TO CORRESPONDENTS.
Edward Haydock.—Declined with thanks. li. N. Martin and "J.C."—We cannot afford space for further correspondence on the subject. "J.D."—The theory to which you refer—that the comet-tail is a beam ot sunlight projected through fine reflecting particles—has in various'forms, had many advocates, but. has met with no support from men of science. A fatal objection is, that it presupjioses some kind of lens or pinholecamer.i arrangement, as in the ease where v sunbeam enters a dark room through a shutter. But such a shaft of light, unlike a comet, is perfectly straight. Moreover, it is now known that a comet gives forth inherent as well as reflected light.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP19100523.2.38
Bibliographic details
Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 119, 23 May 1910, Page 6
Word Count
109TO CORRESPONDENTS. Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 119, 23 May 1910, Page 6
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Post. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in