallax

Nature volume 5, pages 6061 | Download Citation

Subjects

Abstract

IF Mr. Proctor had printed in full my memoranda on the errors and imperfections of his history of the solar parallax, or if he had said nothing about it, I should have said nothing more in defence of my review. But, in NATURE of September 28, he gives so inadequate an account of my notes, hiding the point of the most remarkable of his inaccuracies, and ignoring the imperfections entirely, that I am compelled in self-defence to explain. In describing the various discussions of the Transit of Venus which preceded that of Mr. Stone, he says (p. 61): “Newcomb, of America, was more successful. He deduced the value 8″.87 by a method altogether more satisfactory than Powalky's. But still the agreement between the different observations was not so satisfactory as could be wished, nor had Newcomb adopted any fixed rule for interpreting the observations of internal contact, which, as I have said, are affected by the peculiar distortion of Venus's disc at that moment.”

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Washington, Oct. 23

    • SIMON NEWCOMB

Authors

  1. Search for SIMON NEWCOMB in:

About this article

Publication history

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/005060a0

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.