Abstract
I REGRET that Prof. Rücker should have largely misunderstood my last letter. I have not raised the question of fallible observations at all. Referring to the correspondence on pages 127–8 of the present volume of NATURE, my principal contention was and is that the ordinarily accepted formula for P differs by terms of the second and higher orders from Gauss's theory, and that that difference necessarily persists in any rigorous expansion of the formula. By the ordinarily accepted formula for P I mean Prof. Rücker's formula (α); and by Gauss's theory I mean my formulæ (1), (2), and (3). From two observations of f(u), made respectively at the distances r and r1, the L of Gauss's theory might be found by a direct solution of equations (1) and (2); but instead of that, it is customary to find L from equations (7) and (8) by substituting in them the value of P0 computed through equation (α). To render the latter procedure rigorous, P should be used in (7), and P1 in (8). Equation (11) shows that P and P1 differ by quantities of the second and higher orders, and as the ordinarily accepted value of P0 lies between P and P1, it necessarily differs from one or both of these quantities, and therefore from Gauss's theory, by terms of the second and higher orders.
Article PDF
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
HARKNESS, W. On the Constant P in Observations of Terrestrial Magnetism. Nature 37, 272 (1888). https://doi.org/10.1038/037272b0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/037272b0
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.