Difference between revisions of "Page:ASC 1865 09 06 13-52.pdf/2"
(→Not proofread: Created page with "") |
|||
| Page body (to be transcluded): | Page body (to be transcluded): | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | of it, "I accompany the drawing with a diagram (N.<sup>o</sup>2) which exhibits in a more definite | |
| + | and clear manner <hi rend="underline">the exact form</hi> of those remarkable structural details of the solar surface." | ||
| + | And again;- "Diagram N.<sup>o</sup>2 conveys a pretty clear idea of the manner in which these remark- | ||
| + | able details are arranged, in forming, as they do, the entire luminous surface of the sun." | ||
| + | Therefore regard this as a fanciful theory which has no foundation in fact. | ||
| + | But is it not extraordinary that, after so clear and decided a statement, <unclear>Mr.</unclear> Nasmyth | ||
| + | should accept <unclear>Mr.</unclear> Stone's '<hi rend="underline">rice-grains</hi>' as being identical with his'<hi rend="underline">willow-leaves</hi>,' even | ||
| + | on the surface? - objects whose proportion is as 2 to 1, the same as those which are as | ||
| + | 10 to 1! This seems to me to <hi rend="underline">give up</hi> the willow-leaves on the surface, and to destroy the | ||
| + | assumed value of <unclear>Mr.</unclear> N.'s first observations. | ||
| + | The, as to the claim that these objects constitute a '<hi rend="underline">new discovery</hi>' by <unclear>Mr.</unclear> N. They | ||
| + | have been familiar to me as irregularly formed <hi rend="underline">granulations</hi> since the year 1830, | ||
Revision as of 15:30, 14 September 2020
of it, "I accompany the drawing with a diagram (N.o2) which exhibits in a more definite
and clear manner the exact form of those remarkable structural details of the solar surface."
And again;- "Diagram N.o2 conveys a pretty clear idea of the manner in which these remark-
able details are arranged, in forming, as they do, the entire luminous surface of the sun."
Therefore regard this as a fanciful theory which has no foundation in fact.
But is it not extraordinary that, after so clear and decided a statement, Mr. Nasmyth
should accept Mr. Stone's 'rice-grains' as being identical with his'willow-leaves,' even
on the surface? - objects whose proportion is as 2 to 1, the same as those which are as
10 to 1! This seems to me to give up the willow-leaves on the surface, and to destroy the
assumed value of Mr. N.'s first observations.
The, as to the claim that these objects constitute a 'new discovery' by Mr. N. They
have been familiar to me as irregularly formed granulations since the year 1830,
