MISCELLANY

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12252, 25 September 1925, Page 4

MISCELLANY

When the wall is soft and loose, and a nail will not bear the weight of a picture, mix a little plaster-of-Paris with water; scoop out a small hole in the wall, fill with plaster, and gently insert the nail. This plaster hardens quickly and then the picture can be hung with safety. If the piano keys are scratched, mix some very fine pumice powder with water and polish the scratches with it. Wipe the keys carefully with a clean rag and polish with a silk duster. Care must be taken not to let any of the pumice powder fall between the keys. To take ink out of linen, take a piece of mould candle, or common candle will <To neatly gs well, melt it, and dip the spotted part of the linen into the melted tallow. It may then be washed, and tbe spots will' disappear without injuring the linen. To wash silk underwear, soak for 20 minutes in suds of about 98 degrees, to which ammonia has been added in tho proportion of a teaspoonful to a gallon. Then wash the dirt out by pressing and squeezing, something in the same way as you would wash lace. Rinse in two lots of water of tbe same temperature as the suds, adding a very little blue to the last if the garments are white. Squeeze as dry as you can, and hang out till nearly dry. Then iron under a cloth.

Magistrate to two talkative women: We are much obliged to you both. You have helped us in deciding the case, and you will both bo bound over.

Our theories, says Sir Oliver Lodge, do not alter facts, the facts are there all the time, and are independent of what humanity thinks of thorn. Some things we have learnt which were unknown to the ancients, but in time we too shall be ancients, and our descendants will wonder at the blindness and stupidity even of our learned men.

A City man on a visit Ip a remote village which did not boast a cinema or even a reading-room, said to one of tlip inhabitants: “Whatever; do you do here when it rains?” “Oh,” replied tho man, “wo lets it rain." He that is carried to execution, though through the roughest .road, when be arrives at the destined spot would be glad, notwithstanding the many jolts lie met with, to repeat bis journey.—Cowpcr. Gas escaping from a leak in a pennant was responsible for tbe death of Mias Nina Walker, aged 63, at Brighton, a verdict of “death by misadventure” being returned at the inquest..

Overdue accounts are collecled by The Dominion Mercantile Agency. F.td Offices Wellington, Auckland, Christchurch Agents’throughout the world Specialist in collection trade reports, and a-sign-Tnerrt head Office. Union Hank Chambers, Wellington -Advt

PHENOMENA FOR OCTOBER, 1925

JUPITER’S SATELLITES

SUNSPOTS

REPORT FOR JULY, 1925. 6th, 1015—Five groups visible, two of fairly large size : No. 60 lat. 29.0 deg. s. long. 242.0 deg. ; No. 61, 12 1 S, 214.0; No. 62, 32.6 S, 224.4; No. 63, 13.6 S, 167.8; No. 64, 13.9 N, 146.8. 7th, 10 50—Nos, 62 and 64 not seen; No. 63 has a complicated umbra- No. 60 29.8 S, 245.6; No. 61, 15.4 S, 215.3; No. 63, 18.3 S 167.6. 17th, 10 45—A small spot visible in the western hemisphere (No. 65), 15.5 N, 79.3. • Also a small group near the central meridian (No. 66), leading spot 20.7 N, 46.6. 23rd—No spots seen, 24th, 1400—A small spot visible in the eastern hemisphere (No. 67), 19.2 N, 265.9. distinct centres of activity, (a) and (b)—(a) 18.3 N, 267.5: (b) 19.9 N, 262.8. A small spot visible near tho S.E. limb, 28.6 S, 244.5 (a return of No. 60). 27tli, 1115—No. 66 has increased in size and spread out: (a) 17.4 N, 269,3; (b) 19.1 N. 260.8; No. 60, 27.3 S, 247.1; a small spot visible cast of No. 60 (No. 67), 11.5 S, 224.8. 28th, 10 50—No. 66 has increased slightly; (a) 18.2 N, 268.0; (b) 18.7 N, 258.0. No. 60 has changed slightly—26.s S, 245.3; No. 67, 11.2 S, 223.6. 30th, 10 55—Tho same spots visible—No 66a. 21.0 N. 263.3; No. 66 b, 22.5 N, 253.3: No. 60, 23.0 S, 239.3; No. 67, 8.3 S. 221. C. 31st, 11 00-No. 60a. 19.5 N, 265.5; 66b, 20.1 N, 251.5; No. 60, 26.4 S, 240.0; No. 67, 10.4 S, 222.0. Moderate sunspot activity was maintained throughout July, but owing to continuous cloudy weather, very few observations were obtained in the first half of the month. Number of observations, 10; spots seen on nine occasions.

NEW VIEW OF THE UNIVERSE

By Profo-sor W. E. Coolco. M.A.. F.R.A.8., Sydney Observatory. I havo a wonderful story to tell—about a subject that interests every thinking person in the community— Man’s place in the Universe. My story will probably be new to most, of my readers, as it is only just now boimr unfolded to the scientists of the world bv those who are their recognised loaders. Tt is woven with several threads, which I have endeavoured to follow; and it pnsswt by tlie portals of many alluring bypaths, tho temptations of which 1 havo studiously avoided.

Tt is a commonplace of astronomy to regard our sun as n fair average star, and vice versa to think of any individual star ns a solar sysloin, consisting of a central very hot body irenerallv similar to our sun, with a family of planets revolving round it. Aiul in our endeavour to find places other than ouv Earth upon which life might reasonably he supposed to exist, wo invariably think of those supposl it ions planets.

It is true that we encounter two great difficulties H wo consider the support of lifo as tbe principal function of our sun or nnv oilier stars, viz.:

1. Ihe apparent waste’ of our own brother and sister planets. With Hie possible exception of .Mars, wo may justifiably regard all other planets of .pit >olar system as uninhabitable, at nnv time, past or future

2. We find it difficult, if not impossible to nieliire lile on a plnnct eonpe'dpd with a double or multifile star. Those two puzzles still remain misolv-

ed, but, putting them on one side fc tho present, we certainly like to thin of the existence of living being 6, r< sembling us in a general way, upon th which circle round most of th visible stars of the Universe.

The first person, in reecnt years, to attempt to shatter that belief, was Wai-. lace. In his remarkable book. ‘'Man's Place in the Universe/* he endeavoured to prove that our particular planet was the only spot in the whole Universe where life was passible; and, moreover, that the creation of the whole Universe was necessary to maintain life on our earth. Such a conclusion was, practically, unthinkable, yet it was advanced, seriously, as the reasoned analysis of all known facts bearing upon the subject, by a great scientist of world-wide renown.

As a matter of fact Wallace was not, strictly, an astronomer, and it was found possible to pick small holes in his presentment of the facts, through which eventually his conclusions leaked, and the thinking world breathed again. Quite recently a man of altogether another calibre reached a somewhat similar conclusion. Dr Jeans, one of our foremost mathematical astronomers, in the Halley lecture for 1922, startled the scientific world. Having at hie fingers* ends all tho known facts of physics and astronomy, and handling mathematics with consummate ability, Dr Jeans set out to formulate a theory of cosmogony which should explain, not only our solar system, but the life, growth, and death of Suns, and generally tho evolution of 4,he Universe.

Starting from the spiral nebulae he worked out a comprehensive scheme which, embraced nearly all th© observed with one notable exception. Let me quote his cwn words: —“This brings us to the end of the evolutionary chain. We have travelled its whole length, nnd have not found what we set out to find—the solar system. If the whole aim of cosmogony were to discover the origin of our own system, our labour would •have "been in vain. But an intelligent cosmogony will have a more objective aim, and the cosmogonist will be concerned to gain a knowledge of the origins of the stars as a whole rather than of the genealogical tree of our own particular planet. Judged by the wider standard, Laplace's conception has been amazingly fruitful. It would hardly bo too much to say that it has either revealed or given a valuable clue to the origin of every normal formation in the sky. WITH THE SINGLE EXCEPTION OF THAT OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM WHICH IT SET OUT TO SEEK. BUT IS THE SOLAR SYSTEM A NORMAL FORMATION? The circumstance that it is not found on wliat ,we must now regard as-tho normal evolutionary chain would appear to cast grave doubts.** Let us be quite c' *>ar about this. For very many years Laplace's Nebular Hypothesis, attempting to explain the formation of the Solar System from the revolution and contraction of a vast nebulous mass, had been’ the groundwork of our cosmological belief, and even now is the mainstay of popular lecturers and magazine writers. According to modern ideas, the theory is untenable. Its fundamental concepts have been used to explain tbe formation of suns from vast revolving spiral nebulae, but they cannot be applied to explain the formation of planets and satellites from revolving’ suns.- To understand the reasons for this, I must refer the reader to Jean’s . Halley lecture, on the Nebular Hypothesis, published by the Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Hence Dr.. Jeans considered that our solar, system is not the normal formation of tho average star, and that some special explanation of its origin is required. He believes this is forthcoming in the “Tidal Theory** of its genesis. That theory postulates the near approach to our sun, ages ago, of some giant star, and Seeks to demonstrate how such a conjunction yrould cause the- sun to eject a quantity of matter, which in time would form planets and satellites. That, again, is another story, and requires much consideration. Dr. Jeans states:—

It may be said in general that the type of system predicted by theory appears to nave much in common %vit’h the system of our sun, although it ought in fairness to be added that further mathematical research, of a kind and amount which can only be described as terrifying, will be necessary before we can assert with any confidence thatrour solar system can be fully explained by this theory Systems such as our own must be rare in tho sky; they may be normal in the sense that the events that formed the planets out of our sun might have happened to any star, but they are abnormal in the sense that such events have in all probability happened on !)■ to very few. Indeed, it is just within the possibility, although quite, I think, outside the bounds of probability, that OUR SYSTEM IS UNIQUE —that out of tho two or three thousand million stars which people space, our sun MAY BE THE ONLY ONE attended by satellites. To carry this train of thought one step farther, it is just possible, though again quite improbable, that OUR EARTH MAY BE THE ONLY BODY IN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE WHICH IS CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING LIFE.

Here we have Wallace’s idea once again, but presented this time by a man who is an astronomer and mathematician to his finger-tips. In fact Dr. Jeans has just been elected president of of the Royal Astronomical Society. It is not surprising that his Halley lecture has consternation. Thus ends the first chapter.

Now comes a marvellous seoucl, presented in an address to tho Royal- Astronomical Society, and an article (December Gtli, 1921). I think it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that his latest pronouncement marks a new era in advanced thought. To appreciate its significance ivb must glance at some of the wonderful discoveries that have recently been made by researches at tho other extremity of tho linear scale —the realm of tho infinitely small atoms and electrons. First, however, let us look back about 3(30 years, when Priestly, Cavendish, and Lavoisier laid the foundations of modern chemistry. Their most fundamental principle was the Conservation of Mass, which postulates that the total quantity of matter, or mass, remains unchanged, no matter what transformations are wrought. For example, a candle burns away and apparently disappears, but it is known that the particles composing the candle simply change their form, combining with portions of the atmosphere, and that not an atom of tho candle really vanishes, hut that its exact muss can, by suitable manipulation, be recovered. This principle'is tho rock upon which all quantitive chemistry is founded. Parent research upon the alnm and electron, however, have shown that this rock is insecure. Mass is not constant, but depends upon the velocity with which a body is moving. The variation of mass amongst ordinary material objects moving with ordinary velocities is so small ns to be undetectable by the most refined instruments, but the ultimate particles of matter, protons and electrons, move with such astounding velocities that the law of Conservation of • Mass does not always apply to them. Indeed, it is quite necessary, in modernphvsios. to express the ihass of an electron in terms of its velocity. This may ho tersely expressed by saying Hint mass is a function of energy. The next step ' is absolutely revolutionary, but many 1 physicists have taken it—viz., that MASS

AND ENERGY ARE INTERCHANGEABLE. I wonder if mv readers grasp tho significace of this statement? It is analogous to tho apparently ridiculous announcement we find at the threshold of the fitudv of Relativity that the length of an object varies according to the velocity and direction of its motion in space. w Stated rather crudely, we may say that energy can be changed into matter, and matter into energy. It sounds like a nightmare, as if, for instance, we were told that a pound of sugar can be converted into 17 miles an hour. Still, there it is —becoming recognised as a fundamental fact, and we must try and interpret it as undcrstandingly as possible. For many years it has been known that the sun is constantly radiating energy into space. SOMETHING strikes the vanes of a Crooke’s radiometer, and causes U*cin to rotate. SOMETHING striker, ihe. nebulous matter emitted from tlie head of a comet and sends it flying away into space, forming its mysterious tail. What is that SOMETHING? We have been accustomed to speak of it as “radiant energy/* and to think .of it as akin to lijrlit or heat. That may still ho. correct, but we are now compelled to think of it also in quite another aspect.

Professor Eddington has recently (in “Nature/* May 81st, .1924, p. 786) shown that the luminosity of a star depends entirely upon its mass. Perhaps that may not seem very important, but it is really a revolutionary idea, and leads us into fresh fields of knowledge. In a general way we may have connected the luminosity of a star with its mass, and regarded a very brilliant star as a very massive one. But Eddington goes much further than this. He finds a direct connection between the two, so that if wo con measure the intrinsic luminosity of a star we can compute its mass. That, in itself is an immense step forward, but it leads immediately to a result of even greater import. For all stars, after a certain stage of growth, are losing luminosity, and therefore, if mass and luminosity are definitely related, they must be losing mass. This is something entirely new. • Take Sirius, for example. At present it has 2\ times the mass of our Sun, and 36 times the luminosity. It is, however, slowly but certainly becoming less luminous, and in course of time will be about as brighta as our sun is at present. This new theory asserts that, when that condition is reached, Sirius will be only as massive as our sun is now. In other words, it will have lost about 60 per cent, of the matter now composing it. We are, therefore, compelled to take a novel view of the “something** which is being radiated from our sun and all other stars. That “something** is the actual matter of the sun, so that the sun is actually becoming less massive. It is even possible to compute the rate of its loss, and we find that it amounts to the tremenodous figure of four million tons per second. Incidentally this helps to explain several factors of the grand chain of evolution—the origin and nature of nebulae, the nreporalion of new material for continuing the chain, etc., but, once again, that is another story, and I must follow the main thread of the one I am telling.

Imagine a system consisting of one sun and one planet. The planet would revolve for ever in the same orbit provided no change occurred in the central force of attraction, and that there was no disturbance from outside.

But the central . attraction depends upon the mass of tho sun, and if this is diminishing the orbit of the nlanet will widen out.. In our own ca6e the earth is gradually increasing its distance. In 1.000,000,000,000 years hence, for instance, the radius of its orbit will be about 100 million miles, instead of only 93 million, as at present, with a corresponding increase in the length of the year. This kind of expansion is proceeding throughout the Universe. Tracing it backward wo arrive at a period when nil the stars were considerably closer together than they are now; and we also increase the duration of life at present allotted to our sun about a thousandfold. Well what of that ?

_Just this. In his Halley lecture, where Dr Jeans reached, such an unacceptable roncliision with respect to the singularity of the solar system, he based his calculations upon the dimensions of the Universe, as known at present, and computed the irreat improbability of the near approach of two suns. Owing, however, to the changes that I have endeavoured to describe, he now finds conciitions m past ages vastly different, the stars being then far more massive, and crowded much more closely together than a t Present, and so giving a much greater probability of' collisions or appraises. Not only so, but he finds a period 1009 times greater in which the appulses might ocour. Altogether, therefore, he is able to modify his former conclusion almost beyond recognition, and liie final words now are:—

Finally, it may be remarked that the extension of tlie time scale which is no# proposed increases enormously the chance of solar svsteme being formed by tidal action. With a time scale of 1,000,000,000\ years, we had to think of systems of planets such as our own as heUyr. °£, necessity extremely rare. With the longer time scale and the recognition that our system of must have been more closely packed in the past than now, we can think of planetary systems as be-, mg. if not quite the normal accompaniment of a sun, at least fairly freelv distributed m space/ Tlie welcome theory of the Earth’s uniqueness in the Universe has, therefore, once more been found to have been based upon insufficient knowledge, and wo aro still able to think of other other suns, and peopled with beings akin to ourselves. Uur conceptions, however, are not quite the same. Formerly wo conceived every star as necessarily giving birth to a tamily of planets in the very process of its own formation. Now it appears that we must discard that idea. A star forms, normally, without a family, but i. may, or may not, have one thrust upon it by some chance encounter.

OBSERVATIONS OF NOVA PICTORIS

(Continued from Astronomical Notes for September, 1925.) Observer. A. G. Crust, Fairlie, New Zealand.

(July 26) .Inhnn Date 4347 corresponds to 1925, July loth.

A REVIEW “THE OBSERVATORY" By providing in small compass a large amount of information about all the most recent work accomplished b> astronomers in all parts of the world, “The Observatory” secures a high place amongst the astronomical journals of to-day. The Juno, 1925, number is no exception to the rule. In 40 small pages it gives us the usual abundant supply of food for thought. In case some of our’ members have not seen it we slia]] icier to a few of the subjects discussed. -The number opens with the May meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society. Dr Steavenson. who was the first to speak, gave an account of his photometric observations of Novae. The work he has 'been doing is moot valuable in keeping novae under observation long alter their brilliant phase is past. He finds Novu l’ersei of 3fo! to be st.ll an irregular variable tvilll an average magnitude lest voa: >'j IJ.-j. and a ran--. f~on. 12.4 to 1.19 Nova Ophiuchi, of 1543, Nova Cygni, of I.Kifi. and Nova Cygni. of 1931. are still lading irregularlv. Nova Acjnilae. of 1913. has ren ,, hod magnitude 70.5. approximately the same that it bad before

the outburst. Nova I.acertae, of 1910, has remained steady at 14.1 for several years. Dr Steavenson is doubtful whether the twelfth magnitude star, close to the computed place, is identical with Tycho’s great nova of 1572. Although it has been suspected of variability the fact has not been proved. After a papei hv Mr Gray~Gaythorpe on the n ognifying powers of early telescopes, Mr Everslied gave a paper, “On Some Measures of the Solar Rotation at Different Levels in the Chromosphere. • He finds that the rotation value increases with the height. It looks as though there were great turmoil outside the photosphere, the effect of which diminishes as we go inwards. Professor Turner asked whether an increase of velocity from outside inwards seemed as unreasonable to other Follows as it appeared to him. “It seems.” he said, “as if the sun were standing on its head. Can anyone suggest a physical reason for this direction of increase?” Surely in this question tho words outside-inwards have been transposed. for Professor Evershed’s observations all show that the higher the level of the substance giving the light, whose lines are measured, the more rapid is the rotation indicated. Speeds of 1.93 kilometres per second were obtained for low levels, over two kilometres per second for high levels, and as much as 2.5 km. per second in prominences.

The latter value was not. however, judged of much weight as the deviations from plate to plate were enormous. The implied rotation for the coronal region was 21 days only. Professor Turner’s question does not appear to have been answered, but if the solar system was formed bv the whirling coalescence of two stars, the explanation is easy, and was given in a note on the rotation period of tlio sun. Mr Newton showed a photograph of the sun taken on May 6th with a spot covering 1/1500 of the visible hemisphere. Mr Everslied said the spectrum indicated downward radial motion in the Umbra of 3 or 4 km. per second. He had never before observed so large a motion in this direction, although considerable radial motions and Tangential to the photosphere can often he observed. Dr Jackson gave an account of a paper by Dr Groot on the forms of spiral nebulae. Dr Groot had analysed 17 spiral arms from nine different nebulae, and concluded that an equiangular spiral gave the best fit. In all cases hut one he found that -the spiial lies sensibly in one plane. The president, Dr Jeans, was pleased to find hie confidence in the equiangular spiral law confirmed by this more thorough investigation. Mr Reynolds maintained that after one revolution the equiangular form often breaks down. He showed slides of spiral nebulae. In M 33 there are 46 known variables, of which 24 are Cepheids generally of long period from 17 to 46 days, whieh_ is much longer than the average period found by Shaplev for variables in clusters. If these are taken as a test of distance, the nebula is nearly ten times as far away as the Nubecula Minor. He called attention bo a small mass in the nebula, which shows bright lines of hydrogen and nebnlium, and probably connected with B type stars, like similar nebulae in the Milky Way.

In tile photographs of the Andromeda nebula, where one taken at Yerkes with the 2ft reflector shows only stippling. One taken with the 100-incb at Mount Wilson shows star discs, clearly. There are only 13 Cepheids known in this nebula, but 42 Novae have been recognised, some being of a new type, for they reach a certain.magnitude, and stay there, as if obscuring matter had passed away. This is an extremely interesting observation, and the president asked whethert the converse phenomenon of a bright star “becoming faint has ever been observed';’ for if Mr Reynolds’s explanation is ’the right one, tho two phenomena ought to occur with equal frequency. Mr Knox-Shaw remarked that in Corona Australis, where there is much obstructing matter, a star bad increased by two or three magnitudes, and had remained bright for two or three years. If novae are du© to stellar encounters. we should expect to find evidence of the sudden appearance of stars, but not of their sudden disappearance, except in the cases of novae, which from this point of view ar© regarded as the result of stellar (grazes. More direct collisions would give rise to the appearance of permanent new stars, which would not. however, attain a brilliancy at all comparable with that of a typical nova. A rise of one magnitude, if the stars were gaseoUs, would bo more probable in this case. Professor Eddington pointed outthat the probable reason why Cepheids found in nebulae are all of long period in contrast to those in globular clusters is that the long-period Cepheids are 2 or 3 magnitudes brighter than those of short period, and that the latter are below tbe limit of visibility. Professor Turner gave a paper on “The Astrographio Catalogue,” and Dr Lockyer one on “The Study of Bright Hydrogen Lines in Phi Pe'rsci.” file hydrogen lines are strong absorption bands, on which aro superposed bright bands with a sharp absorption line in tho centre of each. Changes ill the relative intensities of l lie components bring out tho stars’ binary nature. Tho period indicated is 123 days. Amongst stars with similar spectre are Gamma Cassiopeia, Psi Persei. and Pi Aqugirii. The chief bright lines include tlioso of ionised iron, ionised titanium, and of some unknown source. All the papers referred to so far were presented and discussed at a single meeting.

Meetings of the B.A.A. and of the Royal Meteorological Society are also reported.

Professor F. M. J. Stratton cnntributes an article on a volume “Modern Astronomical Problems,” the contributions to which were gathered together by Professor Kiehls, as a gift to Professor Hugo von Soeligcr for 'his seventy-fifth birthday. The volume contains 36 papers, amongst the contributors being Jeans. Eddington, von /eipel Piaskett, Swartxschild, Schnau- , ? r i Max Rolf, and Professor Kienle himself. The latter pleads for more data as to the fixed calcium lines in the spectra of Woif-Ravet stars and planetary nebulae. He finds that all objects with emission lines in their spectra have approximately the same lelocitv. 31 km. per second.

Professor Max Wolf deals with dart* regions near S. Monoecrotis. He finds that the number of stars in the darkregions falls off mi such a way that tor magnitudes below the fourteenth the stars m tho dark region are as numerous as stars two magnitudes brighter in surrounding bright regions. The absorption of the cloud is rqr.ivrtent to a loss of two magnitudes in brightness.

Dr. Pernheimer gives a critical account of The work on the solar constant, and does not accept the variability ns proved. He suggests tint general changes in the condition of the atmosphere may cause part at least of the observed variation.

The methods by which the photogranhic determinations of stellar navilaxes have been imoroved are described hv Professor S'-i\lesin"or. who Iris compiled a catalogue of 1032 trimumnarc.liaxcs. Hv. Shnplov gives a note on the nwpfdlnnic clouds * n d points out that pvobabW both vew*

in the galactic plaTie, and indistinguishable from other galactic clouds at some time since the Paleozoic era. Dr. P. Bruggencate suggests that Dr. Shapley’s distances should be divided oy two. Professor Stratton commends the book to students of astrono* my, who will find m it much of interest and value. Amongst the reviews of flubfieationj is ono cn “John ffiashear, the Autobiography of a man who loved tlio Stars.” Reports of observatories fill nearly eight pages. Tho notes are on ‘The Effect ot tho Earth’s rotation on tho velocity of Light,” “The spcctrophotometric determination of stellar luminosities.” and “The distance of the Larger Magellanic Cloud,” and many other subjects. Shaplev estimates the distance as 31.5 kiloparsecs corresponding to a parallax of .00902 ff seconds.” The di.-s* tance of the smaihu cloud lie made 31.0 kiloparsecs. The distance between the two l*2k ilopnrsccs. The linear diameter of the larger he makes 4.3 kiioparsecs, the diameters of the nuclei of six globular clusters in tfio cloud from lf> to 10 parsecs, and iho linear diameter of the largest gaseous nebula in it about 17A parsecs.

Professor Ludondortr discusses iho light from the solar Corona. Omitting the bright line radiation which cornea only trom the lower layers, the to-

maining light, he concludes, is only t effected sunlight The corona. ho iKdicves, must consist of electrons, and possibly, of positively charged atomic nuclei. Dr. F. .Ilcnroteau has published an important oaper on <hc cepheid problem Amongst hia conclusions may he mentioned the niol>ahlo existence, with mm-t if not all eeplicid>. of r. satellite, whoso tidal action is super-imposed upon the true pulsation variation. There is an ohmmrv notice o| the Rev. A. L. Cortie. "T,n'i< rise, rclerred to in notes from an Oxhud notcho'd-;. in which Professor Turner says: “H-s v 11 0 1 o life was a dcimm-Trat inn UV't the 'earnest pursuit of science v.as not inconsistent with radiant geniality.” The Oxford note- always contain humorous items. Or.o nl the n o>t amusin" in this number is nn anecdote of Professor Albert Venn Dic y recorded hv a former maul. "She hai settled him in the garden with ' hooks. Presently lie came hurry i* g in quite “Why didn't you cm and remind me it va> raining.-' Ny 1 o'A-s have all got wet.” Wo have irst s’.n.-mcd thr routeof this nund-cr. U; sc v:h ' v ‘■> hu-'V the s;*Kt-MW - : the itri:>’.; should read them for tlmm-A'c'. A.C.G.

D. B. jr. Phenomena. 1 12 38 Uranus conj. Moon, N. 1C 5.'} Pull Moon. fi 01 08 Aldebaran conj. Moon, N. 7 20 30 Mercury superior conj., enters evening sky. 8 05 30 Jupiter at quadrature, in evening sky. 10 06 04 Moon at last quarter. 21 *22 'Pollux conj. Moon, N. 13 00 10 Veuus conj. etav delta Scorpii. 10 35 Neptune conj. Moon, S. 15 19 05 20 02 Regulus coni. Moon, S. Sunrise at Wellington. 05 07 Sunrise at Auckland. 05 08 Sunrise at Christchurch. 05 10 Sunrise at Dunedin. 18 07 Sunset at Auckland. 18 11 Sunset at Wellington. 18 23 Sunset at Christchurch. 18 35 Sunset at Dunedin. 18 37 Mercury sets. 19 59 Saturn sets. 19 59 Vega sets. 20 59 Rigel rises. 21 14 Fomalhaut on meridian. 21 50 Aldebaran rises. 21 55 Venus sets. 99. 00 Sirius rises. 22 31 Antares sets. 22 35 Betelguese rises. 22 43 Alpha Crucis on meridan below pole. •23 40 Altair sets. . * 23 56 Achernar on meridian. 17 04 10 Mars conj. Moon. S. 22 35 Spica conj. Moon, S. 18 05 36 New Moon. 10 23 Mercury coni. Moon. S. 19 1« 55 Saturn conj. Moon, S. 21 10 25 Antares conj. Moon, S. 15 18 Venus conj. Moon. S. 24 04 37 Jupiter conj. Moon, S. 25 (Hi. 08 Moon at first quarter. Uranus conj. Moon, N. 28 18 58

Dav. Time. Phenomena 3 21 15 III. Tr. c. 23 13 IV. Sh. c. 5 20 10 II Im. 22 17 X. Im. 6 19 30 I. Tr. c. 20 49 I. Sh. c. 21 43 I. Tr. f 23 05 I. Sh. f. 7 20 11.9 III. E.f. 20 17 II. Sh. f 20 20.6 I. E.f. 11 20 23 IV. Im. 23 51 IV. Em. 12 22 49 II. Im: 13 21 27 I. Tr. c 22 44 I. Sh. 6. 13 23 42 I. Tr. £ 14 18 41 I. Im. 18 51 III. Em. 20 07 II. Sh. c. 20 17 II. Tr. f. 20 41.4 III. E.o. 22 15.7 I. E. f. 22 52 II. Sh. t. 15 19 30 I. Sh. f 20 21 19 IV. Sh. f 21 23 24 I. Tr. c 19 33 III Im 20 13 II. Tr c. 20 38 I. Im. 22 42 II. Sh. 22 55 II. Tr. t. 21 22 59 III. Em. 22 19 09 I. Sh. c. 20 09 I. Tr. f. 21 25 I. Sh. f. 23 18 39.5 I. E. f. 20 16 II. E. 23 18 40 IV. Em. 22 35 I. Im. 22 53 II. Tr. c.o 23 42 III. Im. 29 19 51 I. Tr. c. 21 05 I. Sh. c. 22 07 I. Tr. f. 23 21 I. Sh. f. 3b 20.34.6 r. E. f. 20.54.5 II. E. f.

Julian date. 4347.27 Est. Julinn date.' 4352.29 Est. “A* *1 / .02 2.8 02.35 1.9 48.27 2.7 52.44 2.0 48.38 48.-14 If 1.9 2.0 49.28 2.7 56.40 1.9 49.33 2.6 07.28 1.9 49.44 2.7 •57.37 1.9 50.37 2.6 57.44 1.9 51.34 2.7 (hazy) 5R.28 1.8